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 (IDS) submitted on 3 June 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation – Alternative Conditions
As currently claimed, independent claim 11 recites the limitation “whether a force threshold of the track segment associated with the directive data is satisfied by the total force” (emphasis added). The inclusion of the term "whether" followed by a condition (with two or more implicit or explicit) possibilities, creates a limitation with alternative language and alternative conditions. Alternative language within a claim creates more than one situation/option for substantive examination of a single invention (e.g., option A is claimed, option B is not claimed, but still must exist due to logical extension and mutual exclusivity). As such, a second implicit situation/alternative that is not defined via an explicit claim limitation becomes relevant due to the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation principle. Under BRI, the use of alternative language obligates the examiner to interpret both the claimed/defined and unclaimed/undefined options to determine the broadest interpretation of the claim.
In claim 11, only one of the alternatives is explicitly defined (actions are taken when “the force threshold has been satisfied”). As a result, the examiner is obligated to interpret that nothing extraordinary occurs during the undefined alternative (e.g. the force threshold has not been satisfied). Accordingly, the undefined/implicit limitation is broader than the explicitly claimed alternative language because the implicit limitation does not include an additional limiting action. This will be the interpretation for claim 11.
As a related issue, claim 20 arises solely out of the non-invoked optional limitation. Thus, claim 20 is also non-invoked. To expedite prosecution, claims 11 and 20 are substantively examined.
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 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories.
Claim 11 recites receiving and comparing train and force data. The claim, as drafted, covers performance of comparison of data that can be carried out by a human mind. For example, the claim limitations encompass a person looking at the obtained data related to total force exerted on a track segment. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) UID, the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes [] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person looking at the obtained data related to vehicle energy usage determines the energy consumption, either mentally or using a pen and paper. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With regard to Step 2A, whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 11 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Claim 11 recites the additional tracking and determining information related to forces and a threshold estimating energy and forces related to a vehicle. The receiving, tracking and determining steps in the claim are recited at a high level of generality, and amount to mere data gathering. The generating step is a form of insignificant post-solution activity.
In addition, “a processor” is an additional element in claim 11 that merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Such additional elements that amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 11 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Further, applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the identifying steps are performing using anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of an action is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Thus, since claim 11 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 12-20 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. Therefore, claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) 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 as of the effective filing date of the later invention 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.
Claims 1-7, 9-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biduad (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0077733) in view of Braren, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,186,301).
For claim 1, Biduad discloses a force tracking system, comprising: a memory storing a plurality of data, thresholds, and specifications related to railroad assets (see paras. 0091-0096); and a processor operably coupled to the memory and capable of executing machine- readable instructions to perform program steps (see paras. 0091-0096), the program steps including: receiving train events and force data (see para. 0131); receiving a directive, including a type of directive, instructions of the directive, and a track segment associated with the directive data (see para. 0026, data; paras. 0023, 0018, 0137, segments). Biduad does not explicitly disclose the remaining limitations.
A teaching from Braren discloses tracking, via the processor, a total force exerted on one or more track segments associated with the directive (see col. 11:26-48); determining whether a force threshold of the track segment associated with the directive data is satisfied by the total force (see col. 11:26-48); and generating an alert indicating that the force threshold has been satisfied (see col. 11:26-48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Biduad with the teaching of Braren based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation of the need to keep trains moving to satisfy schedules and delivery timelines, railroad systems will often prioritize alerts that correspond to many potential issues, including detected wheel impact loads indicating wheel defects (see col. 1:41-46).
Referring to claim 2, Biduad further discloses wherein the train event is a train passing a track segment associated with a directive (see para. 0023).
With regards to claim 3, Biduad further teaches wherein the train event is a train of a particular speed and/or particular weight traveling over a track segment associated with the directive (see paras. 0020, 0084, 0114).
Regarding claim 4, Biduad further discloses wherein the train event is a maintenance incident or a hard-braking incident (see paras. 0015, 0093).
For claim 5, Braren further discloses wherein the force data includes weight or force measurements of trains on the track segment (see col. 11:26-48).
With reference to claim 6, Biduad further discloses wherein the directive data includes a slow order (see para. 0135).
Referring to claim 7, Biduad further teaches wherein the directive data includes a compaction slow order (see para. 0135, via defect).
Regarding claim 9, Biduad does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. However, maintaining a continuous total force calculation is well within the ordinary skill of one in the art and would have reasonable expectation of success based on the motivation to monitor the lifetime forces of detected wheel impact loads indicating wheel defects (see col. 1:41-46).
For claim 10, Biduad does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. However, making a determination that a threshold is satisfied if the total force exceeds the threshold is well within the ordinary skill of one in the art and would have reasonable expectation of success based on the motivation to monitor the forces of detected wheel impact loads indicating wheel defects (see col. 1:41-46).
Claim 11 largely mirrors the subject matter of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning applied to claim 1.
Claim 12 largely mirrors the subject matter of claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning applied to claim 2.
Claim 13 largely mirrors the subject matter of claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning applied to claim 3.
Claim 14 largely mirrors the subject matter of claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning applied to claim 4.
Claim 15 largely mirrors the subject matter of claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning applied to claim 5.
Claim 16 largely mirrors the subject matter of claim 6. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning applied to claim 6.
Claim 17 largely mirrors the subject matter of claim 7. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning applied to claim 7.
Claim 19 largely mirrors the subject matter of claim 9. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning applied to claim 9.
Claim 20 largely mirrors the subject matter of claim 10. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning applied to claim 10.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biduad (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0077733) and Braren, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,186,301), as applied to claims 1 and 11, in view of Brooks, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,623,884).
For claim 8, Biduad does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. A teaching from Brooks discloses wherein the program steps further include receiving data related to a force threshold needed to be satisfied to modify the directive (see col. 18:1-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Biduad with the teaching of Brooks based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation a method and system for independently adjusting settings on one or more locomotives of a train consist to improve overall performance (see col. 1:14-16).
Claim 18 largely mirrors the subject matter of claim 8. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning applied to claim 8.
Conclusion
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire cited reference, as well as any secondary teaching reference(s), are considered to provide relevant disclosure relating to the claimed invention. Applicant is herein considered to have implicit knowledge of all teachings of the prior art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663