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 .
Priority
Current application, US Application No. 18/658,602 filed on 05/08/2024, is a Continuation in Part of US Application No. 18/658,386 filed on 05/08/2024..
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the application filed on 05/08/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: As per claims 1, 9 and 17, the limitation “real-world measurements of an actual measurement at the hardware device during each device event of the plurality of device events” should be replaced with “real-world measurement data (or signal) obtained from actual measurement on the hardware device during each device event of the plurality of device events” or with an appropriate phrase for clarity because the word “measurement” has a dual meaning, e.g. “performing a measurement” (action word) or “measurement data or signal” (noun).
Accordingly. The limitations “an expected measurement” and “the expected measurement” should be replaced with “an expected measurement data (or signal)” and “the expected measurement data (or signal)” for clarity.
As per claims 4, 12 and 20, the limitation “whether a threshold percentage of the set of measurement differences associated with the hardware device are range defined by plus or minus a measurement threshold” in “a first differential rule specifying … range defined by plus or minus a measurement threshold” should be replaced with “whether a threshold percentage of the set of measurement differences associated with the hardware device is within a range defined by plus and minus of a measurement threshold” or with an appropriate phrase for correct grammar and clarity.
The limitation “within a range defined by plus or minus an average threshold” in “a second differential rule specifying … by plus or minus an average threshold” should be replaced with “within a range defined by plus and minus of an average threshold” or with an appropriate phrase for correct grammar and clarity.
As per claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20, claims are also rejected because base claims 1, 9 and 17 are rejected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As per claims 1, 9 and 17, the limitation “a set of deviation metrics” in ”generating a set of deviation metrics associated with the hardware device based on the plurality of device events associated with the hardware device” lacks description support from the specification. The specification recites the same phrase in numerous locations, (see specification – a set of deviation metrics [0027-0029, 00101-00102]), but fails to describe further what the deviation metric means.
As per claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20, claims are also rejected because base claims 1, 9 and 17 are rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As per claims 1, 9 and 17, the limitation “a set of deviation metrics” in ”generating a set of deviation metrics associated with the hardware device based on the plurality of device events associated with the hardware device” is ambiguous because a deviation metric is simply repeated in numerous location in the specification and the specification fails to define the deviation metric. It is not clear what the limitation means and how the deviation metric is calculated. For the sake of examination, the limitation is interpreted as a set of differences between the expected measurement data (or signal) and the real-word measurement data (or signal) or a distribution from the average, mean or median value calculated from the real-world measurement data (or signal).
As per claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20, claims are also rejected because base claims 1, 9 and 17 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
“A method of determining a status of hardware devices in a classification yard, (1.A) comprising:
compiling a plurality of device events associated with a hardware device in a classification yard, (1.B)
wherein each device event of the plurality of device events is associated with an expected measurement and includes one or more of: (1.B.1)
real-world measurements of an actual measurement at the hardware device during each device event of the plurality of device events; (1.B.2)
and an indication of a utilization of the hardware device during each device event of the plurality of device events to obtain the expected measurement for each device event; (1.B.3)
generating a set of deviation metrics associated with the hardware device based on the plurality of device events associated with the hardware device; (1.C)
applying thresholding analysis to the set of deviation metrics associated with the hardware device to determine a status of the hardware device; (1.D)
and generating a corrective action signal including one or more of: (1.E.1)
an indication of the status of the hardware device; (1.E.2)
and a corrective action to be taken on the hardware device. (1.E.3)”.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (Process - Method).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion).
For example, highlighted limitations/steps (1.A) – (1.D) are treated by the Examiner as belonging to Mathematical Concept grouping or Mental Process grouping as the limitations include Mathematical Calculations/Algorithms, or show Mathematical Relationship or involve Mental evaluations/judgements.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements: (Side Note: duplicated elements are not repeated)
In Claim 1: “A method”, “compiling a plurality of device events” and “generating a corrective action signal including one or more of: an indication of the status of the hardware device; and a corrective action to be taken on the hardware device”;
In Claim 9: “A system”, “at least one processor; 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, is configured to perform operations”:
In Claim 17: “A computer-based tool, the computer-based tool including non-transitory computer readable media having stored thereon computer code which, when executed by a processor, causes a computing device to perform operations”;
As per claim 1, the additional element in the preamble “A method” is not a meaningful limitation because the preamble simply links the method with an abstract idea, i.e. determining a status of hardware devices in a classification yard.
The limitation/step “compiling a plurality of device events” a standard data collection step in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution to the judicial exception. The limitation/step “generating a corrective action signal including one or more of: an indication of the status of the hardware device; and a corrective action to be taken on the hardware device” represents a standard correction step in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception.
As per claim 9, the additional element in the preamble “A system” is not a meaningful limitation because the preamble simply links the system with an abstract idea, i.e. determining a status of hardware devices in a classification yard.
The limitations/elements “at least one processor; 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, is configured to perform operations” represent standard components of a general computer and they are not particular in the art.
As per claim 17, the additional element in the preamble “A computer-based tool” is not a meaningful limitation because the preamble simply links the tool with an abstract idea, i.e. determining a status of hardware devices in a classification yard.
The limitation/element “the computer-based tool including non-transitory computer readable media having stored thereon computer code which, when executed by a processor, causes a computing device to perform operations” represents a standard computing tool in the art, which leverages components of a general computer (see specification - software tools [0016], programming tools [0104], side note: no further particular description on the tools can be found in the specification), and the computer-based tool is not particular in the art.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements as a whole do not reflect an improvement to the computer technology or other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. No particular machine or real-world transformation are claimed. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Under Step 2B analysis, the above claims fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as shown in the prior art of record.
The limitations/elements listed as additional elements above are well understood, routine and conventional steps/elements in the art according to the prior art of record. (See Budway, Rach, Kumar ‘990, Kumar ‘304, Schlake, Lefebvre, and others in the list of prior art cited below)
Claims 1-20, therefore, are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-2, 9-10 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budway (US 3946973 A) best understood by the examiner.
As per claim 1, Although Budway may not recite identical phrases or expressions in the claim, e.g. hardware device, device events, utilization of the hardware device, and deviation metrics, Budway instead recites equivalent phrases, e.g. retarders, retarder speed control apparatus, passage … of a cut of cars, performance, speed, safety factors, variance. Budway discloses
A method of determining a status of hardware devices in a classification yard, (A method of controlling the speed of cuts of cars moving in a railroad classification yard [claim 1], retarders of a classification yard [abs, col 1 line 49-50], the retarder speed control apparatus … in a check condition or in actual control operation [pg. 7 line 9-21]) comprising:
compiling a plurality of device events associated with a hardware device in a classification yard, (detecting the passage of each wheel-axle set of a cut of cars [col 6 line 3-4], detecting presence of cars [col 7 line 9-11], various cut parameters, cut speeds, and curve and tangent track rolling resistances of each cut are measured … from the retarders [abs], a series of retarders showing distance measurements and car detection points involved in determining retarder exit speeds in a system [col 4 line 58 – line 62], measurement of entry speed, speed measurements [col 6 line 16-44]) wherein each device event of the plurality of device events is associated with an expected measurement (the speed variables are either measured …when the cut of cars is detected at the location at which the desired speed is to be taken [col 7 line 55-56], estimated distance … expected time [col 17 line 27-33], desired speed control [col 3 line 3-7], energy loss … desired losses [col 4 line 38-40], desired or requested exit speed [col 6 line 56-59] ) and includes one or more of:
real-world measurements of an actual measurement at the hardware device during each device event of the plurality of device events; (For example, the pair of detectors in the approach to the crest determine the humping speed, measured by an intermediate retarders to divert cars through other associated radar speed measuring device [col 6 line 13-24],
and an indication of a utilization of the hardware device during each device event of the plurality of device events to obtain the expected measurement for each device event; (control the coupling speed of cars, primary control objective … principal elements, target run time is determined … from actual system performance, average car speed … maximum retarder capabilities, minimum rolling resistance, maximum allowable coupling speed, minimum allowable safety factors, variance in average care speed [col 3 line3 – 33])
generating a set of deviation metrics associated with the hardware device based on the plurality of device events associated with the hardware device; (variance in the average car speed [col 3 line 23-24], variance in coupling speed [col 3 line 27], variance in the predicted car rolling resistance characteristics [col 3 line 29-30], variance of the errors in retarder exit speeds [col 3 line 31-33], variance in coupling speeds [col 4 line 20-21], variance in target run times [col 3 line 52-53])
applying thresholding analysis to the set of deviation metrics associated with the hardware device to determine a status of the hardware device; (a control algorithm … for the tangent point retarders, the maximum difference between V2xp and V2xn for which a retarder should be "commanded" to remain closed [col 14 line 43-66, eq. 3], the approach wheel detector is checked for proper operation. It is assumed to be operating improperly if, … ΔT is the maximum time between detection of the first and second axles at the approach wheel detected for any cut under normal conditions. If the approach wheel detector is found to be operating improperly, several functions are then performed, an appropriate alarm message is output, control functions for the cut are terminated and the retarder is not commanded to open [col 18 line 39 – col 19 line 3], the radar equipment is checked for proper operation. It is assumed to be operating properly if the following inequality is satisfied: …ΔV is the maximum difference between the average speed determined from the radar measurements and the average speed determined from the time measured for the cut to travel the distance between its first and second axles under normal conditions [col 19 line 27-39], developing a difference factor between each predicted exit speed and said required exit speed [claim 20])
and generating a corrective action signal including one or more of: an indication of the status of the hardware device; and a corrective action to be taken on the hardware device. (If the approach wheel detector is found to be operating improperly, several functions are then performed, an appropriate alarm message is output, control functions for the cut are terminated and the retarder is not commanded to open [col 18 line 39 – col 19 line 3], If the radar equipment is found to be operating improperly, several actions are performed [col 19 line 42-43], When termination of control functions results from either the cut having stalled or another cut having passed the radar antenna, the retarder is commanded to open until it is determined that the retarder control zone is unoccupied. In the stall condition, an appropriate alarm message is output and the track involved is automatically blocked. [col 20 line 51-58])
As per claim 9, Budway discloses
A system for determining a status of hardware devices in a classification yard, (a retarder speed control system … such control systems to regulate car speeds in automatic. railroad classification yards.[col 1 line 7-10], in a railroad classification yard, an automatic speed control system [claim 18])
Budway further discloses remaining limitations as shown in claim 1 above.
As per claim 17, Budway inherently discloses
A computer-based tool for determining a status of hardware devices in a classification yard, the computer-based tool including non-transitory computer readable media having stored thereon computer code which, when executed by a processor, causes a computing device to perform operations comprising: (by a computer [col 4 line 43, col 6 line 8-44], control computer [col 5 line 31 -41, Fig. 1], controlling the speed of cuts of cars moving in a railroad classification yard [claim 1], retarders of a classification yard [abs, col 1 line 49-50], the retarder speed control apparatus … in a check condition or in actual control operation [pg. 7 line 9-21])
Budway further discloses remaining limitations as shown in claim 1 above.
As per claims 2, 10 and 18, Budway discloses claims 1, 9 and 17 set forth above.
Budway already discloses
generating the set of deviation metrics associated with the hardware device includes generating one or more of: a set of measurement differences associated with the hardware device; and a set of utilization metrics associated with the hardware device. (variance in the average car speed [col 3 line 23-24], variance in coupling speed [col 3 line 27], variance in the predicted car rolling resistance characteristics [col 3 line 29-30], variance of the errors in retarder exit speeds [col 3 line 31-33], variance in coupling speeds [col 4 line 20-21], variance in target run times [col 3 line 52-53]; system performance, retarder capabilities, rolling resistance, safety factors, [col 3 line3 – 33])
Claims 3, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budway in view of Rachmawati (US 20170370985 A1), hereinafter ‘Rach’ best understood by the examiner.
As per claims 3, 11 and 19, Budway discloses claims 2, 10 and 18 set forth above.
Although Budway discloses a measurement difference for each device event in the plurality of device events associated with a hardware device, Budway is not explicit regarding calculating a measurement difference by calculating a difference between the expected measurement and the actual measurement and aggregating each measurement difference.
Rach discloses using a difference between the expected measurement and the actual measurement and compare with the specified deviation thresholds (deviation of the measured signal from … reference [0004], deviation of measured signal … from the expected reference, specified deviation thresholds [0006]) and aggregating each measurement difference (an accumulated value of a … deviation [0011]).
Rach is concerned with an error detection of measurement data obtained from complex systems and a method to mitigate the error by processing the measurement data (concerned with error detection, classification and mitigation in complex systems [0001]) like Budway.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Budway in view of Rach to calculate, for each device event in the plurality of device events associated with a hardware device, a measurement difference by calculating a difference between the expected measurement associated with a respective device event and the actual measurement measured at the hardware device during the respective device event, and aggregate each calculated measurement difference for each device event into the set of measurement differences associated with the hardware device with a rationale to apply a correct control to the complex system and improve safe operation of the complex system by the correct control (see Budway - correct switching, improves … operation reducing misroutes … while allowing a constant humping speed [col 1 line 31-39]).
Claims 4, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budway and Rach in view of Kumar (US 20160082990 A1), hereinafter “Kumar ‘990” and Takaichi (TW 201423296 A), hereinafter ‘Takaichi’.
As per claims 4, 12 and 20, Budway and Rach discloses claims 3, 11 and 19 set forth above.
Budway discloses applying thresholding analysis to the set of deviation metrics associated with the hardware device (different control concept, control algorithm … expressed by the following inequality [col 14 line 43-66, eq. 3], radar equipment is checked for proper operation, operating properly if the following inequality is satisfied [col 19 line 26 – 41]) by checking the difference of the measurement data/signal (variance [col 3 line3 – 53]), but is silent regarding one of a set of differential rules specified in the claim, e.g. a first differential rule specifying that the status of the hardware device is based on whether a threshold percentage of the set of measurement differences associated with the hardware device are range defined by plus or minus a measurement threshold.
Kumar ‘990 discloses status is based on a threshold percentage of the measurement differences (measurements … difference, predetermined value or a designated percentage [claims 8 and 17]).
Kumar ‘990 is in the same railroad operation art as Budway.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Kumar ‘990 to specify the first differential rule that the status of the hardware device is based on a threshold percentage of the set of measurement differences associated with the hardware device with a rationale to apply a correct control to the complex system and improve safe operation of the complex system by the correct control.
However, the combined prior art is silent regarding a threshold percentage of the set of measurement differences are range defined by plus or minus a measurement threshold.
Takaichi discloses a data value range defined by plus and minus of a measurement reference value (minimum prediction range can be derived, for example, from the moving average μ of the measurement result in the predetermined set period, minus the movement deviation σ of the state data [pg. 10 line 33-37])
Takaichi is concerned about safely controlling hardware devices like the combined prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Takaichi to specify the first differential rule that the status of the hardware device is based on whether a threshold percentage of the set of measurement differences associated with the hardware device are range defined by plus or minus a measurement threshold with a rationale to apply a correct control to the complex system and improve safe operation of the complex system by the correct control.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budway and Rach in view of Kumar ‘990.
As per claims 5 and 13, Budway and Rach disclose claims 1 and 9 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent regarding applying the thresholding analysis for the hardware status determination includes: obtaining a percentage result for the hardware device, the percentage result indicating a percentage status of the hardware device.
Kumar ‘990 discloses determining hardware device status for the threshold analysis using a percentage of device measurements or status (determine that one or more of the traction motors is unsuitable or does not match the other traction motors by comparing the motor measurements of one traction motor to the motor measurements of the other traction motors, traction motors of the same type may have motor measurements that are motor measurements that are within a designated range or percentage of each other [0027], motor measurements for a traction motor may be received, a motor measurement may significantly differ from an expected measurement if the motor measurement differs by at least a designated percentage of the expected measurement [0088]).
Kumar ‘990 is in the same railroad operation art as Budway.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Kumar ‘990 to apply the thresholding analysis to the set of deviation metrics associated with the hardware device to determine the status of the hardware device includes: obtaining a percentage result for the hardware device, the percentage result indicating a percentage status of the hardware device with a rationale to apply a correct control to the complex system and improve safe operation of the complex system by the correct control.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 and 18, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12/515,718 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because only differences between the claim and the reference claim are base claims that the current and reference claims depend.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12/515,718 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because only differences between the claim and the reference claim are base claims that the current and reference claims depend or recitation of same type of preambles.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10 and 19, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12/515,718 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because only differences between the claim and the reference claim are base claims that the current and reference claims depend or recitation of same type of preambles.
Claims 4, 12 and 20 are also provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 or 17 of copending Application No. 18/658,386 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because only differences between the claim and the reference claim are base claims that the current claim depends or recitation of same type of preambles.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Notes with regard to Prior Art
The prior arts made of record are provided as additional references relevant to the current claims.
Kumar (US 20160009304 A1), also called as “Kumar ‘304”, discloses rail vehicle speed control satisfying schedule constraints for a route with entrance and exit.
Schlake (Schlake, Bryan. "Impact of automated condition monitoring technologies on railroad safety and efficiency." PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2011) discloses variability in machine operations by monitoring rail car conditions and safety improvements (rail car condition monitoring, equipment-caused derailments, in-service failures ‘ISFs’, variability in mainline operations [abs]).
Lefebvre (WO2025034981A1) discloses systems, methods and devices for monitoring slack, coupling events, speeds and impacts, and rail car orientation during railway coupling operations and for determining health of coupling components (see – [abs]).
Van der Woude (US 20220148099 A1) discloses a measurement range defined by plus or minus of the difference threshold (measurement can have any value in the range defined by the last sent corresponding measurement plus or minus the difference threshold [0068])
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS KAY, whose telephone number is (408) 918-7569. The examiner can normally be reached on M, Th & F 8-5, T 2-7, and W 8-1.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOUGLAS KAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights