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 .
________________________________________
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed September 6, 2026 has been considered.
________________________________________
Claim Objections
Claims 11-14 are objected to because claim 11 depends from canceled claim 10, leaving the limitations inherited by claim 11, and therefore by claims 12-14, incomplete. Correction of the dependency is required before these claims can be fully examined on the merits.
Suggested Correction: Amend claim 11 to identify the intended uncanceled base claim, with applicant authorization, or rewrite claim 11 in independent form to recite all intended inherited limitations. Retain or conform the dependencies of claims 12-14 to the corrected claim chain.
Claim 17 is objected to because the phrase "according to claim 16, further comprises" does not grammatically connect the dependent claim to the subject matter of claim 16.
Suggested Correction: In claim 17, replace "according to claim 16, further comprises:" with "according to claim 16, further comprising:" without changing the remaining limitations.
Claims 18 and 19 are objected to for informal introductory wording. Claim 18 uses "the memory" and "the at least one processor" without introducing those elements. Claim 19 uses "the memory" without introducing a memory. The recited storage and execution relationship is understandable, but the introductory wording should be corrected.
Suggested Correction: In claim 18, introduce "a memory" and "at least one processor" at their first occurrences and use the definite references thereafter. In claim 19, introduce "a memory" at its first occurrence. Retain all recited analysis-procedure and scheduling limitations.
________________________________________
References Used
Reference 1 (Primary) - CN 109271346 A.
Reference 2 - US 2021/0255903 A1.
Reference 3 - US 2016/0162337 A1.
Reference 4 - CN 110749785 A.
Reference 5 - CN 101917237 A.
________________________________________
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness-type 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
________________________________________
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim Text
(L1) An intelligent browsing apparatus based on railway centralized signaling monitoring system data, comprising: (L2) at least one processor; and (L3) a memory coupled to the at least one processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the at least one processor to: (L4) generate an analysis command; (L5) acquire the railway centralized signaling monitoring system data to be analyzed according to the analysis command and analyze the railway centralized signaling monitoring system data to obtain an analysis result; and (L6) display the analysis result; (L7) the memory stores an analysis procedure executed by the at least one processor in a data analysis module, and the analysis procedure is used to perform parallel batch processing using a plurality of processing threads and multi-thread concurrent operation on the railway centralized signaling monitoring system data to be analyzed to obtain the analysis result; (L8) N-1 threads are provided in the analysis procedure according to a number N of central processing unit (CPU) cores provided in the data analysis module, and each of the threads is used to analyze and calculate the railway centralized signaling monitoring system data to be analyzed; and (L9) setting processor affinity for each of the N-1 threads such that each thread is bound to a corresponding CPU core reserved for the thread's assigned analysis task; (L10) the data analysis module allocates analysis tasks to the corresponding threads according to the total number of the N-1 threads.
Analysis
(L1), (L4), (L5), (L6): Reference 1 concerns railway centralized signaling monitoring and automatic abnormal-curve browsing (paragraphs 0001-0009). The analysis button invokes processing using user-selected parameters (paragraphs 0029,0031); stored sampling/statistical records are acquired for that requested analysis, compared with the parameters, and associated with abnormal curve intervals (paragraphs 0019,0027,0031-0032). The abnormal-record table and selected curve are displayed on the computer screen (paragraph 0034; Figure 2). Acquisition here is acquisition of stored monitoring data for analysis; it is not a claim that the button initiates the original physical sampling. (L2), (L3): Reference 1 uses a computer with disk-stored records and parameters (paragraphs 0027,0029,0031,0034). Reference 2 supplies processor-executed stored software in electronic system 1000 with processing units 1010, system memory 1025 and permanent storage device 1035 (Figure 10; paragraphs 0052-0059), providing the processor/memory implementation of the retained railway analysis. (L7): Reference 1's stored time-segmented records are organized as work to be analyzed, but its Figure 1 loop is serial. Reference 2's corresponding-core workers process simultaneously (paragraph 0034; Figure 3). The modification distributes separate railway curves/record batches to those workers while retaining chronological processing within each curve, rather than asserting parallel batch processing is express in Reference 1. (L8): Reference 2 paragraph 0033 provides one worker per eligible processing core, with the eligible-core count one below the total; Figure 3 supplies seven workers 355-385 for eight cores. Some are parked in the illustrated allocation. The proposed railway configuration supplies the N-1 workers and activates them for the batch workload; the illustration is not described as showing all seven simultaneously active. (L9): Reference 2 assigns workers to corresponding cores and isolates the shielded cores from the generic group (paragraphs 0034-0038). Reference 3 expressly assigns particular cores to specific threads using affinity table 220 and sets the thread's affinity to its allocated core (paragraphs 0030,0033-0035,0055,0059-0060). Apply that setting to each railway worker's assigned core for its batch-analysis task, using Reference 2's shielding rather than importing Reference 3's periodic task migration. (L10): Reference 2 distributes work through queues corresponding to allocated processing cores and updates that distribution with the allocation (paragraphs 0033,0039). The modification distributes the railway batch tasks across the N-1 available workers according to that pool size. An RSS queue is not itself represented as a railway task allocator; the railway-task adaptation is part of the proposed combination.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement Reference 1's railway record analysis with Reference 2's N-1 corresponding-core worker organization, using Reference 3's explicit affinity-setting operation to bind each worker to its assigned core during processing, so separate curve batches can be analyzed concurrently while a core remains available for other processing. Reference 1 identifies the burden of more than 500 daily curves per station and the risk of missed abnormalities during manual review (paragraph 0002). Its independent curve workloads permit concurrent execution without changing their arithmetic or comparison criteria. Binding the workers implements the selected worker/core associations; the shielded group reduces competition with generic work. Keeping temporal order within each curve preserves Reference 1's merging of consecutive abnormal intervals (paragraph 0032), and Reference 2 itself recognizes preservation of ordering within a flow (paragraph 0044). The predictable result is concurrent, core-assigned analysis of separate railway curve batches with the same abnormality display, not a guaranteed numerical speedup or wholesale transplantation of packet processing or periodic thread handoff.
________________________________________
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim Text
(L1) The intelligent browsing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is caused to: (L2) customize an analysis task and form the analysis command; and (L3) display or query the analysis result.
Analysis
(L1): The complete claim 1 analysis and References 1, 2 and 3 are incorporated. (L2), (L3): Reference 1 provides user-set detection parameters and an analysis button that invokes the selected comparison, followed by an abnormal-record table and click-based retrieval of the corresponding curve (paragraphs 0029,0031,0034). These functions customize the requested analysis and display or query its result in the combined apparatus.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to retain Reference 1's parameter customization and selected-result retrieval when implementing its analysis with the core-assigned worker combination applied to claim 1, so the operator can select the requested analysis and inspect the resulting abnormal curves. The scheduling implementation need not change those input/output functions; retaining them provides the predictable result of customized concurrent analysis with queryable output.
________________________________________
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of References 2, 3 and 4.
Claim Text
(L1) The intelligent browsing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the analysis task comprises a daily curve analysis task and a turnout curve analysis task.
Analysis
(L1): The complete claim 2 analysis and References 1, 2 and 3 are incorporated. Reference 1 analyzes daily railway analog-quantity curves for abnormalities (paragraphs 0002,0019,0027-0034). Reference 4 provides turnout-current acquisition and timing analysis at MSS station machine 101, including comparison with a preset normal action sequence (paragraphs 0035-0039,0059-0063; Figures 1-3). Adding that turnout analysis as a selectable task to the retained daily-curve analysis supplies both claimed task categories; it does not replace the daily task or omit the inherited N-1 worker and affinity operations.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Reference 4's turnout-curve timing analysis among the railway analyses requested through Reference 1's parameterized interface, so the station's daily analog abnormalities and turnout operating abnormalities can be reviewed through the same apparatus. Both operate on acquired railway monitoring curves and produce abnormality information for maintenance. Assigning their separate curve batches to the inherited workers preserves each analysis and predictably provides both task categories without changing the measured signals.
________________________________________
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of References 2, 3 and 4.
Claim Text
(L1) The intelligent browsing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the daily curve analysis task comprises one or more analysis items including at least one of: (L2) an analysis item for a fluctuation, an analysis item for a rising trend, or an analysis item for a declining trend.
Analysis
(L1), (L2): The complete claim 3 combination of References 1, 2, 3 and 4 is incorporated. For the recited fluctuation alternative, Reference 1 calculates statistical variation within time-segmented samples and compares the variation/peak information with detection parameters to identify abnormal records (paragraphs 0019,0027,0029,0031). This supplies a fluctuation-analysis item. The claim permits at least one of the listed items; the ground relies on fluctuation, not an assertion that rising and declining trend items are all expressly disclosed.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to retain Reference 1's fluctuation screening as a daily-curve task in the combined apparatus, because it detects unstable monitored values that warrant inspection. Executing that existing comparison alongside the turnout task using the inherited worker organization predictably retains the fluctuation result while permitting concurrent analysis of separate curve batches.
________________________________________
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of References 2, 3 and 4.
Claim Text
(L1) The intelligent browsing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the turnout curve analysis task comprises one or more analysis items including at least one of: (L2) an analysis item for a turnout rotation duration, an analysis item for a power curve beyond an upper limit, or an analysis item for a current curve beyond a lower limit.
Analysis
(L1), (L2): The complete claim 3 combination of References 1, 2, 3 and 4 is incorporated. Reference 4 determines the E-F interval from unlocking to locking of the turnout from the current waveform and compares relay action timing with preset normal action timing (Figure 2; paragraphs 0035-0039,0059-0063). This supplies the turnout-rotation-duration analysis alternative. The at-least-one formulation does not require this embodiment also to perform the power-upper-limit and current-lower-limit alternatives.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Reference 4's measured turnout operating interval as the turnout-duration analysis item in the combined apparatus, to identify abnormal operating timing from the acquired waveform. The interval is already derived for turnout fault diagnosis; retaining that measure and comparison as a selectable analysis predictably provides duration-based screening without changing the inherited daily-curve task or scheduling architecture.
________________________________________
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of References 2, 3 and 4.
Claim Text
(L1) The intelligent browsing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein when the analysis command is the daily curve analysis task, the at least one processor is caused to form the analysis command by setting the one or more analysis items of the daily curve analysis task and a filter parameter thereof; and (L2) wherein the filter parameter comprises one or more of a fluctuation amplitude corresponding to the analysis item for the fluctuation, a rising amplitude corresponding to the analysis item for the rising trend, or a declining amplitude corresponding to the analysis item corresponding to the declining trend.
Analysis
(L1), (L2): The complete claim 4 combination of References 1, 2, 3 and 4 is incorporated. Reference 1 lets the user set detection parameters, including the permitted variation/peak margin, and invoke analysis using those parameters (paragraphs 0029,0031). Applied to the retained fluctuation item, the selected variation threshold is the fluctuation-amplitude filter parameter used in forming the requested analysis. This ground addresses the fluctuation alternative expressly permitted by the claim; it does not require all listed alternative filters.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to retain the user-selected fluctuation threshold when invoking the daily-curve task, because the operator must distinguish acceptable variation from an abnormal curve for the equipment being reviewed. Reference 1 already uses selected parameters in its comparison; retaining that operation in the combined apparatus predictably provides configurable screening rather than a fixed, equipment-independent threshold.
________________________________________
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of References 2, 3 and 4.
Claim Text
(L1) The intelligent browsing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein when the analysis command is the turnout curve analysis task, the at least one processor is caused to form the analysis command by setting the one or more analysis items of the turnout curve analysis task and a filter parameter thereof; and (L2) wherein the filter parameter comprises one or more of a duration deviation corresponding to the analysis item for the turnout rotation duration, a power value upper limit corresponding to the analysis item for the power curve beyond the upper limit, or a current value lower limit corresponding to the analysis item for the current curve beyond the lower limit.
Analysis
(L1), (L2): The complete claim 5 combination of References 1, 2, 3 and 4 is incorporated. Reference 4 measures the E-F turnout operating interval and compares action timing with preset normal timing (Figure 2; paragraphs 0035-0039,0059-0063). Reference 1 provides operator-selected detection parameters and an analysis-button invocation (paragraphs 0029,0031). In the combination, make the permitted difference between the measured turnout interval and the normal interval a selected duration-deviation parameter supplied with the turnout-analysis command. The user-set duration-deviation control is a modification using Reference 1, not an express input control attributed to Reference 4. The ground addresses the duration alternative permitted by the claim.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply Reference 1's user-set comparison parameters to Reference 4's turnout-duration comparison, allowing the operator to select the permitted deviation from normal timing before invoking the analysis. The measured and normal intervals supply the compared quantities. An adjustable permitted difference allows screening to reflect the turnout being examined rather than treating every timing difference as a fault. The predictable result is command-triggered duration-deviation filtering with the complete inherited task and core-assignment limitations retained.
________________________________________
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of References 2, 3 and 5.
Claim Text
(L1) The intelligent browsing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the intelligent browsing apparatus comprises an interface module and a data analysis module, the intelligent browsing apparatus further comprising a central server respectively connected to the interface module and the data analysis module, wherein the interface module transmits the analysis command to the data analysis module through the central server and the data analysis module feeds the analysis result back to the interface module through the central server.
Analysis
(L1): The complete claim 1 combination of References 1, 2 and 3 is incorporated. Reference 5's man-machine interaction unit 304 receives user instructions and displays monitoring information (paragraphs 0067-0069). Its monitoring center 402 includes communication server 4021 linking to the station, application server 4023 providing business-data scheduling and information routing, and query and analysis stations 4024 and 4025; station maintenance console 4014 performs station-data analysis (paragraphs 0074-0086). Route the selected analysis command of Reference 1 through the central application and communication functions to that station analysis function and return the resulting report through the central functions to the interface. Central routing of the particular analysis command and reverse result is the proposed modification; the presence of central analysis station 4025 is not concealed, and not every operation of Reference 5 is asserted to run remotely.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Reference 5's central information-routing and station-analysis organization for the inherited command-triggered railway analysis, allowing a central operator to select an analysis while it executes near the collected station records and returns its result for browsing. The reference supplies both station computation and the central communication and routing path. Using that path in both directions predictably permits centralized request and result handling without relocating the underlying monitoring data or changing the inherited N-1 worker and affinity operations.
________________________________________
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of References 2, 3 and 5.
Claim Text
(L1) The intelligent browsing apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the data analysis module is arranged on a corresponding station acquisition layer.
Analysis
(L1): The complete claim 15 combination of References 1, 2, 3 and 5 is incorporated. Reference 5 places station maintenance console 4014, which analyzes station monitoring data, in basic unit station 401 together with monitoring collecting device 4011 and data storage cell 4013 (paragraphs 0074-0080; Figure 4). Implement the inherited data-analysis function in that station-level console. This maps the station-acquisition-layer placement; it does not assert that Reference 5 independently discloses the inherited core-affinity architecture.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to retain Reference 5's station-level placement for the combined analysis function, placing the processing beside the collecting device and local stored records so the command can be executed against station data before the result is returned centrally. This uses the disclosed station console for its existing analysis purpose and predictably preserves local access to the required monitoring records.
________________________________________
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of References 2, 3 and 5.
Claim Text
(L1) The intelligent browsing apparatus according to claim 16, further comprises: a data service module, arranged on the corresponding station acquisition layer and respectively connected to the data analysis module and the central server, wherein (L2) the data service module is configured to store the analysis result and the railway centralized signaling monitoring system data to be analyzed, and is further configured to receive the analysis command from the central server and forward the analysis command to the data analysis module; and is further configured to receive the analysis result from the data analysis module and forward the analysis result to the central server.
Analysis
(L1), (L2): The complete claim 16 combination of References 1, 2, 3 and 5 is incorporated. Reference 5 supplies data storage cell 4013, station maintenance console 4014 and communication to center 402 through communication server 4021 (paragraphs 0074-0086). Reference 1 supplies the monitoring inputs and resulting abnormal records (paragraphs 0027,0031-0034). Configure a station-side service between the central connection and the analysis function to store the monitoring inputs and resulting analysis records, forward the received analysis command to the analysis function, and forward the returned result to the center. This consolidates the station data-access and bidirectional command and result handling in one service connected to both endpoints. Storage cell 4013 is not itself relabeled as an expressly disclosed message-forwarding module; the common service and storage of computed results are modifications of the cited architecture.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to organize the station's retained storage and bidirectional analysis-message handling as a common data service, so the central request enters through the same station interface that provides the local records and returns the completed result. Reference 5 already connects local storage and station analysis with the central communication path. Consolidating those operations reduces separate interfaces between the central requester, record store and analysis function and allows the stored result to remain associated with its input data. The predictable result is local retention of monitoring data and analysis results with forwarding of the command and result through the common station service; no new sensing or analysis principle is required.
________________________________________
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim Text
(L1) A method of automatically analyzing railway centralized signaling monitoring system data, comprising: (L2) generating an analysis command; (L3) acquiring the railway centralized signaling monitoring system data to be analyzed according to the analysis command; (L4) analyzing the railway centralized signaling monitoring system data to obtain an analysis result; and (L5) displaying the analysis result; (L6) the memory stores an analysis procedure executed by the at least one processor in a data analysis module, and the analysis procedure is used to perform parallel batch processing using a plurality of processing threads and multi-thread concurrent operation on the railway centralized signaling monitoring system data to be analyzed to obtain the analysis result; (L7) N-1 threads are provided in the analysis procedure according to a number N of central processing unit (CPU) cores provided in the data analysis module, and each of the threads is used to analyze and calculate the railway centralized signaling monitoring system data to be analyzed; and (L8) setting processor affinity for each of the N-1 threads such that each thread is bound to a corresponding CPU core reserved for the thread's assigned analysis task; (L9) the data analysis module allocates analysis tasks to the corresponding threads according to the total number of the N-1 threads.
Analysis
(L1), (L2), (L3), (L4), (L5): Reference 1's analysis-button invocation generates the requested analysis, accesses stored railway monitoring records, compares their values with user-set criteria, and displays abnormal-record and curve results (paragraphs 0019,0027,0029,0031-0034; Figures 1-2). (L6): Store and execute those operations as the processor/memory software of Reference 2 (Figure 10; paragraphs 0052-0059), distributing separate curve batches among its simultaneous corresponding-core workers (paragraph 0034) while retaining within-curve order. (L7): Reference 2 paragraph 0033 and Figure 3 provide the N-1 worker pool for N cores; the railway modification assigns those workers the monitoring-data analyses rather than network packets. (L8): Reference 2 paragraphs 0034-0038 provide the corresponding core and shielded-group organization; Reference 3 paragraphs 0030,0033-0035,0055,0059-0060 supply the explicit individual affinity-setting operation to implement those associations during each assigned analysis task. (L9): Reference 2 paragraphs 0033,0039 distribute work according to the allocated worker/core queues; applying that distribution to the N-1 railway workers allocates the analysis tasks according to the available pool. The parallel railway batch dispatch and affinity implementation are modifications, not an assertion of express anticipation.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform Reference 1's command-triggered railway analysis and result display with Reference 2's N-1 corresponding-core workers and Reference 3's affinity-setting operation, so the many separate curve analyses identified by Reference 1 can proceed concurrently without migrating each assigned task among cores during its processing. Preserving each curve's internal sequence maintains the abnormal-interval merging operation, while using separate workers for separate batches gives predictable concurrent execution and leaves a core for other processing. The method retains the railway inputs, comparison criteria and outputs rather than substituting a packet-analysis method.
________________________________________
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim Text
(L1) A non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: (L2) generate an analysis command; (L3) acquire the railway centralized signaling monitoring system data to be analyzed according to the analysis command; (L4) analyze the railway centralized signaling monitoring system data to obtain an analysis result; and (L5) display the analysis result; (L6) the memory stores an analysis procedure executed by the at least one processor in a data analysis module, and the analysis procedure is used to perform parallel batch processing using a plurality of processing threads and multi-thread concurrent operation on the railway centralized signaling monitoring system data to be analyzed to obtain the analysis result; (L7) N-1 threads are provided in the analysis procedure according to a number N of central processing unit (CPU) cores provided in the data analysis module, and each of the threads is used to analyze and calculate the railway centralized signaling monitoring system data to be analyzed; and (L8) setting processor affinity for each of the N-1 threads such that each thread is bound to a corresponding CPU core reserved for the thread's assigned analysis task; (L9) the data analysis module allocates analysis tasks to the corresponding threads according to the total number of the N-1 threads.
Analysis
(L1): Reference 2 paragraphs 0052-0059 disclose processing units 1010 executing program instructions stored in system memory 1025 and permanent storage device 1035 (Figure 10), providing a physical instruction-storing implementation, not reliance on a transitory signal. (L2), (L3), (L4), (L5): The stored program implements Reference 1's analysis command, access to stored railway-monitoring records, comparisons with selected criteria, and display of the analysis output (paragraphs 0019,0027,0029,0031-0034; Figures 1-2). (L6), (L7): Configure that program to dispatch separate railway curve batches concurrently to the N-1 corresponding-core workers of Reference 2 paragraphs 0033-0034 and Figure 3. (L8): Implement each worker's assignment to the corresponding shielded core of Reference 2 paragraphs 0034-0038 by the individual affinity-setting operation of Reference 3 paragraphs 0030,0033-0035,0055,0059-0060. (L9): Allocate the railway tasks according to the N-1 pool using the worker/core-queue distribution organization of Reference 2 paragraphs 0033,0039. The medium form does not omit any scheduling limitation; all are part of the stored program in the modification.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to store the combined railway analysis program on Reference 2's physical memory/storage media for execution by its processing units, including its N-1 worker organization and Reference 3's per-thread affinity setting, to implement reproducible concurrent analysis of Reference 1's stored railway curve batches. This uses the disclosed executable-program implementation for its ordinary storage and execution purpose while retaining the railway computation and display functions. Preserving within-curve order gives the same abnormal-interval analysis with the predictable benefit of concurrent execution of independent curve batches, without claiming a particular measured throughput.
________________________________________
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that changing "the analysis result" to "an analysis result" resolves the earlier introduction issue (Remarks, page 7). The argument is persuasive. The prior rejection based on that introduction is withdrawn, and the current grounds use the amended language.
Applicant argues that the former claim 8 language now incorporated into the independent claims defines a memory-stored analysis procedure performing parallel batch processing with multiple threads (Remarks, pages 7-8). The clarification is entered and considered. The present rejections address that complete procedure by combining Reference 1's independent railway-curve workloads with Reference 2's corresponding-core workers; they do not rely on the former wording defect.
Applicant argues that the former claim 9 language now incorporated into the independent claims requires processor affinity binding each thread to a corresponding core reserved for its assigned task (Remarks, page 8). The clarification is entered and considered. References 2 and 3 are applied together for the corresponding-core organization and the individual affinity-setting operation during the assigned task; no conclusion rests on the prior ambiguity.
Applicant argues that amended claim 11 clarifies storage of results from the same day, curve type and analysis parameter (Remarks, page 8). The revised phrase cures the former "same type" ambiguity. Claim 11 nevertheless depends from canceled claim 10. Claims 11-14 therefore remain objected to until applicant supplies a complete claim chain; no unentered parent is assumed in this action.
Applicant argues that claim 13 now introduces both a daily-curve analysis result and a turnout-curve analysis result (Remarks, page 8). The argument is persuasive as to the prior antecedent-basis concern. That prior basis is withdrawn, while the incomplete dependency inherited from claim 11 remains a separate formal matter.
Applicant argues that claim 14 now enumerates report information, abnormal-result fields, threshold values and links to detailed curve information (Remarks, page 8). The amendment and the supporting disclosure in Table 3 and paragraphs 0058-0065 resolve the former uncertainty concerning the report relationship. No rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is maintained for those fields; claim 14 remains within the incomplete claim 11 dependency chain.
Applicant argues that claim 17 now states the directions of the command and result transmissions among the central server, data service module and data analysis module (Remarks, page 9). The argument is persuasive as to the prior directional ambiguity, which is withdrawn. The separate grammatical informality in "further comprises" is addressed by the Claim Objections section, and the complete substantive limitations are addressed in the current claim 17 rejection.
Applicant argues that canceling claims 8-10 and incorporating their scheduling limitations into the independent claims eliminates the prior claim-chain uncertainty (Remarks, page 10). The incorporated limitations are examined in claims 1, 18 and 19. Cancellation of claim 10, however, leaves the express dependency of claim 11 incomplete; cancellation does not authorize substitution of a different parent.
Applicant argues that US 5,745,778 A does not disclose N-1 individually bound analysis threads or a core reserved for each assigned railway-analysis task (Remarks, page 11). That publication is not applied in the present grounds. Reference 2 instead supplies a worker population one below the total core count and corresponding-core assignments, and Reference 3 supplies the explicit affinity-setting operation. The present ground therefore does not infer the amended scheduling relationship from US 5,745,778 A.
Applicant argues that fixed thread-to-core binding would defeat the migration-based load-balancing strategy discussed in the prior record (Remarks, pages 11-12). The present combination does not import periodic migration from Reference 3. It uses Reference 3 only for setting individual affinity and retains Reference 2's corresponding-core, shielded-worker organization, so the worker remains associated with its assigned core while its batch task executes. The claim does not require permanent exclusion of all operating-system or root activity from that core.
Applicant argues that application-level allocation of railway-analysis tasks differs from operating-system or packet-scheduling operations and that the scheduling references are nonanalogous (Remarks, pages 12-14). The argument is not persuasive. Reference 1 supplies the railway computations, selected parameters and outputs, while References 2 and 3 address the reasonably pertinent problem of distributing independent computational work across a finite multicore processor. The proposed modification assigns separate railway curve batches to the N-1 worker pool and preserves the arithmetic and time order within each curve.
Applicant argues that the claimed reservation preserves processing resources for other station functions (Remarks, page 13). Reference 2's eligible-worker population is one below the total core count and separates shielded workers from generic work. Applying that topology to the railway workload leaves a core outside the N-1 analysis-worker pool, which predictably preserves processing capacity while the assigned workers perform the batch analysis.
Applicant argues that the amendments yield faster processing, predictable execution and reduced migration overhead, including the disclosed ten-minute processing example (Remarks, page 14). The record does not include comparative evidence establishing an unexpected result attributable to a limitation absent from the combination, and the numerical example is not recited. Concurrent processing of independent batches, task-duration core assignment and retention of within-curve order are predictable consequences of the proposed organization.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are patentable because they inherit the amended independent limitations (Remarks, page 15). Claims 2-7 are rejected on their complete inherited chains with separate mappings for customization, daily and turnout tasks, fluctuation and duration criteria, and the selected filter parameters. Claims 15-17 are rejected on their complete inherited chains with separate mappings for central routing, station placement and the station-side storage and forwarding service. Claims 11-14 are not rejected on an invented chain; they are objected to because their entered chain is incomplete.
Applicant argues that amended claims 18 and 19 are patentable because the prior art does not disclose their full N-1-thread, affinity and task-allocation language (Remarks, page 15). The former anticipation rejection of claim 18 is withdrawn. The present obviousness rejections map every recited scheduling operation using Reference 1's railway analysis, Reference 2's N-1 corresponding-core workers and Reference 3's explicit affinity setting, in the method and non-transitory-medium forms respectively.
________________________________________
Conclusion
Claims 1-7 and 11-19 are pending. Claims 1-7 and 15-19 are rejected. Claims 11-14 are objected to because their entered dependency chain is incomplete. Claim 17 is objected to for the grammatical informality stated above. Claims 18 and 19 are objected to for the introductory informalities stated above. Claims 8-10 are canceled. No pending claim is indicated allowable.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14 and 17-19 set forth in the Office action mailed June 16, 2026 are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed September 8, 2026 and the cancellation of claims 8 and 9. The formal canceled-base and introductory-wording objections in this action are separate from those withdrawn grounds. The prior anticipation rejection of claim 18 and the prior obviousness grounds are withdrawn and replaced by the current grounds set forth in this action.
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.
________________________________________
Art Considered but Not Applied
US 5,745,778 A was considered for multiprocessor thread scheduling, but its migration-oriented group scheduling does not provide the selected N-1 corresponding-core worker organization used in the current ground.
US 10,528,541 B2 was considered for SQLite report and metadata storage, but claims 11-14 have an incomplete entered dependency and are not rejected on an assumed parent in this action.
US 2021/0009175 A1 was considered for bidirectional railway monitoring communications and local preprocessing, but it does not provide a clearer station-local service that stores both the analyzed inputs and results while forwarding the claimed command and result than the applied station architecture.
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