DETAILED ACTION
Applicant submitted remarks in response to the latest Office action on 5 March 2026. Therein, Applicant amended claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 13 and 15; Applicant cancelled claims 2, 3, 8, 10 and 11. No claims have been newly added. The submitted claims have been entered and are considered below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and related arguments, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103.
The primary reference of Gorman is still applicable to the amended claims. As a result, applicant’s assertions are not persuasive.
Applicant first asserts that the prior art of record does not disclose “each to-be-consisted train includes multiple carriages”. Specifically, it is argued that because Gorman teaches the coupling of two rail cars, the concept of joining two trains together cannot be taught by Gorman. Examiner does not agree.
First, Gorman states that “Rail cars 102a, 102b may include any type of train/railway vehicle for carrying cargo, carrying passengers, carrying train equipment, providing locomotion, or a combination thereof, including, but not limited to: boxcars, coil cars, combine cars, flatcars, Schnabel cars, gondolas, stock cars, tank cars, locomotives, fuel cars, and/or the like” and also states “The rail cars 102a, 102b may be at least partially self-propelled, and/or the train consist may include a locomotive (not shown) for generating movement of a rail car 102a, 102b” (see para. 0056, emphasis added). Based on the first quote, Gorman implicitly acknowledges that while “Rail cars” are conveyed in a singular sense, it is also possible to consider them as combinations of the listed types of train vehicles. The “combinations” may include a plurality of vehicles as the “rail car”.
Moreover, the second quote of Gorman further reinforces this interpretation due to the inclusion of a locomotive for generating movement of the “rail car”. It is a fact that a locomotive is able to provide movement for more than one “rail car”. Reading Gorman as limiting itself to only combining two singular rail cars is not consistent with the context outlined above.
Finally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider it obvious that the passages of Gorman do not exclude other carriages being attached at the opposite side from the attaching point. Gorman is focused on the attaching side and the opposite side of the carriage has little relevance. One of ordinary skill in the art is well acquainted with multiple carriage trains and the connections therebetween. The silence of Gorman (concerning the connections of the non-attaching side) is not dispositive to one of ordinary skill in the art that the possibility of another carriage/locomotive is expressly excluded.
Applicant also asserts that the prior art is silent on the claimed limitation that “enable the on-board control subsystem of each train to receive the consisting preparation task and execute a consisting preparation subtask thereof in the consisting preparation task, the consisting preparation task being used for enabling each to-be-consisted train to arrive at a consisting position of a consisting site”. Examiner does not agree.
Examiner previously cited paragraphs 0060-0062. These teachings remain relevant. Gorman teaches that a distance is determined that defines the separation between each train (see paras. 0061-0062). This is equivalent to the “consisting preparation task” (“In a non-limiting example, one threshold distance may correspond to a known distance required for the couplers 104a, 104b to engage between a first rail car 102a and a second rail car 102b of known types/configurations, and the monitored distance data may be compared to said threshold distance to trigger a halt of the rail cars 102a, 102b when the threshold is satisfied.” see para. 0062). Further, the act of moving a specified distance by the train in Gorman is equivalent to the claimed “subtask” (“The local processor may further be configured to cause the initiation of at least one train action at least partially based on the distance data. Train actions may include, but are not limited to, increasing movement of a rail car 102a, 102b, decreasing movement of a rail car 102a, 102b, stopping a rail car 102a, 102b, reversing movement of a rail car 102a, 102b”. see para. 0061). Relatedly, the specified distance of Gorman is functionally equivalent to the consisting position/site because both Gorman and the claimed limitation combine trains at that location.
The rejection citing Gorman is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0189631).
For claim 1, Gorman teaches a train operation control method, comprising: determining at least two to-be-consisted trains (see para. 0056); transmitting a consisting preparation task to an on-board control subsystem of each of the at least two to-be-consisted trains (see paras. 0061, 0059), to enable the on-board control subsystem of each train to receive the consisting preparation task and execute a consisting preparation subtask thereof in the consisting preparation task (see para. 0061), the consisting preparation task being used for enabling each to-be-consisted train to arrive at a consisting position of a consisting site (see paras. 0060-0061); receiving feedback information indicating completion of the consisting preparation subtask transmitted by the on-board control subsystem of each of the at least two to-be-consisted trains (see paras. 0057-0058); compiling consisting information of the at least two to-be-consisted trains based on all of the feedback information (see paras. 0063, 0055); transmitting the consisting information to each on-board control subsystem (see Fig. 5, 0061, receive/communicate distance data), to enable the on-board control subsystem to match train status data based on the consisting information (see Fig. 5, paras. 0077, allowing the trains to self-couple based on distance information); receiving the train status data transmitted by each on-board control subsystem (see paras. 0080-0081, distance data received); updating the consisting information based on all of the train status data (see paras. 0080-0081, distance data continuously updated), and generating coupling consisting information, to complete a coupling operation of the at least two to-be-consisted trains (see para. 0082, complete); compiling a consist travelling task based on the coupling consisting information (see para. 0080, Fig. 5, 404); transmitting the consist travelling task to each on-board control subsystem (see Fig. 5, 0061, receive/communicate distance data), to enable each on-board control subsystem to execute a travelling subtask thereof in the consist travelling task and monitor a travelling status corresponding to the travelling subtask (see paras. 0077, 0081-0082, distance monitored and updated), wherein the consist travelling task includes a travelling subtask of each to-be-consisted train (see paras. 0077, 0081-0082, distance of each train monitored and updated), receiving the travelling status transmitted by each on-board control subsystem (see paras. 0073, 0081-0082, remote controller receives distance interval from each train); and updating a task status of the consist travelling task based on the travelling status (see paras. 0077, 0081-0082, complete operation).
Gorman does not explicitly disclose that each to-be consisted train includes multiple carriages. However, Gorman states that “Rail cars 102a, 102b may include any type of train/railway vehicle for carrying cargo, carrying passengers, carrying train equipment, providing locomotion, or a combination thereof, including, but not limited to: boxcars, coil cars, combine cars, flatcars, Schnabel cars, gondolas, stock cars, tank cars, locomotives, fuel cars, and/or the like” and also states “The rail cars 102a, 102b may be at least partially self-propelled, and/or the train consist may include a locomotive (not shown) for generating movement of a rail car 102a, 102b” (see para. 0056, emphasis added). Based on the first quote, Gorman implicitly acknowledges that while “Rail cars” are conveyed in a singular sense, it is also possible to consider them as combinations of the listed types of train vehicles. The “combinations” may include a plurality of vehicles as the “rail car”. Moreover, the second quote of Gorman further reinforces this interpretation due to the inclusion of a locomotive for generating movement of the “rail car”. It is a fact that a locomotive is able to provide movement for more than one “rail car”. Reading Gorman as limiting itself to only combining two singular rail cars is not consistent with the context outlined above. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that multiple cars may be connected to the side opposite of the intended connection because of the limited applicability of only ever having the ability to connect two carriages together. Such an obvious modification to include multiple connected carriages is based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve a device, system, and method of coupling without the requirement of physical human observation and reporting at the point of train vehicle coupling (see para. 0003).
Additionally, Gorman does not explicitly disclose a number of parking points and a number of departure points in the consist travelling task are an integer multiple of a number of to-be-consisted trains. However, stopping after a completed connection is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art due to the potential safety issues related to continually moving trains. The completed connection stopping points of Gorman are equivalent to the claimed parking points. And given that Gorman is not limited to only coupling a single set of carriages, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine multiple combinations or sets of carriages based on a desire to be efficient as possible. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that the number of parking and departure points correspond to the number of trains to be coupled based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve a device, system, and method of coupling without the requirement of physical human observation and reporting at the point of train vehicle coupling (see para. 0003).
With reference to claim 5, Gorman teaches obtaining consisting status data associated with the coupling consisting information, the consisting status data comprising a consisting status and status data of each train (see para. 0077). Gorman does not explicitly disclose the remaining limitations. However, Gorman teaches that control of the trains includes disengaging and reversing (see para. 0061). Given that the remaining limitations are a general reversal of the consisting operation claimed and taught by Gorman, reversal of the procedure for the purposes of de-consisting is well within the ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to include a reverse order of operations to disengage individual trains based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve a device, system, and method of coupling without the requirement of physical human observation and reporting at the point of train vehicle coupling (see para. 0003).
Pertaining to claim 6, Gorman does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitations. However, the ability to exit an automated operation is a well-accepted and reasonable feature to protect against unforeseen circumstances. In the case at hand, cancelling an automated consisting operation and restoring the original consisting status of each train would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the need to protect against environmental unknowns and to improve a device, system, and method of coupling without the requirement of physical human observation and reporting at the point of train vehicle coupling (see para. 0003).
Regarding claim 7, Gorman teaches manual consisting (see para. 0084) but does not explicitly disclose manual de-consisting in light of an emergency. However, under similar reasoning as outlined in claims 5 and 6, Gorman teaches that control of the trains includes disengaging and reversing (see para. 0061) along with manual control (see para. 0084) and that it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the ability to manually exit an automated operation is a well-accepted and reasonable feature to protect against unforeseen circumstances (i.e., emergencies). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to manually cancel an automated consisting operation that includes a reverse order of operations to disengage individual trains based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve a device, system, and method of coupling without the requirement of physical human observation and reporting at the point of train vehicle coupling (see para. 0003).
Claim 9 is substantially similar in scope and substantive matter to claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected based on the reasoning and citations outlined above for claim 1.
Claim 13 is substantially similar in scope and substantive matter to claim 5. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected based on the reasoning and citations outlined above for claim 5.
Claim 14 is substantially similar in scope and substantive matter to claim 6. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected based on the reasoning and citations outlined above for claim 6.
Claim 15 is substantially similar in scope and substantive matter to claim 7. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected based on the reasoning and citations outlined above for claim 7.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0189631), as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Ding, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0131163).
With reference to claim 4, Gorman teaches receiving, when a succeeding train completes a parking operation, a parking signal fed back by the succeeding train (see paras. 0081-0082, equivalent to coupling completed). Gorman does not explicitly disclose the remaining claimed limitations.
A teaching from Ding discloses transmitting the parking signal to a preceding train, to enable the preceding train to trigger and execute a door opening instruction (see para. 0035); receiving the door opening instruction fed back by the preceding train (see para. 0035); and transmitting the door opening instruction to the succeeding train, to enable the succeeding train to execute the door opening instruction (see para. 0035). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Gorman with the teaching of Ding based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve when multiple trains park in a platform at the same time, a first train identifier and a second train identifier are acquired, where a door of a first train to which the first train identifier belongs is to be opened at a current time point, and a second train to which the second train identifier belongs is a train arranged after the first train, which enters the platform and parks in the platform; and the opening and closing of the door of the first train and a door of the second train are controlled at different time points respectively according to the first train identifier and the second train identifier (see para. 0008).
Claim 12 is substantially similar in scope and substantive matter to claim 4. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected based on the reasoning and citations outlined above for claim 4.
Conclusion
Examiner previously stated at the end of the previous rejection that Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. The cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered the only relevant teachings. The entire reference must be taken as a whole. This includes any teachings within the reference that were not explicitly cited in the previous Office action. Any new citation of additional teachings of the previously cited art is not a new ground of rejection. Taking the references as a whole, the art supports the new rejection of the currently amended claims.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663