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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 146 (see specification [0052]). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The attempt to incorporate subject matter into this application by reference to U.S. Patent Application Docket No. BNSF-00163 (see [0066]) is ineffective because it is not a valid citation of US application.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0052], “detectors 144” should be --detectors-- because the reference number 144 has been used for “segments 144.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 5-6, “each car event associated with the first point” should be --the car event associated with the first point-- to refer to its antecedent basis (i.e., “each car event of the plurality of car events”) in line 4.
In claim 1, line 7, “each car event associated with the first point” should be --the car event associated with the first point-- to refer to its antecedent basis (i.e., “each car event of the plurality of car events”) in line 4.
In claim 2, line 8, “include in each car event of the plurality of car events” should be --included in each car event of the plurality of car events-- to correct a grammatical error.
In claim 11, lines 5-6, “each car event associated with the first point and the actual measurements associated with each car event associated with the first point” should be --each car event of the plurality of car events associated with the first point and the actual measurements associated with each car event of the plurality of car events associated with the first point-- to avoid of being too broad without clear boundaries.
In claim 11, lines 8-9, “each car event and the actual measurements associated with each car event associated with the first point” should be --each car event of the plurality of car events and the actual measurements associated with each car event of the plurality of car events associated with the first point-- to avoid of being too broad without clear boundaries.
In claim 12, lines 10-11, “each car event associated with the first point” should be --the car event associated with the first point-- to refer to its antecedent basis (i.e., “each car event of the plurality of car events”) in line 8.
In claim 12, lines 12-13, “each car event associated with the first point” should be --the car event associated with the first point-- to refer to its antecedent basis (i.e., “each car event of the plurality of car events”) in line 8.
In claim 13, line 8, “include in each car event of the plurality of car events” should be --included in each car event of the plurality of car events-- to correct a grammatical error.
In claim 19, lines 5-6, “each car event associated with the first point and the actual measurements associated with each car event associated with the first point” should be --each car event of the plurality of car events associated with the first point and the actual measurements associated with each car event of the plurality of car events associated with the first point-- to avoid of being too broad without clear boundaries.
In claim 19, lines 8-9, “each car event and the actual measurements associated with each car event associated with the first point” should be --each car event of the plurality of car events and the actual measurements associated with each car event of the plurality of car events associated with the first point-- to avoid of being too broad without clear boundaries.
In claim 20, lines 7-8, “each car event associated with the first point” should be --the car event associated with the first point-- to refer to its antecedent basis (i.e., “each car event of the plurality of car events”) in line 6.
In claim 12, line 9, “each car event associated with the first point” should be --the car event associated with the first point-- to refer to its antecedent basis (i.e., “each car event of the plurality of car events”) in line 6
The other claim(s) not discussed above, or depending on the above claim(s), are objected to for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-8 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, it recites “each tuning coefficient in the predictive model” in lines 4-5, it is too broad (i.e., each) without clear boundaries. It is also unclear whether it is referring to “a set of production tuning coefficients,” “a candidate set of tuning coefficients,” or else. For examination purpose, --each of a plurality of tuning coefficients in the predictive model-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 2, it further recites “each tuning coefficient in the predictive model” in lines 8-9, it is too broad (i.e., each) without clear boundaries. It is also unclear whether it is referring to “a set of production tuning coefficients,” “a candidate set of tuning coefficients,” or else. For examination purpose, --each of the plurality of tuning coefficients in the predictive model-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 2, it recites “each tuning coefficient in the predictive model” in line 11, it is too broad (i.e., each) without clear boundaries. It is also unclear whether it is referring to “a set of production tuning coefficients,” “a candidate set of tuning coefficients,” or else. For examination purpose, --each of the plurality of tuning coefficients in the predictive model-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 8, it recites “each tuning coefficient in the predictive model” in lines 1-2, it is too broad (i.e., each) without clear boundaries. It is also unclear whether it is referring to “a set of production tuning coefficients,” “a candidate set of tuning coefficients,” or else. For examination purpose, --each of the plurality of tuning coefficients in the predictive model-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 13, it recites “each tuning coefficient in the predictive model” in lines 4-5, it is too broad (i.e., each) without clear boundaries. It is also unclear whether it is referring to “a set of production tuning coefficients,” “a candidate set of tuning coefficients,” or else. For examination purpose, --each of a plurality of tuning coefficients in the predictive model-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 13, it recites “each tuning coefficient in the predictive model” in lines 8-9, it is too broad (i.e., each) without clear boundaries. It is also unclear whether it is referring to “a set of production tuning coefficients,” “a candidate set of tuning coefficients,” or else. For examination purpose, --each of the plurality of tuning coefficients in the predictive model-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 13, it recites “each tuning coefficient in the predictive model” in line 11, it is too broad (i.e., each) without clear boundaries. It is also unclear whether it is referring to “a set of production tuning coefficients,” “a candidate set of tuning coefficients,” or else. For examination purpose, --each of the plurality of tuning coefficients in the predictive model-- is assumed.
The other claim(s) not discussed above, or depending on the above claim(s), are rejected for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
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 1, 8, 9, 11, 12, 19, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3-5 and 13-15 of copending Application No. 18658386 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the referenced claims teach substantially the current claims at issue. Any differences are minor and/or well-known variations.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 8-12, 19, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18658510 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the referenced claims teach substantially the current claims at issue. Any differences are minor and/or well-known variations.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
MPEP 2106 outlines a two-part analysis for Subject Matter Eligibility as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
Step 2, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. If the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), then the claim cannot be directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO), and thus the claim is eligible at Pathway B without further analysis. Abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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.
Regarding claim 1, Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions)? Yes (see analysis below).
Prong one: Whether the claim recites a judicial exception? (Yes). The claim is directed to an abstract idea because it recites the limitations beginning from “compiling a plurality of car events associated with a first point of a route within the classification yard” to the end of the claim. These limitations are directed to mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (or with a pen and paper).
Prong two: Whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception? (No). The claim recites no additional elements. Accordingly, no additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements (other than the judicial exception) that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No (see analysis below).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above. Considered as a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 12 and 20 are similarly rejected by analogy to claim 1. Note that the processor(s), memory, non-transitory computer-readable media, and computing device are generic computer components invoked to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. They are not sufficient to make the claims eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 when analyzed as a whole respectively are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they either extend (or add more details to) the abstract idea or the additional recited limitation(s) (if any) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as discussed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that sufficiently integrates the abstract idea into a practical application of, or makes the claims significantly more than, the judicial exception (abstract idea). The additional element(s) (if any) are mere instructions to apply an except, field of use, and/or insignificant extra-solution activities (applied to Step 2A_Prong Two and Step 2B; see MPEP 2016.05(f)-(h)) and/or well-understood, routine, or conventional (applied to Step 2B; see MPEP 2106.05(d)) to facilitate the application of the abstract idea.
Notes
Claims 1, 12, and 20 distinguish over the closest prior art of record as discussed below.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 20, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the feature of claim 1 (as the representative): “applying a predictive model to the plurality of car events associated with the first point to generate a candidate set of tuning coefficients for the first point of the route based on the actual measurements included in each car event of the plurality of car events; generating a candidate prediction for each car event of the plurality of car events using the candidate set of tuning coefficients for the first point of the route; determining which of the set of production tuning coefficients for the first point and the candidate set of tuning coefficients for the first point yields more accurate predictions for car events at the first point; and determining to replace the set of production tuning coefficients with the candidate set of tuning coefficients in response to a determination that the candidate set of tuning coefficients yields more accurate predictions for car events at the first point than the set of production tuning coefficients,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Kubala et al. (US 4610206 A; cited in IDS) teaches a control system for a railroad classification yard, involving a hump control (HCON) module to track the cars as they travel through the yard. HCON mains and updates car work and cut work tables. The cut work table includes information respecting not only the make-up of the cut and its destination, but also locations for performance information, i.e. how is the cut performed at the various regions in the yard, e.g. the crest, master retarder, fan switch, group retarders and group switches. However, Kubala does not teach or suggest the above indicated feature as claimed.
Daum et al. (US 20080033605 A1) teaches a method of determining optimized parameters for at least one of a current track section and a pending track section in a railway network, involving calculating train operating parameters based on other trains in the railway network to determine the optimized parameters over the track section. Daum does not teach or suggest the above indicated feature as claimed.
Kuehs (US 20140144345 A1) teaches a method for operating a switching hump yard, involving capturing at least one measurement value relating to respective cuts in each case, and the retarding ability of the first retarder is adaptively corrected with reference to the at least one captured measurement value, on the basis of a comparison with recorded braking levels or states of the retarder. Kuehs does not teach or suggest the above indicated feature as claimed.
HUSTER et al. (WO 2012038299 A2) teaches a method for operating a classification yard, involving determining at least rolling resistance information for classification runs involving rolling cars or car groups in at least one track section of the classification yard; and, taking into account the determined rolling resistance information and at least reference rolling resistance information, predicting the rolling resistance of the respective classification run in at least one subsequent track section of the classification yard. HUSTER does not teach or suggest the above indicated feature as claimed.
Wong et al. (US 3689788 A) teaches a system of controlling railway classification yards, involving measuring a car's rollability several times as it is traveling through the upper yard; and predicting the car's rollability on the bowl track based on these measurements. Coefficients, such as rollability, are determined by curve fitting by assuming that power series approximation to an unknown function is linear. Wong does not teach or suggest the above indicated feature as claimed.
None of the closest prior art of record, singly or in combination, teaches or suggests the feature as claimed.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Klimov et al. ("Updating the numerical characteristics of main resistance to wagon movement when rolling down a hump" E3S Web of Conferences 460, 06018 (2023)) teaches a method of determining numerical characteristics of a main specific resistance force to the movement of wagons in a him yard.
Auer, Jr. et al. (US 3619604 A) teaches a system for detecting an impedance of an electrically energized track circuit, so as to compute by repeated measurements of the changing impedance of the track circuit, the rollability characteristics of a car in a test track, or to predict when a train or car will reach a certain point as in highway crossing prediction systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights