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 include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Cab1, Cab2, VOBC, ACS1, ANCS1, ACS2, ANCS2, TU1, TU2, TU3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is in length and because line 7 reads "setting the fromed train parameter state" which appears to be a typographical error and continuity error and should read "setting the marshalled train parameter state" to improve clarity and maintain continuity. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶ 0002 line 4 reads "is waste during off-peak hours" which appears to be a conjugation error and should read "is wasted during off-peak hours" to improve clarity.
¶ 0006 line 2-3 read "high safety, high reliability, high availability" which appears to be a grammatical error and should read "high safety, high reliability, and high availability" to improve clarity.
¶ 0008 line 1 and 2 read "formationformation" which appears to be a typographical error and should read "formation" to improve clarity.
¶ 0011 line 2 reads "train formationtrain formation" which appears to be a typographical error and should read "train formation" to improve clarity.
¶ 0025 line 3 reads "cannot figure out valid" which appears to be a translation error and should read "cannot be validated" or "cannot be verified" to improve clarity.
¶ 0072 line 3 reads "is not be" which appears to be a grammatical error and should read "is not" to improve clarity.
¶ 0074 line 2 reads "a plurality… comprise" which appears to be a conjugation error and should read "a plurality… comprises" to improve clarity.
¶ 0074 line 2 reads "such as a keyboard, a mouse" which appears to be a grammatical error and should read "such as a keyboard and a mouse" or "such as a keyboard or a mouse" to improve clarity.
¶ 0074 line 3 reads "such as various types of displays, a speaker" which appears to be a grammatical error and should read "such as various types of displays and a speaker" or "such as various types of displays or a speaker" to improve clarity.
¶ 0074 line 3-4 read "such as a disk, an optical disc" which appears to be a grammatical error and should read "such as a disk and an optical disc" or "such as a disk or an optical disc" to improve clarity.
¶ 0074 line 4 reads "such as a network card, a modem, a wireless communication transceivers" which appears to be a grammatical error and a conjugation error and should read "such as a network card, a modem, and a wireless communication transceiver" or "such as a network card, a modem, or a wireless communication transceiver" to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 7 reads "connecting marshalling information" which appears to be a continuity and/or translation error and should read "coupling marshalling information" to improve clarity and maintain continuity with previously utilized terminology.
Claim 1 line 17 reads "S1)" which appears to be a typographical error and should read "S1" to improve clarity.
Claim 5 line 2 reads "checking a currently applied marshalled train parameter state thereof" which appears to be a continuity error since the parameter already has antecedent basis and should read "checking the currently applied marshalled train parameter state thereof" to improve clarity and maintain continuity.
Claim 7 line 8 reads "cannot figure out valid" which appears to be a translation error and should read "cannot be validated" or "cannot be verified" to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
CBTC is interpreted to mean Communication Based Train Control consistent with the definition present in ¶ 0004 of the specification.
CC is interpreted as a Carborne Controller as known in the art (see at least the Abstract of "ns-3 Based Framework for Simulating Communication Based Train Control (CBTC) Systems" by Dandoush et al., hereinafter Dandoush).
ZC is interpreted as a Zone Controller as known in the art (see at least the Abstract of Dandoush).
The modules of claim 10 are not interpreted as invoking 112(f) as “for…” cannot be understood as a positive recitation of performing a function with the modules. According to the examiner’s best understanding within view of the limited details provided within the specification, the modules are interpreted as being program modules (e.g. algorithms or instructional packages to be implemented by a computer).
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 10 recite a “CC” and “ZC”. There is no definition provided within the specification for these acronyms. While the examiner recognizes that these terms are currently known within the art at the time of writing this action, the applicant is kindly reminded that terminology can shift, change, and evolve over decades such that what is known (e.g. acronyms) currently may be unrecognizable, archaic, or unknown in the future. Thus, the written description should provide absolute clarity whenever acronyms are utilized such that future examiners, inventors, lawyers, or other readers can understand the applicant’s invention according to the written description provided. Examiner notes that amendments to add the terms “Carborne Controller” and “Zone Controller” in order to obviate this rejection will not be considered as adding new matter in view of how the terms CC and ZC were utilized in the prior art at the time of filing (see claim interpretation above).
Claims 1 and 10 recite determination of a “train formation.” It is unclear the metes and bounds of this term (see 112(b) rejection below) as the written description fails to provide any examples or explanation on what a “train formation” is meant to be. Thus, the written description cannot be seen as sufficiently showing possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 10 recite determination of “coupling marshalling information.” It is unclear the metes and bounds of this term (see 112(b) rejection below) as the written description fails to provide any examples or explanation on what “coupling marshalling information” is meant to be. Thus, the written description cannot be seen as sufficiently showing possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 10 recite the term “available.” It is unclear the metes and bounds of this term (see 112(b) rejection below) as the written description fails to provide any examples or explanation on what “available” is meant to indicate. Thus, the written description cannot be seen as sufficiently showing possession of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim 10 recites a plurality of different modules. If the modules are to be interpreted as program modules (see claim interpretation above), it is unclear how each module is meant to be structured algorithmically. ¶ 0072 is the only paragraph that attempts to provide algorithmic structure to the modules:
"A person skilled in the art can clearly understand that for the convenience and simplicity of description, the specific working process of each described module can refer to the corresponding process in the above-mentioned method embodiments, and it is not be [SIC] repeated herein."
Mere allegations that one of ordinary skill in the art could understand the algorithmic structure of each module without significantly more details cannot be considered as satisfying the requirement for written description. Further, since the modules appear to only generically share a name with certain variables and/or operational steps detailed in the disclosure without full recitation of the exact same process involved in each step and/or variable calculation, it is not completely clear where the algorithm of one module is meant to end and the algorithm of a separate module is meant to begin within the disclosure. I.e., it is not reasonably clear what the “corresponding process” for each module is meant to comprise. Thus, the disclosure is not sufficient to show possession of each of the modules as claimed.
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites the term “vehicle-mounted CC”. It is unclear if this is meant to have antecedent basis to the “CC” aforementioned in the claim and, if they are meant to have different antecedent bases, if further references in the claim and dependent claims are meant to be antecedent to the “vehicle-mounted CC” or the first mentioned “CC.” For the purpose of examination, these will be understood as the same CC.
The term “safely” in claims 1 and 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “safely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how exactly a train is to run to be considered as running “safely.” Is any movement performed by the train after receiving authorization and confirmation that the train is available meant to be considered safe? Must the train travel at a certain speed, in a certain mode, with a certain acceleration/deceleration limit, or with some other limiting factor? It is unclear what “safely” is meant to convey, and thus the claim limitations are indefinite.
Claims 1 and 10 recite the terms “CC” and “ZC.” There is no definition provided within the specification for these acronyms. While the examiner recognizes that these terms are currently known within the art at the time of writing this action, the applicant is kindly reminded that terminology can shift, change, and evolve over decades such that what is known currently (e.g. acronyms) may be unrecognizable, archaic, or unknown in the future. Thus, the written description should provide absolute clarity whenever acronyms are utilized such that future examiners, inventors, lawyers, or other readers can understand the applicant’s invention according to the written description provided. Failure to provide clarity may result in unintended ambiguity such that the metes and bounds for the claims are difficult to parse and/or the meaning continually evolves (i.e. the claim limitations may be prophetic). Examiner notes that amendments to add the terms “Carborne Controller” and “Zone Controller” in order to obviate this rejection will not be considered as adding new matter in view of how the terms CC and ZC were utilized in the prior art at the time of filing (see claim interpretation above).
Claims 1 and 10 recite determination of a “train formation.” It is unclear the metes and bounds of this term as the written description fails to provide any examples or explanation on what a “train formation” is meant to be. Is the train formation how long the train is, the number of train cars, the train purpose (e.g. goods or human transportation), where the train is relatively positioned compared to other trains, the coupling status (i.e. coupled or uncoupled), or another factor? The written description does not make clear what a “train formation” is, and thus, the limitation is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, a “train formation” will be understood as being either a train length, a number of cars coupled to a train engine, or the coupling status of a train.
Claims 1 and 10 recite determination of “coupling marshalling information.” It is unclear the metes and bounds of this term as the written description fails to provide any examples or explanation on what “coupling marshalling information” is meant to be. Is a coupling marshalling information how long the train is, the number of train cars, the coupling status (i.e. coupled or uncoupled), or another factor? The written description does not make clear what a “coupling marshalling information” is, and thus, the limitation is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, a “coupling marshaling information” will be understood as either a train length, a number of cars coupled to a train engine, or the coupling status of a train.
Claims 1 and 10 recite the term “available.” It is unclear the metes and bounds of this term as the written description fails to provide any examples or explanation on what “available” is meant to indicate. Is an available train one that can be controlled or one that can be coupled with another car? Is this merely shorthand for indicating that a train formation/coupling information has been validated? The written description does not make clear what an “available” train is, and thus, the limitation is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, “available” will be understood as shorthand for indicating that a train formation/coupling information has been validated.
Claim(s) 2-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the information" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the other party" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the term “associated CC”. It is unclear if this is meant to have antecedent basis to the “CC” aforementioned in the claim and, if they are meant to have different antecedent bases, if further references in the claim and dependent claims are meant to be antecedent to the “associated CC” or the first mentioned “CC.” For the purpose of examination, these will be understood as the same CC.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear how “coupling marshalling information” is meant to be obtained in order to allow for a feed back operation to occur. The claim appears to be missing a step indicating the collection of coupling marshalling information. As written, the metes and bounds for how coupling marshalling information is obtained and thus fed back to a CC is undefined. For the purpose of examination, the coupling marshalling information will be understood as obtained by the coupling marshalling information module during the second train identification step.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the train formation" in line . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the train formation will be understood as obtained by the train formation module during the first train identification step.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental process without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations:
a train formation module, for a CC to identify a marshalled train;
a coupling marshalling information module, for a trackside ZC to identify the marshalled train;
a movement authorization calculation module, for the trackside ZC to calculate a valid movement authorization for the marshalled train when a marshalled train parameter state is available,
and feed back coupling marshalling information to an associated CC;
a check module, for the CC to check a currently applied marshalled train parameter state thereof,
and safely control the train to run if the state is available and the valid movement authorization is received;
a verification module, for the CC to verify the marshalled train parameter state according to the train formation or the coupling marshalling information from the ZC; and
a state detection module, for re-performing the calculation and verification process of the CC and the trackside ZC when a coupling state of the marshalled train changes during online coupling or dis-marshalling.
The limitations recited above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a CC, a ZC, and a plurality of program modules, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a person can visually observe and identify a marshalled train including its configuration (i.e. train length/number of cars and coupling status) (a-b). The person can then mentally determine if the train’s configuration matches a required configuration and is thus valid (i.e. “available”). The person can then mentally determine based on the train’s configuration being valid, that the train is authorized to travel (c). The person can periodically observe the train to determine if it is available (e and g). If the train changes while online or while being dis-marshalled, the mental process can be repeated (h). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the CC and ZC is/are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using (a) generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The recitation of the plurality of program modules for implementation of the abstract idea acts as a mere recitation that the abstract idea is applied using a computer. The recitation of an abstract idea applied to a computer does not prohibit the idea from being performed mentally as detailed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) and the court cases cited therein. The recitation of safely controlling the train (f) is detailed within a “for” clause indicating that safe control is merely an intended result of performing the abstract idea. That is, the control limitation is not actively being performed and thus cannot be considered as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation of feeding back the coupling marshaling information (d) is an insignificant extra post-solution activity of mere data transmission. Mere data transmission cannot form an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the CC and ZC are generally claimed, the modules act to merely apply the abstract idea, and the control limitation (f) is not actively performed and instead can be interpreted as an intended result as detailed above. A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity in the field. The limitation of feeding back coupling marshalling information (d) is a WURC activity because buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) indicated that the transmission of data over a network is a WURC function. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed towards software per se. See MPEP § 2106.03(I). The apparatus described in claim 10 is merely a combination of program modules without a non-transitory computer readable medium (hereinafter CRM) on which the modules are stored.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed towards signals per se. See MPEP § 2106.03(I). The disclosure fails to limit the CRM to only non-transitory CRM. ¶ 0078, for example, provides a list of non-transitory CRM, but also explicitly states that the CRM is “not limited to” the provided list of examples indicating that it is reasonable to interpret the CRM as including signals per se. Examiner recommends amending the claim language to read “A non-transitory computer-readable medium” to obviate this rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 112(a) and 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-9 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 112(a) and 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 112(a), 112(b), and 101, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 112(a), 112(b), and 101, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Consider the following documents: Fang et al. US 20200369304 A1 (hereinafter Fang), Hu et al. CN 111874008 A (hereinafter Hu; a translated copy has been provided by the examiner which the examiner relies upon), and Chen CN 111267909 A (hereinafter Chen; a translated copy has been provided by the examiner which the examiner relies upon).
Fang teaches a CC determining if a coupling configuration of a train is proper (¶ 0013 and 0022-0023). If a configuration is proper and a coupling status is consistent with a previously stored off-line configuration, other train functions may be performed (Figure 2).
Hu et al. CN 111874008 A discloses sending coupling information to a ZC (¶ 0046).
Chen CN 111267909 A discloses authorizing train movement in response to an authorization request (¶ 0012).
None of the prior art of record teaches, alone or in combination, the entirety of the claimed invention. Particularly, none of the prior art teaches identifying, by the trackside ZC, coupling marshalling information (i.e. step S2) wherein when the coupling marshalling information or the train formation is valid, calculating, by the trackside ZC, a valid movement authorization for the marshalled train (i.e. step S3) wherein if the state is available and the valid movement authorization is received, safely controlling the train to run by the CC (i.e. step S4). While the prior art of record may at least teach small portions of these steps such as Fang teaching determining if a configuration is proper, a combination with the prior art of record to arrive at the claimed invention would require significant hindsight reason and/or “handwaving” of claimed limitations to arrive at the claimed invention. Thus, the claimed invention appears to be novel and non-obvious in light of the prior art of record as best understood by the examiner (see claim interpretation and 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above).
Applicant is advised that indicated allowable subject matter may be revoked pending any modifications of claim interpretations resultant to any amendments created to obviate the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections detailed above.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Green et al. US 20200070860 A1 discloses using an onboard controller to determine a train length.
Kanner et al. US 20130325247 A1 discloses using an onboard controller to determine a train length.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights