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 .
The Remarks filed March 11, 2026 has been entered and are fully considered.
Claims 1 – 20 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mansfield (US 2019/0319835).
Regarding Claim 1:
Mansfield teaches a method comprising: receiving, at a computing system (204), a plurality of input parameters (via 806) for at least one railway vehicle (203), wherein the plurality of input parameters indicates a current location (via GNSS, paragraph 0068) of the at least one railway vehicle, a target destination (paragraph 0147) for the at least one railway vehicle, and one or more physical attribute (paragraphs 0096 – 0097, 10101) corresponding to the at least one railway vehicle; determining, based on the plurality of input parameters and railway map data (paragraph 0097), a route (paragraphs 0025 – 0028) for the at least one railway vehicle to navigate and a control strategy (via 404 and 300) for the at least one railway vehicle to use during navigation of the route, wherein the control strategy associates a speed range with one or more portions of the route for the at least one railway vehicle to use during navigation of the route (paragraph 0066); and providing, by the computing system, the control strategy and the route to a control system (via 300) of the at least one railway vehicle, wherein the control system is configured to control the at least one railway vehicle according to the control strategy during navigation of the route (Figs 2 – 7).
Regarding Claim 2:
Mansfield teaches determining the control strategy for the at least one railway vehicle to use to navigate the route comprises: determining, using a model, one or more speed ranges for the at least one railway vehicle to use to navigate the route, wherein the model is generated based on a combination of modern control theory and a fuzzy logic system (Fig 7).
Regarding Claim 3:
Mansfield teaches the fuzzy logic system is optimized using a genetic algorithm prior to generation of the model (Fig 7, paragraphs 0092 – 0093).
Regarding Claim 4:
Mansfield teaches receiving, during navigation of the route, sensor data (via 204) representing an environment of the at least one railway vehicle; detecting, based on the sensor data, a potential obstacle in the environment; and based on detecting the potential obstacle, providing an alert representing the potential obstacle to an operator via a Vehicle Management System (Fig 6, via 603, and see paragraph 0079).
Regarding Claim 5:
Mansfield teaches receiving, during navigation of the route, sensor data representing a change in a condition of the at least one railway vehicle; and modifying the control strategy based on the change in the condition of the at least one railway vehicle (paragraphs 0004, 0061).
Regarding Claim 6:
Mansfield teaches the computing system is coupled to the at least one railway vehicle, and wherein the at least one railway vehicle is a freight railway (209) vehicle retrofitted with one or more motors coupled to a battery system (paragraph 0070).
Regarding Claim 7:
Mansfield teaches receiving, during navigation of the route, real-time control parameters (via 202) for the at least one railway vehicle, wherein the real-time control parameters provide information about the one or more motors, the battery system, and a braking system of the at least one railway vehicle (paragraph 0019); and modifying the control strategy for the at least one railway vehicle based on the real-time control parameters (paragraph 0020).
Regarding Claim 8:
Mansfield teaches monitoring, based on the real-time control parameters, a state of the battery system; and wherein modifying the control strategy for the at least one railway vehicle comprises: modifying the control strategy based on the state of the battery system (paragraphs 0019 – 0020).
Regarding Claim 9:
Mansfield teaches the plurality of input parameters indicates weather conditions for one or more locations between the current location of the at least one railway vehicle and the target destination; and wherein determining the control strategy for the at least one railway vehicle to use to navigate the route comprises: determining the control strategy further based on the weather conditions for the one or more locations between the current location of the at least one railway vehicle and the target destination (Fig 6).
Regarding Claim 10:
Mansfield teaches receiving sensor data from one or more sensors coupled to the at least one railway vehicle; detecting a change in a condition of the at least one railway vehicle or an environment of the at least one railway vehicle; and modifying the control strategy to adjust one or more speed ranges or a stopping distance used by the at least one railway vehicle (Figs 2 – 6, paragraphs 004, 0061).
Regarding Claim 11:
Mansfield teaches providing the control strategy and the route to the control system of the at least one railway vehicle comprises: causing the control system to autonomously control the at least one railway vehicle during navigation of the route according to the control strategy while monitoring for one or more changes in an environment of the at least one railway vehicle or condition of the at least one railway vehicle (Fig 1, paragraph 0077).
Regarding Claim 12:
Mansfield teaches the computing system is positioned remotely from the at least one railway vehicle; and wherein providing the control strategy and the route to the control system of the at least one railway vehicle comprises: providing the control strategy and the route to the control system via wireless communication (Figs 2 – 7).
Regarding Claim 13:
Mansfield teaches receiving the plurality of input parameters for at least one railway vehicle comprises: receiving the plurality of input parameters corresponding to a set of railway vehicles, wherein the set of railway vehicles are coupled together to form a train, and wherein the set of railway vehicles comprises at least a first freight railway vehicle retrofitted with a first motor and a first battery system and a second freight railway vehicle retrofitted with a second motor and a second battery system (Figs 2 – 3, battery in 204).
Regarding Claim 14:
Mansfield teaches the plurality of input parameters corresponding to the set of railway vehicles includes a quantity of railway vehicles that form the train and respective power ratings for the first motor and the second motor (Figs 2 – 7).
Regarding Claim 15:
Mansfield teaches receiving weather data for one or more locations positioned along the route; and modifying the route or the control strategy for the at least one railway vehicle based on the weather data (via 204).
Regarding Claim 16:
Mansfield teaches receiving sensor data corresponding to a coupler positioned between a first railway vehicle and a second railway vehicle; and adjusting the control strategy for the first railway vehicle and the second railway vehicle based on the sensor data corresponding to the coupler (215, and via 204).
Regarding Claim 17:
See rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 18:
See rejection of Claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 19:
See rejection of Claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 20:
See rejection of Claim 1 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Pages 7 – 8 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that Mansfield does not teach the limitation “the control strategy associates a speed range with one or more portions of the route for the at least one railway vehicle to use during navigation of the route.” The Examiner disagrees and maintains the rejection because Mansfield clearly teaches this limitation. Paragraph 0066 of Mansfield describes a collection of sensors and satellite systems that track the vehicle’s motion and speed. Portions of a route are routinely referenced throughout the Specification of Mansfield (see paragraphs 0024, 0094 for example). Furthermore, Mansfield adequately describes associating a speed range with a portion of the route in paragraph 0174 in which a particular route is described to include a portion “Point A to Point C” traveling at a prescribed speed (30 mph) over time as an accelerometer, geographic location, and other data is accumulated. What the Applicant further argues on Page 8 of the Remarks with respect to outputting speed as a variable along a particular segment is not positively recited in the claim language. Under a broad but reasonable interpretation, the Examiner find Mansfield to teach what is currently claimed because a detected speed for a particular range of the trip is considered to be associating a speed range with a portion of the route.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LONG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1899. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/LONG T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights