DETAILED ACTION
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiss et al. (US 2008/0173771 A1) in view of Kubala et al. (US 4,610,206).
Referring to Claim 1: Kiss teaches a method of managing operations in a classification yard, comprising:
determining, for a cut (8) being routed to a destination train, one or more of a release speed, coupling speed, and a predicted speed of the cut at one or more points of a route along which the cut is traveling to reach the destination train (Para. [0011]), wherein each in a set of event messages represents an event (e.g., velocity at the specific location) (Fig. 4) that occurred during the traveling of the cut along the route to reach the destination train (Para. [0045]);
obtaining real-world measurements associated with an actual speed of the cut at the one or more points (20) of the route (Para. [0040]);
autotuning one or more coefficients (“correction factor”) associated with the predicted speed of the cut at the one or more points of the route based on the real-world measurements associated with the actual speed of the cut at the one or more points of the route (Para. [0044]) (Fig. 4);
determining a status (e.g., desired exit speed from retarder 16) of one or more devices (12, 14, 16, 18) (Para. [0005]) used to route the cut to the destination train based, at least in part, on thresholding analysis applied to the real-world measurements associated with the actual speed of the cut at the one or more points of the route (Para. [0045]); and
Kiss does not specifically teach storing the set of event messages in an event log for subsequent replaying in a graphical user interface (GUI). However, Kubala teaches a micro controlled classification yard, configured for storing the set of event messages in an event log for subsequent replaying in a graphical user interface (110) (Col. 10, lines 55-60) (Col. 25, lines 10-22) (Figs. 1 and 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Kiss to store the set of event messages in an event log for subsequent replaying in a graphical user interface (GUI), as taught by Kubala, in order to record and display information to the operator for further analysis with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 11: Kiss teaches a system for managing operations in a classification yard (Fig. 1), comprising:
at least one processor (70) (Fig. 2) (Para. [0029]); and
a memory operably coupled to the at least one processor and storing processor-readable code that, when executed by the at least one processor (Para. [0030]), is configured to perform operations including:
determining, for a cut (8) being routed to a destination train, one or more of a release speed, coupling speed, and a predicted speed of the cut at one or more points of a route along which the cut is traveling to reach the destination train (Para. [0011]), wherein each in a set of event messages represents an event (e.g., velocity at the specific location) (Fig. 4) that occurred during the traveling of the cut along the route to reach the destination train (Para. [0045]);
obtaining real-world measurements associated with an actual speed of the cut at the one or more points (20) of the route (Para. [0040]);
autotuning one or more coefficients (“correction factor”) associated with the predicted speed of the cut at the one or more points of the route based on the real-world measurements associated with the actual speed of the cut at the one or more points of the route (Para. [0044]) (Fig. 4);
determining a status (e.g., desired exit speed from retarder 16) of one or more devices (12, 14, 16, 18) (Para. [0005]) used to route the cut to the destination train based, at least in part, on thresholding analysis applied to the real-world measurements associated with the actual speed of the cut at the one or more points of the route (Para. [0045]); and
Kiss does not specifically teach storing the set of event messages in an event log for subsequent replaying in a graphical user interface (GUI). However, Kubala teaches a micro controlled classification yard, configured for storing the set of event messages in an event log for subsequent replaying in a graphical user interface (110) (Col. 10, lines 55-60) (Col. 25, lines 10-22) (Figs. 1 and 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Kiss to store the set of event messages in an event log for subsequent replaying in a graphical user interface (GUI), as taught by Kubala, in order to record and display information to the operator for further analysis with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 20: Kiss teaches a computer-based tool for of managing operations in a classification yard (Fig. 1), the computer-based tool including non-transitory computer readable media having stored thereon computer code which, when executed by a processor (70) (Fig. 2) (Para. [0029]-[0031]), causes a computing device to perform operations comprising:
determining, for a cut (8) being routed to a destination train, one or more of a release speed, coupling speed, and a predicted speed of the cut at one or more points of a route along which the cut is traveling to reach the destination train (Para. [0011]), wherein each in a set of event messages represents an event (e.g., velocity at the specific location) (Fig. 4) that occurred during the traveling of the cut along the route to reach the destination train (Para. [0045]);
obtaining real-world measurements associated with an actual speed of the cut at the one or more points (20) of the route (Para. [0040]);
autotuning one or more coefficients (“correction factor”) associated with the predicted speed of the cut at the one or more points of the route based on the real-world measurements associated with the actual speed of the cut at the one or more points of the route (Para. [0044]) (Fig. 4);
determining a status (e.g., desired exit speed from retarder 16) of one or more devices (12, 14, 16, 18) (Para. [0005]) used to route the cut to the destination train based, at least in part, on thresholding analysis applied to the real-world measurements associated with the actual speed of the cut at the one or more points of the route (Para. [0045]); and
Kiss does not specifically teach storing the set of event messages in an event log for subsequent replaying in a graphical user interface (GUI). However, Kubala teaches a micro controlled classification yard, configured for storing the set of event messages in an event log for subsequent replaying in a graphical user interface (110) (Col. 10, lines 55-60) (Col. 25, lines 10-22) (Figs. 1 and 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Kiss to store the set of event messages in an event log for subsequent replaying in a graphical user interface (GUI), as taught by Kubala, in order to record and display information to the operator for further analysis with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 and 12-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 2 and 12 and depending claims 3-5 and 13-15, respectively, the prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations. More specifically, Kiss fails to teach “generating the predicted speed of the cut at the one or more points using a production set of tuning parameters associated with the one or more points,” as recited in claims 2 and 12. While Kiss teaches generating a predicted speed of the cut at the points using a correction factor, that correction factor is calculated by subtracting the predicted velocity from the calculated velocity (Para. [0012]), and this correction factor cannot be reasonably interpreted as the claimed “production set of tuning parameters associated with the one or more points,” as claimed. Examiner finds no obvious reason to replace the correction factor of Kiss with the claimed production set of tuning parameters, as such a modification would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claims 6 and 16 and depending claims 7 and 17, respectively, the prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations. More specifically, Kiss fails to teach “generating a set of deviation metrics between a set of predicted measurements at the hardware device and a set of actual measurements at the hardware device; and applying the thresholding analysis to the set of deviation metrics to determine a status of the hardware device.” While Kiss teaches generating a predicted speed of the cut at the points using a correction factor, that correction factor is calculated by subtracting the predicted velocity from the calculated velocity (Para. [0012]), and this correction factor cannot be reasonably interpreted as the claimed “generating a set of deviation metrics” and “applying the thresholding analysis to the set of deviation metrics to determine a status of the hardware device,” as claimed. Examiner finds no obvious reason to replace the correction factor of Kiss with the claimed set of deviation metrics and thresholding analysis, as such a modification would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claims 8 and 18 and depending claims 9-10 and 19, respectively, the prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations. More specifically, Kiss fails to teach “obtaining the set of event messages from the event log; generating, for each event message of the set of event messages, a visual representation of the event that occurred during the traveling of the cut along the route represented by each respective event message of the set of event messages; generating a graphical schematic diagram of the classification yard, wherein the graphical schematic diagram includes a graphical representation of one or more components of the classification yard; determining, for each event message of the set of event messages, a component of the one or more components of the classification yard with which each respective event message is associated; and replaying the set of event messages in the GUI, wherein replaying the set of event messages includes overlaying each visual representation of an event represented by a respective event message onto the graphical representation of a component determined to be associated with the respective event message,” as recited in claims 8 and 18. It is known in the art to display messages and events occurring in a classification yard, e.g., Hawthorne (US 2004/0102878 A1) teaches “[a] map of the switch yard . . . displayed with a live representation of other vehicles in the vicinity and their movements.” (Para. [0015]). However, Examiner finds no obvious reason to replay the set of event messages in the GUI as specifically claimed, as such a modification would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The references made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because they have a common Inventor and/or Applicant with the instant application: US-20250348822-A1, US-20250346264-A1, US-20250346269-A1, US-20260233768-A1, US-20250346265-A1, US-20250346266-A1, US-20250346268-A1, US-20250346267-A1, and US-12515718-B2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached on (571)272-6682. 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.
/ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615A
Prosecution Insights