DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-7 and 9-21 of application 18/736,713, filed on 7-June-2024, are presented for examination. The following communication is in response to the amendment received on 23-December-2025. Claim 8 was cancelled by the amendment. Further, the specific arguments as presented in applicant’s present response, on pages 9-15, are considered persuasive, and therefore the previously applied rejections have been withdrawn. New rejections are provided in response to applicant’s arguments, which are determined to render these arguments moot.
The present application, filed on or after 16-March-2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
2.1 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) 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.
2.2 Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint Inventor regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 9, the claimed features depend from claim 8, which has been canceled by the amendment. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.
Claim 10 is rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
3.1 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 the objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
3.2.1 Claims 1-7, 9-13 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Peltz et al, USP Publication 2005/0253022, in view of Muinonen et al, USP 8,332,086.
3.2.2 Peltz discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but does not specifically disclose all of the features of claims 1-7, 9-13 and 15-21. However, in an analogous prior art reference in the same field of endeavor and/or reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved, Muinonen, hereinafter (M), describes these features, including: *Note: unless otherwise indicated, all of the following citations are to Peltz.
Claims 1, 15 and 20: In regard to claim 20, automating a train car classification process [¶0003; 0007; 0019 (automatically performs a requested car kicking procedure according the instructions stored in memory 46 that have been included in the signal 25.)], comprising:
a controller communicatively coupled to a locomotive, the controller including at least one first processor and at least one first memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one first processor, cause the at least one first processor to perform operations including [0014 (a portable operator controlled unit (OCU) 11 that is hand-held by an operator 12 on the ground, and a slave control unit 14 on the locomotive 13, which is interfaced with a locomotive onboard operating system 15.); 0016; Fig. 1 (11)]:
receiving information indicating at least one train car within a classification yard [0003 ("Car-kicking" is a method of breaking apart an existing train at a predetermined location in the string of railcars. Car-kicking is used at industrial sites, or in railcar classification yards, where a conventional hump/automatic retarder classification system is not available.)] and a classification track within the classification yard [0018 (The processor 24 translates/interprets the signal 25, and generates an output including at least a portion of a set of stored instructions 26 in accordance with the predetermined car-kicking sequence. The stored instructions 26 may include an algorithm associated with an acceleration sequence and/or deceleration sequence necessary to perform a car-kicking sequence.)];
generating, based at least in part on the at least one train car and the classification track , at least one classification control command for the locomotive [0005 (a number of parameters such as the number of cars to be "kicked", the weight of each car and the distance the cars are to be kicked from the locomotive); 0007 (The portable control unit generates a command signal responsive to the input command and indicative of the car-kicking sequence for the locomotive. The remote control system also comprises an on-board control unit, interfaced with the locomotive onboard operating system, for receiving the signal.)]; and
in response to receiving an approval command generated in response to a selection made within a graphical user interface of an automated classification application [0007 (The remote control system described herein may comprise a portable control unit having an operator interface for inputting commands associated with movement of the locomotive, wherein the operator interface comprises an input mechanism mounted on the portable control unit for inputting at least one command associated with a predetermined car-kicking sequence for the locomotive.); 0014 (an operator interface that comprises a plurality of input mechanisms such as switches, keyboard, touch-sensitive screens, buttons, levers, dials or voice-activated devices for inputting commands for the operation of the locomotive.)], causing the locomotive to execute the at least one classification control command [0008 (A method of performing a remote controlled car-kicking operation with a locomotive and railcars is described herein as comprising the steps of providing a remote control operator unit to control movement of the locomotive responsive to a command input into the control unit)], wherein execution of the at least one classification control command by the locomotive moves the at least one train car to the classification track [0005 (Both the ground operator and locomotive engineer know which cars are to "kick" off of the train. The locomotive engineer may consider a number of parameters such as the number of cars to be "kicked", the weight of each car and the distance the cars are to be kicked from the locomotive, in order to time the deceleration of the locomotive so the uncoupled cars have sufficient momentum to roll through the repositioned switches and for a sufficient distance onto the side rail.)]; and
at least one second processor [0016; Fig. 1 (24); (M):col. 7:ln(s) 1-40]; and
at least one second memory storing second instructions [0018; (M):7:30] that, when executed by the at least one second processor, cause the at least one second processor to perform operations including:
executing the automated classification application [0018 (The stored instructions 26 may
include an algorithm associated with an acceleration sequence and/or deceleration sequence necessary to perform a car-kicking sequence. The onboard operating system or the operator control unit are equipped with a memory for storing the instructions.); (M):7:6-40];
displaying the graphical user interface within a display operatively coupled to the computing device [0014 (an operator interface that comprises a plurality of input mechanisms such as switches, keyboard, touch-sensitive screens, buttons, levers, dials or voice-activated devices for inputting commands for the operation of the locomotive.); (M):7:32-36]; and
automatically and electronically causing at least one switch included in the classification yard to guide the at least one train car to the classification track while the locomotive executes the at least one classification control command [(M):1:47-51 (The second type of switch mechanism is a flat switch. The principle is generally the same as a hump yard except that instead of using gravity to direct railcars to selected classification tracks, a locomotive is used to push the railcar from the receiving tracks to the selected set of classification tracks.); 5:8-20 (However, it should be expressly noted that the principles of the invention apply equally well to a flat switchyard. Accordingly, the invention should not be limited to a hump switchyard but encompasses a flat switchyard as well. A flat switchyard operates generally in the same way as described earlier in that incoming trains deliver railcars at the input side of the flat switchyard, a switching device routes the individual railcars to classification tracks to assemble departure trains in departure tracks.); 6:3-14 (The HPCS component 32 operates the track switch in the hump switchyard 10. Essentially, the HPCS component 32 is a railcar switch control system that determines on the basis of inputs the position of the track switch 24 such that a railcar or a series of railcars over the hump, will be directed to the desired classification track 16); 9:34-63 (The flowchart at FIG. 5 illustrates generally the steps of an example of the process for finding a preferred switching sequence (i.e. of at least one switch) of railcars. For the purpose of the following description note that the expressions "humping sequence" and "switching sequence" may be used to designate the same or similar process but the expressions have a different scope. "Humping sequence" refers to a sequence of railcars processed in a hump switchyard, such as the one shown at FIG. 1. "Switching sequence" on the other hand is more general and refers to a sequence of railcars to be processed either in a flat switchyard or in a hump switchyard.); 11:4-10) (The score for anyone of the given sequences to be evaluated is the total of the score for all the railcars in the cut (without intent to be bound by any specific definition, in the railroad industry a "cut" refers to any number of railcars attached to be pulled by an engine.))].
Claims 2 and 16: further comprising receiving the information indicating the at least one train car and the classification track within a switch list from a yard planning system [0017 (The parameter data may correspond to such car-kicking function a target locomotive speed, a maximum and/or minimum time period for maintaining the target speed, brake pressure, a maximum and/or minimum time period for applying brake pressure, weight of the cars to be cut, grade of the tracks, etc.); 0018 (The processor 24 translates/interprets the signal 25, and generates an output including at least a portion of a set of stored instructions 26 in accordance with the predetermined car-kicking sequence. The stored instructions 26 may include an algorithm associated with an acceleration sequence and/or deceleration sequence necessary to perform a car-kicking sequence.); 0023 (the operator control unit 11 and operator interface 16 may include an instruction display mode and input mechanism to display a list of instructions 26 for each of a variety of conditions, and input a selected instruction.)].
Claim 3: wherein the switch list specifies a destination of the at least one train car and further comprising determining, based on the destination of the at least one train car, the classification track within the classification yard [0005 (Both the ground operator and locomotive engineer know which cars are to "kick" off of the train. The locomotive engineer may consider a number of parameters such as the number of cars to be "kicked", the weight of each car and the distance the cars are to be kicked from the locomotive, in order to time the deceleration of the locomotive so the uncoupled cars have sufficient momentum to roll through the repositioned switches and for a sufficient distance onto the side rail.)].
Claim 4: wherein the switch list specifies the classification track [0004 (the uncoupled cars continue to roll toward the desired track through the aligned switches); 0005 (If several railcars or groups of cars are to be sent to other tracks in the classification yard, or industrial sidings, the ground man will call for another "shove" from the locomotive while the switchman repositions track switches to align the next set of uncoupled cars to roll onto another track.)].
Claim 5: wherein the at least one classification control command is further generated based at least in part on a classification track configuration of the classification yard [0023 (An operator 12 may adapt the instructions 26 in accordance with varying weather conditions or features of a particular switching yard. In addition, the operator 12 may adapt the instructions 26 according to the operation of a particular locomotive 13 in a particular switching yard and/or under particular weather conditions.); 0017 (…grade of the tracks)].
Claim 6: wherein the at least one classification control command includes a throttle command and a brake command [0017 (The parameter data may correspond to such car-kicking function a target locomotive speed, a maximum and/or minimum time period for maintaining the target speed, brake pressure, a maximum and/or minimum time period for applying brake pressure, weight of the cars to be cut, grade of the tracks, etc.); 0018 (the algorithm may include instructions to accelerate the locomotive 13 in reverse to a target speed of 6 miles per hour and/or apply brakes at a pressure of 70 psi until the locomotive reaches 3 miles per hour, after which the brakes would be "feathered-off" to 20 psi until the locomotive comes to a stop.); 0020 (The operator control unit 11 also includes the typical command input mechanisms to control the functions of the locomotive 13, such as speed, direction, braking, lights, horns, sanding etc.); 0024 (A second exemplary embodiment automates the acceleration and deceleration of the locomotive target speed to perform a predetermined car-kicking sequence. Accordingly, the stored instructions 26 control a sequence of locomotive 13 operations to accelerate the locomotive 13 to a target speed prior to decelerating the locomotive 13, by braking (including brake-reduction) and sanding.)].
Claim 7: wherein the at least one classification control command specifies a required runway length [0005 (Both the ground operator and locomotive engineer know which cars are to "kick" off of the train. The locomotive engineer may consider a number of parameters such as the number of cars to be "kicked", the weight of each car and the distance the cars are to be kicked from the locomotive, in order to time the deceleration of the locomotive so the uncoupled cars have sufficient momentum to roll through the repositioned switches and for a sufficient distance onto the side rail.)].
Claim 9: further comprising receiving an approval command to execute the at least one classification control command and prompting the classification locomotive to execute the at least one classification control command in response to receiving the approval command [0007; 0008; 0014; 0015; 0017; 0018; 0022; 0024; 0026].
Claim 10: wherein the approval command is generated in response to a selection within a graphical user interface provided by an automated classification application [0007 (The remote control system described herein may comprise a portable control unit having an operator interface for inputting commands associated with movement of the locomotive, wherein the operator interface comprises an input mechanism mounted on the portable control unit for inputting at least one command associated with a predetermined car-kicking sequence for the locomotive.)].
Claims 11 and 17: wherein generating the at least one classification control command further comprises determining an amount of momentum required to move the at least one train car to the classification track [0005 (Both the ground operator and locomotive engineer know which cars are to "kick" off of the train. The locomotive engineer may consider a number of parameters such as the number of cars to be "kicked", the weight of each car and the distance the cars are to be kicked from the locomotive, in order to time the deceleration of the locomotive so the uncoupled cars have sufficient momentum to roll through the repositioned switches and for a sufficient distance onto the side rail.)].
Claims 12 and 18: further comprising determining train car characteristics for the at least one train car and wherein the amount of momentum required to move the at least one train car to the classification track is determined based on the train car characteristics [0005 (Both the ground operator and locomotive engineer know which cars are to "kick" off of the train. The locomotive engineer may consider a number of parameters such as the number of cars to be "kicked", the weight of each car and the distance the cars are to be kicked from the locomotive, in order to time the deceleration of the locomotive so the uncoupled cars have sufficient momentum to roll through the repositioned switches and for a sufficient distance onto the side rail.)].
Claims 13 and 19: wherein the information indicating the at least one train car includes the train car characteristics [0005 (a number of parameters such as the number of cars to be "kicked", the weight of each car and the distance the cars are to be kicked from the locomotive); 0017 (…weight of the cars to be cut)].
Claim 21: further comprising causing a coupling device coupling the at least one train car to the classification locomotive to uncouple the at least one train car and the classification locomotive while the classification locomotive executes the at least one classification control command [0004 (The locomotive accelerates the railcars to be kicked to a desired speed and toward aligned switches. When the cars are moving, or when the desired speed is achieved, a man on the ground pulls the coupling pin from between adjacent railcars where the train will be broken.); 0007 (A locomotive remote control system interfaced with a locomotive onboard operating system is described herein enables a ground operator to effectively perform both the functions of controlling the movement of a locomotive performing a car-kicking sequence and pulling a coupling pin from between adjacent railcars.); 0008].
3.2.3 Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the remotely controlled locomotive car-kicking control system as described by Peltz, with the system for forecasting the outbound workload in a switchyard as disclosed by Muinonen, because switchyard operations planning is done either manually or via simple management tools, and in order to increase the efficiency of those operations, there is a need to provide an automated system that can forecast the outbound workload and thus provide the yard master with a projection of the traffic that can be available to departure trains [(M):2:14-20], with a reasonably predictable expectation of success.
3.3.1 Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Peltz et al, USP Publication 2005/0253022, in view of Staples, USP 3,944,986.
3.3.2 Peltz discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but does not specifically disclose all of the features of claim 14. However, in an analogous prior art reference in the same field of endeavor and/or reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved, Staples describes these features, including:
Claim 14: wherein the information indicating the at least one train car includes a unique identifier for the at least one train car and further comprising retrieving the train car characteristics from a database of train car characteristics using the unique identifier. [col. 5:lns. 3-10 (During classification operations, data concerning car locations, i.e., inventory and car identification, both as to serial numbers and car parameters, is produced, correlated, and entered by the CPU into the Data File element, which represents the data storage capability of the data processing center. Such stored data may be recalled as needed in other operational procedures of the CPU); 3: 9-17 (As part of the yard control operations arrangement, an inventory by serial number of the cars occupying the storage tracks of the yard is also maintained by the data processing means with the car numbers recorded by any known kind of manual or automatic car identification system. Various parameters of the classified cars, such as length, number of wheels, and weight, are also stored in the data processing arrangement.)].
3.3.3 Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the remotely controlled locomotive car-kicking control system as described by Peltz, with the vehicle movement control system for railroad terminals as disclosed by Staples, because the input of the work assignment or vehicle movement command into the central processing unit activates the preparation of a work list format which is transmitted to the selected mobile work unit which may best accomplish the work assignment. The work command format is an item-by-item list in the sequential order that is to be followed in performing the assigned task. If vehicle movements are involved, for example, the switching of railroad cars, the format lists in order the movements that are to be made by the switching locomotive to complete the assignment in the most efficient and economical manner, with a reasonably predictable expectation of success.
Prior Art
4. The following prior art, discovered in an updated search and herein made of record, is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, and consists of documents A-E on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Document A defines a document of particular relevance, wherein the claimed invention cannot be considered to involve an inventive step when the document is combined with one or more other such documents, such combination being obvious to a person skilled in the art.
Documents B-E define the general state of the art which is not considered to be of particular relevance.
Prior Art of Record
5. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure (see MPEP §2163.06). Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. [SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123].
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art [See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966)]. Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference [See In re Freda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963)]. Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art [See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973)]. Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references [See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962)].
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-21 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references being used in the current rejection.
7. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL [See M.P.E.P. § 706.07(a)]. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
Response Guidelines
8.1 A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR RESONSE TO THIS FINAL ACTION IS SET TO EXPIRE THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ACTION. IN THE EVENT A FIRST RESPONSE 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 ADIVISORY ACTION IS MAILED, AND ANY EXTENSION FEE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 1.136(a) WILL BE CALCULATED FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THE ADVISORY ACTION. IN NO EVENT, HOWEVER, WILL THE STATUTORY PERIOD FOR RESPONSE EXPIRE LATER THAN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS FINAL ACTION.
8.2 Any response to the Examiner in regard to this final action should be
directed to: Russell Frejd, telephone number (571) 272-3779, Monday-Friday from 0730 to
1600 ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful,
please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Nolan, who can be reached at
(571) 270-7016.
mailed to: Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
faxed to: (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.
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.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to the Customer Service Window, Randolph Building, 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314.
/RUSSELL FREJD/
Primary Examiner AU 3661