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 .
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 1-10 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.
UNDETERMINED “CORRESPONDING” MATCHING STANDARD IN CLAIM 1
Claim 1 recites “matching a feasible outbound and inbound operation line of a corresponding time period, service route and direction for each originating event and terminating event of the mainline to be connected to the outbound and inbound operation line.”
The phrase “corresponding time period, service route and direction” renders the scope of claim 1 indefinite because the claim does not identify the reference to which the time period, service route, and direction must correspond. It is unclear whether the time period, service route, and direction correspond to the feasible outbound and inbound operation line, the originating event, the terminating event, the mainline operation line, a preexisting train schedule, or another unclaimed input. The specification at paragraph [0076] substantially repeats the matching concept but does not provide an objective standard that resolves the claim-scope uncertainty.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of what matching operation is required to satisfy Step S3. The dependent claims do not cure this deficiency.
UNDEFINED “OUTBOUND AND INBOUND INTERVAL CONSTRAINT” IN CLAIM 1
Claim 1 further recites determining the ultimately adopted train outbound and inbound depots, outbound and inbound paths, and arrival and departure events “based on outbound and inbound interval constraint of the depot.”
The phrase “outbound and inbound interval constraint of the depot” renders claim 1 indefinite because the claim does not define what interval is being constrained or how the constraint is applied. The claim does not specify whether this phrase refers to a minimum operation interval between trains, a continuous departure interval, a continuous return interval, an earliest departure time, a latest return time, a station dwell interval, a turnaround-time interval, or some other interval. The specification identifies several different types of timing constraints, including parking capacities, continuous departure intervals, continuous return intervals, earliest departure times, latest return times, minimum operation intervals, dwell time, and turnaround time. See, e.g., paragraphs [0002], [0037], [0082], and [0083]. Because multiple different constraints may be encompassed, the metes and bounds of Step S4 are unclear.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of which interval constraint must be satisfied in order to determine the “ultimately adopted” depots, paths, and arrival/departure events. Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 and do not cure this deficiency.
LACK OF ANTECEDENT BASIS AND UNCLEAR PATH IDENTITY IN CLAIM 5
Claim 5 recites “for the forward direct departing path, a district between a switch track and an originating station of the mainline path is an outbound district to be compiled.”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the forward direct departing path.” Claim 3, from which claim 5 depends, recites a “forward direct outbound path” and a “reverse direct outbound path,” but does not recite a “forward direct departing path.” It is unclear whether “the forward direct departing path” is intended to refer to the “forward direct outbound path” of claim 3, a different path type, or a departing portion of another path. Because the identity of the claimed path is uncertain, the scope of claim 5 is indefinite.
Applicant may amend claim 5 to replace “the forward direct departing path” with “the forward direct outbound path,” if such amendment is supported and intended.
LACK OF ANTECEDENT BASIS / INCONSISTENT TERMINOLOGY FOR “DESTINATION STATION” IN CLAIMS 5 AND 6
Claims 5 and 6 each recite a “destination station of the mainline path.” However, claims 2 and 3, from which claims 5 and 6 depend, recite an “originating station” and a “terminating station” of the mainline path, not a “destination station.” It is unclear whether “destination station” is intended to be the same as the “terminating station,” a different station along the mainline path, or another endpoint associated with the mainline operation line.
The specification uses both “terminating station” and “destination station” in different places. See, e.g., paragraphs [0013], [0022], [0023], [0071], and [0075]. Because the claims use inconsistent endpoint terminology without clearly defining the relationship between the terms, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the districts identified in claims 5 and 6.
Applicant may amend the claims for consistency, for example by replacing “destination station” with “terminating station” where that is the intended endpoint.
LACK OF ANTECEDENT BASIS / UNCLEAR MAINLINE STATION REFERENCES IN CLAIM 9
Claim 9 recites “the mainline originating station” and “the mainline destination station.” Claim 9 depends from claim 1, but claim 1 does not expressly introduce a “mainline originating station” or a “mainline destination station.” Claim 1 recites originating and terminating events of the mainline, and arrival/departure events of a mainline operation line, but does not clearly identify the station endpoints used in claim 9.
Additionally, claim 9 uses “destination station,” whereas other claims use “terminating station.” It is unclear whether “mainline destination station” is intended to be the same station as the “terminating station of the mainline path” recited in claim 2, or some other station associated with the terminal event. Because the endpoint through which the inbound operation lines connect to the mainline operation line is uncertain, claim 9 is indefinite.
Applicant may amend claim 9 to introduce the station terms with clear antecedent basis and use consistent endpoint terminology.
UNDEFINED “SEQUENCE WITH WHICH THE DEPOTS ARE USED” IN CLAIM 10
Claim 10 recites “generating departure events and arrival events on outbound and inbound operation lines corresponding to depots at each station within the district based on the sequence with which the depots are used.”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the sequence with which the depots are used.” Claim 1 recites multiple depots, but does not recite a depot-use sequence. Claim 10 also does not define how the sequence is determined, whether it is an input sequence, a sorted sequence, a scheduling priority, a no-load-distance order, a capacity-based order, or a result of a preceding selection step.
The specification at paragraph [0087] states that feasible outbound and inbound path sets are sorted in ascending order of no-load distances, but the claim does not recite no-load distance sorting and does not clearly equate the “sequence with which the depots are used” with that sorting. As a result, the scope of the generating step in S41 is uncertain.
Applicant may amend claim 10 to define the sequence, for example by reciting whether the sequence is predetermined, capacity-based, sorted by no-load distance, or otherwise determined.
CLAIM OBJECTIONS / INFORMALITIES
The following matters appear to be informalities rather than independent bases for rejection, unless the examiner determines that they further affect claim scope.
Claim 1 recites “those in mainline operation line.” This should be corrected to “those in the mainline operation line.”
Claim 4 recites “path starting from switch tracks and ending at turnaround tracks of transfer stations are taken as first outbound paths.” The singular “path” should be corrected to “paths.”
Claim 4 recites “paths starting from turnaround tracks of the transfer stations and ending at the switch tracks are second inbound paths.” This should be corrected to “are taken as second inbound paths” for consistency with the surrounding claim language.
Claim 4 recites “first inbound paths:” with a colon. A semicolon or comma is likely intended.
Claim 10 recites “where the departure events and the arrival events of corresponding switch track satisfy...” This should be corrected to “wherein the departure events and the arrival events of a corresponding switch track satisfy...” or otherwise amended for grammatical clarity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON C SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Joseph Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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.
/Jason C Smith/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights