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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendments and remarks filed on 20 February 2026.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 11, 26 and 27 have been amended.
Claims 4-5, 15, 17, and 19 have been canceled.
Claims 1-3, 6-14, 16, 18, and 20-27 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are insufficient to overcome the 101 rejections previously raised. Those rejections are respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the 103 rejections previously raised. None of the prior art of record taken individually or in combination teach an obvious combination of the claimed invention. Those rejections are respectfully withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 20 February 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to recite causing a computer to perform processes and apply specific computational algorithms. The computer that executes the program recited merely applies the limitations and does not transform the claims into a patent eligible invention, see new grounds of rejection set forth below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims. As for the algorithms performing computations, the ability to calculate evaluation values is considered part of the rules or instructions for determining the schedule and can also be grouped into the mental processes abstract grouping since it demonstrates and evaluation of data that could be performed the same way mentally or manually. The use of a computer in a generalized fashion does not meaningfully limit the otherwise abstract claims. In order for the addition of the machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of the claims, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed methodology to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e. through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations. See new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments that address the outputting, outputting when a cursor is moved, receiving input and reflecting additions amendments below.
Applicant argues that the claim features provide an improvement of computer functionality using a UI driven optimization loop. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements claimed do not realize a technical solution to a technical problem nor does the specification support or describe any improvement to the computer functionality itself. Instead the claims merely use known computer elements as tools to implement the steps in the particular environment. This does not demonstrate a technological improvement nor do it effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and/or demonstrate an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The 101 rejection is respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
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 1-3, 6-14, 16, 18, and 20-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without reciting significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in MPEP 2106.03, the claims 1-27 directed to a device, method and medium, which are statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One - MPEP 2106.04 - The independent claims 1, 26 and 27 recite acquiring one or more pieces of train line information, splitting the information into parts to obtain pieces of a task fragment information indicating a task of a staff for each part, allocating task fragment information based on constraints related to a basic work schedule to create work schedules indicating tasks for each duration, where a series of tasks corresponds to a basic work schedule included in each schedule, an interval between adjacent tasks is less than a rest time threshold, the basic work schedules included in the work schedule are separated by a rest time equal to or greater than the rest time threshold, allocating pieces of information based on a constraint related to the work schedule including a related target value of a duration and calculating an evaluation value based on a deviation amount of the duration from the target value, and determining work schedules based on the calculated evaluation value.
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity” (managing relationships between people – including… teaching, and following rules or instructions for determining the plurality of work schedules) because the claim has a description of acquiring train information, splitting the information into pieces to obtain task information a task of a staff for each part, and allocating task fragment information to create work schedules of tasks for durations as well as describing the intervals between adjacent tasks, that schedules include rest time thresholds that can be compared, and calculating an evaluation value based on a deviation and determining schedules based on the calculated evaluation value, thus demonstrating a series of evaluation and analysis steps used to determine schedules in a train staffing environment. The limitations relating to making comparisons to thresholds and calculating evaluation values to determine schedules could also be considered mental processes because the steps illustrates a series of observations and evaluations that could be performed the same way mentally or manually with pencil and paper. Accordingly, the independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two - MPEP 2106.04 - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claim recites an information processing device comprising a memory storing a computer program and circuitry configured to execute the program to perform the steps claimed, medium having a stored program to perform processes claimed and circuitry configured to output determinations and information in response to cursor movement and received inputs to reflect/further output added or input information..
The additional elements of computer and circuitry, that merely apply or execute the steps are considered “apply it [abstract idea] on a computer” (See MPEP 2106.05f; see also MPEP 2106.05h field of use). The circuitry being configured to output determined schedules to a display screen, output information to a screen when a cursor is placed over the screen and receive user operations to add conditions and reflect the added conditions illustrate insignificant extra solution activity since they are merely data gathering/inputting and transmission/output. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim also fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and/or an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B in MPEP 2106.05 - The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computer, “an information processing device comprising a memory storing a program and processing circuitry configured to execute the program to perform the method steps and a medium having a computer program stored therein are treated as MPEP 2106.05(f) (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235); and MPEP 2106.05h (field of use). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. For the outputting steps, describing outputting when cursor is placed over a display place, receiving inputs and reflecting changes via the display that were considered extra solution activity above, these have been re-evaluated in step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the circuitry or cursor use are anything other than generic, off the shelf computer components and the Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs court decisions in MPEP 2106.05d indicate that the mere collection, receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here.
Dependent claims 2-3, 6-14, 16, 18, and 20-27 include all of the limitations of the independent claim and therefore recite the same abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-25 merely narrow the recited abstract idea by describing constraints for scheduling, schedule information including types, time limits including allowed limits and thresholds, further allocating of information, additional rules for creating, scheduling and allocating, repeating steps to generate a provisional solution, and calculating an evaluation value, patterns and evaluation function. The claims include limitations for outputting information, charts, etc. which is considered insignificant extra solution activity since it is mere data transmission. When reconsidered under step 2B the ability to output and display information is considered well-understood, routine and conventional activity. The specification does not provide any indication that the display/output is anything other than a generic off the shelf output capability and the Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs court decisions in MPEP 2105.05 indicate that the mere collection, receipt and transmission of data over a network are well-understood, routine and convention when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here.
Therefore, the claims 1-3, 6-14, 16, 18, and 20-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For more information on 101 rejections, see MPEP 2106.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Howard et al. (US 2022/0114533) Quantum Computation for Train and Driver Recovery Problems, obtains solutions to train and driver recovery problems by receiving data for the problem comprising a task of revering from a disruption to a planned train and driver schedule, generating a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization formulation and representing a solution comprising an adjusted schedule and initiating an action accordingly.
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 STEPHANIE Z DELICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1288. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached on 571-272-6045. 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.
/STEPHANIE Z DELICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights