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 Statements (IDS) filed on 03/11/2026 has been acknowledged.
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending.
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 03/11/2026.
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 1-8, 10-12, 14, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 15 is directed to a method. Therefore, claim 15 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claims 1 and 15 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and Claim 1 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
Claim 1 recites: An apparatus for determining position uncertainty of a vehicle in proximity to a wayside device, the apparatus comprising:
a control circuit located on-board a vehicle comprising a leading edge, wherein the control circuit is configured to:
receive a wayside signal from a wayside device positioned along a route to be traveled by the vehicle, wherein the wayside signal represents a location of the wayside device;
receive a leading edge signal from a positioning system, wherein the leading edge signal represents a location of the leading edge of the vehicle;
determine a distance between the leading edge of the vehicle based on the leading edge signal received from the positioning system and the location of the wayside device associated with the wayside signal;
calculate a position uncertainty of the leading edge of the vehicle;
and determine whether the wayside device is within the position uncertainty.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “calculating and determining” steps encompass a user to make make conclusions/decisions based on the data given. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “control circuit”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “control circuit” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the calculating and determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the control circuit is claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a control circuit. Furthermore, the examiner submits that the recitations of determining distance and calculating position uncertainty is a mere definition that does not necessarily impose any meaningful limits on performing the steps in the human mind, as it only compares data where a user could in fact perform this mentally or using paper and pencil. In addition to that, the examiner submits that receiving data and using a control circuit, are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a control circuit to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of data transfer for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a control circuit or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent Claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the apparatus, the control circuit amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of receiving data, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of receiving the data are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors from which the data is acquired/received are all conventional sensors. 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 collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Further Claims 15 are not patent eligible for the same reasons.
Dependent Claims 2-8, 10-12, 14, and 16-20 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with Claims 1 and 15.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US-20090105893-A1 (“Kernwein93”).
Regarding claim 9, Kernwein93 teaches an apparatus for indicating position uncertainty of a vehicle in proximity to a wayside device, the apparatus comprising (Kernwein93 Abstract “A system for determining a possible location of a train in a track network including interconnected tracks having wayside devices associated with these tracks.”):
a user interface coupled to a control circuit (Kernwein93 ref 28 “on-board control system”) located on-board a vehicle (Kernwein93 [0041] “a display 36 can be provided in the train TR for use in presenting information and data to the operator.”) comprising a leading edge (Kernwein93 Fig. 4a), wherein the user interface is configured to display:
a first icon representing a wayside device at a location of the wayside device (Kernwein93 [0028] – [0029] “wayside devices WD (e.g., signal devices S, track circuit monitoring devices MD, etc.) … with respect to signal devices S, various symbols, colors and other visual indicators are used to provide the train operator with information for use in operating the train TR.”);
a second icon representing the vehicle at a location of the vehicle (Kernwein93 [0029] “the signal system data SD provides some indication of the location of a train TR with respect to the signal S.”);
and an indication of whether the wayside device is within the position uncertainty or outside the position uncertainty (Kernwein93 [0029] – [0030] “the signal system data SD provides some indication of the location of a train TR with respect to the signal S. … wayside devices WD (whether in the form of signal devices S or track circuit monitoring devices MD) may provide signal system data SD to the train TR for use in both manual control by the operator, as well as automated control by an on-board control system.”).
Regarding claim 13, Kernwein93 teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 9. Kernwein93 further discloses that the control circuit is configured to: receive a global positioning system (GPS) signal (Kernwein93 [0037] – [0038] “the positioning system 12 may be a global positioning system (GPS). … receiving transmitted data in a wireless, hardwired or similar form and format.”); and based on a receipt of the GPS signal, set the position uncertainty to a minimum distance; and wherein the user interface is configured to update the position uncertainty to the minimum distance (Kernwein93 [0037] “the estimated location area 18 may take the form of a circle with a radius of tolerance (or error). See FIGS. 3(a)-(b).”).
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.
Claim(s) 10-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kernwein93 in view of US-20200393287-A1 to Davis et. al. (“Davis”).
Regarding claim 10, Kernwein93 teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Kernwein93 further discloses that the user interface is configured to display a distance distance (Kernwein93 [0054] “collision avoidance function to provide extra safety and analysis of trains TR located in the same general area, e.g., area of consideration 38, etc… the appropriate warnings would be provided to the operator”). Kernwein93 does not disclose that the distance is a buffer distance and that the control circuit is configured to: determine a buffer distance, wherein the buffer distance is based on a distance to be traveled before the vehicle comes to a stop. However, Davis teaches that the distance is a buffer distance and that the control circuit is configured to: determine a buffer distance, wherein the buffer distance is based on a distance to be traveled before the vehicle comes to a stop (Davis [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Davis to Kernwein93 such that the distance is a buffer distance and that the control circuit is configured to: determine a buffer distance, wherein the buffer distance is based on a distance to be traveled before the vehicle comes to a stop. Doing so would ensure no accidents or crashes occur.
Regarding claim 11, Kernwein93 as modified by Davis teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10. Kernwein93 further discloses that the control circuit is configured to determine whether the wayside device is located within a segment defined by the buffer distance plus the position uncertainty (Kernwein93 Fig. 5a and [0045] “computer 16 determines or calculates an area of consideration 38. Further, this area of consideration 38 is determined based at least in part upon the track route forward TF, track route backward TB, as well as the determined estimated location area 18.” & [0046] “Once the area of consideration 38 has been determined, the system 10 may then determine which wayside devices WD within that area 38 govern the movement in the travel direction TD of the train TR.”) and wherein the user interface is configured to display an indication that the wayside device is located within the segment defined by buffer distance plus the position uncertainty (Kernwein93 [0041]).
Regarding claim 12, Kernwein93 as modified by Davis teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10. Kernwein93 further discloses that the control circuit is configured to determine whether the wayside device is not located within a segment defined by the buffer distance plus the position uncertainty and wherein the user interface is configured to display an indication (Kernwein93 [0041]) that the wayside device is not located in within the segment defined by the buffer distance plus the position uncertainty (Kernwein93 [0048] “if none of the or multiple wayside devices WD exhibit a modified signal aspect or signal system data SD, the actual position of the train TR is left unresolved.”).
Regarding claim 14, Kernwein93 as modified by Davis teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10. Kernwein93 further discloses that based on the vehicle moving below a threshold speed, the user interface is configured to display: an icon representing the location of the wayside device (Kernwein93 [0029] “various symbols, colors and other visual indicators are used to provide the train operator with information for use in operating the train TR. … color yellow may indicate that some caution or control is required. Further, the color red normally indicates that the train TR must stop”); and an indication of whether the wayside device is within the position uncertainty (Kernwein93 [0029] – [0030] “the signal system data SD provides some indication of the location of a train TR with respect to the signal S. … wayside devices WD (whether in the form of signal devices S or track circuit monitoring devices MD) may provide signal system data SD to the train TR for use in both manual control by the operator, as well as automated control by an on-board control system.”).
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20200055532-A1 to Schultz et. al. (“Schultz”) in view of US-20090105893-A1 (“Kernwein93”), further in view of US-20150353110-A1 to Kernwein et. al. (“Kernwein10”).
Regarding claim 1, Schultz teaches receiving a leading edge signal (Schultz [0030] “The system architecture used to support the functionality of at least some of the methods and systems described herein includes: the train management computer or other on-board processor 10 (which performs calculations for or within the PTC system, including navigation and enforcement calculations); the communication device 12 (e.g., a data radio) (which may be used to facilitate the communications between the on-board processor(s) 10 in one or more of the locomotives or control cars of a train, communications with a wayside device, e.g., signals, switch monitors, wayside devices, and the like”) from a positioning system (Schultz [0030] “a navigation system 16 (optionally including a positioning system 18 (e.g., a Global Positioning System (GPS))”), wherein the leading edge signal represents a location of the leading edge of the vehicle (Schultz Claim 13 “determine an estimated time of arrival of a leading edge or lead vehicle of the vehicle system at a first target location associated with a forward route of the vehicle system, based at least partially on the current location of the leading edge”); and determining a distance between the leading edge of the vehicle based on the leading edge signal received from the positioning system and the location of a device associated with a signal (Schultz [0036] “a distance of the leading edge of the train to the station stop signal (ST) at points (2) and (3) is the same, i.e., D2=D3=distance of the leading edge of the train to the station stop signal; a distance of the leading edge of the train to the near side (NS) of the island crossing circuit”);
Schultz does not teach that the device associated with the signal is a wayside device, as well as an apparatus for determining position uncertainty of a vehicle in proximity to a wayside device, the apparatus comprising:
a control circuit located on-board a vehicle comprising a leading edge, wherein the control circuit is configured to:
receive a wayside signal from a wayside device positioned along a route to be traveled by the vehicle, wherein the wayside signal represents a location of the wayside device; and
determine whether the wayside device is within an uncertainty.
However, Kernwein93 teaches that the device associated with the signal is a wayside device (Kernwein93 Abstract “obtains signal system data for at least one wayside device associated with at least one of the tracks identified within the estimated location area”), as well as an apparatus for determining position uncertainty of a vehicle in proximity to a wayside device (Kernwein93 Abstract “A system for determining a possible location of a train in a track network including interconnected tracks having wayside devices associated with these tracks.”), the apparatus comprising:
a control circuit located on-board a vehicle (Kernwein93 ref 28 “on-board control system”) comprising a leading edge (Kernwein93 Fig. 4a), wherein the control circuit is configured to:
receive a wayside signal from a wayside device positioned along a route to be traveled by the vehicle (Kernwein93 Abstract “obtains signal system data for at least one wayside device associated with at least one of the tracks identified within the estimated location area”), wherein the wayside signal represents a location of the wayside device (Kernwein93 Fig. 3(a) “WD” and [0036] “signal system data SD may take many forms. For example, this signal system data SD may be … wayside device WD location data, e.g., where the wayside device WD is located or positioned with respect to the track T in the track network TN”); and
determine whether the wayside device is within an uncertainty (Kernwein93 [0037] “the estimated location area 18 may take the form of a circle with a radius of tolerance (or error).” and [0045] – [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the apparatus of Schultz to incorporate the teachings of Kernwein93 such that the device associated with the signal is a wayside device, as well as an apparatus for determining position uncertainty of a vehicle in proximity to a wayside device, the apparatus comprising: a control circuit located on-board a vehicle comprising a leading edge, wherein the control circuit is configured to: receive a wayside signal from a wayside device positioned along a route to be traveled by the vehicle, wherein the wayside signal represents a location of the wayside device; and determine whether the wayside device is within an uncertainty. Doing so would provide additional validation and determination of exact train locations which, ensures safety on and along the tracks (Kernwein93 [0010]).
Schultz as modified by Kernwein93 does not teach that the uncertainty is a position uncertainty, and calculating a position uncertainty of the leading edge of the vehicle. However, Kernwein10 teaches that the uncertainty is a position uncertainty, and calculating a position uncertainty of the leading edge of the vehicle (Kernwein10 [0043] “position data may include at least one of the following: train leading edge data” and [0048] “the position data includes position uncertainty data, which may be determined by the identifying train (or in other embodiments, the target train).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Kernwein10 to Schultz as modified by Kernwein93 such that the uncertainty is a position uncertainty, and calculating a position uncertainty of the leading edge of the vehicle. Doing so would lead to configurations of a safety factor or buffer for a target train, as well as avoids any chance of collision between trains (Kernwein10 [0048]).
Regarding claim 2, Schultz as modified by Kernwein93 and Kernwein10 teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Kernwein93 further discloses:
a user interface coupled to the control circuit, wherein the user interface is configured to display (Kernwein93 [0041] “a display 36 can be provided in the train TR for use in presenting information and data to the operator.”):
an icon representing the location of the wayside device (Kernwein93 [0029] “various symbols, colors and other visual indicators are used to provide the train operator with information for use in operating the train TR.” And [0041] “the display 36 may present estimated location area 18”); and
an indication of whether the wayside device is within the position uncertainty (Kernwein93 [0029] “Therefore, the signal system data SD provides some indication of the location of a train TR with respect to the signal S.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Kernwein93 to Schultz as modified by Kernwein93 and Kernwein10 such that the apparatus comprises a user interface coupled to the control circuit, wherein the user interface is configured to display: an icon representing the location of the wayside device; and an indication of whether the wayside device is within the position uncertainty uncertainty is a position uncertainty, and calculating a position uncertainty of the leading edge of the vehicle. Doing so would provide additional validation and determination of exact train locations which, ensures safety on and along the tracks (Kernwein93 [0010]).
Regarding claim 6, Schultz as modified by Kernwein93 and Kernwein10 teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Kernwein93 further discloses that the positioning system is a global positioning system (GPS) (Kernwein93 [0037] “the positioning system 12 may be a global positioning system (GPS).”), and wherein the control circuit is configured to: receive a GPS signal (Kernwein93 [0038] “receiving transmitted data in a wireless, hardwired or similar form and format.”); and upon receipt of the GPS signal, set the position uncertainty to a minimum distance (Kernwein93 [0037] “the estimated location area 18 may take the form of a circle with a radius of tolerance (or error). See FIGS. 3(a)-(b).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Kernwein93 to Schultz as modified by Kernwein93 and Kernwein10 such that the positioning system is a global positioning system (GPS), and wherein the control circuit is configured to: receive a GPS signal; and upon receipt of the GPS signal, set the position uncertainty to a minimum distance. Doing so would provide additional validation and determination of exact train locations which, ensures safety on and along the tracks (Kernwein93 [0010]).
Regarding claim 7, Schultz as modified by Kernwein93 and Kernwein10 teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 6. Kernwein93 further discloses that the control circuit is configured to increment the position uncertainty over time (Kernwein93 [0046] “Since the train TR will be moving, and there are often communications delays, the area of consideration 38 should be large enough to account for any error in the positioning system 12, as well as the distance traveled by the train TR as a function of time required to communicate with the signal devices S.” and Fig. 3a-3b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Kernwein93 to Schultz as modified by Kernwein93 and Kernwein10 such that the control circuit is configured to increment the position uncertainty over time. Doing so would provide additional validation and determination of exact train locations which, ensures safety on and along the tracks (Kernwein93 [0010]).
Regarding claim 8, Schultz as modified by Kernwein93 and Kernwein10 teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Kernwein93 further discloses a user interface coupled to the control circuit (Kernwein93 [0041] “a display 36 can be provided in the train TR for use in presenting information and data to the operator.”), based on the vehicle moving below a threshold speed, the user interface is configured to display: an icon representing the location of the wayside device (Kernwein93 [0029] “various symbols, colors and other visual indicators are used to provide the train operator with information for use in operating the train TR. … color yellow may indicate that some caution or control is required. Further, the color red normally indicates that the train TR must stop”); and an indication of whether the wayside device is within the position uncertainty (Kernwein93 [0029] – [0030] “the signal system data SD provides some indication of the location of a train TR with respect to the signal S. … wayside devices WD (whether in the form of signal devices S or track circuit monitoring devices MD) may provide signal system data SD to the train TR for use in both manual control by the operator, as well as automated control by an on-board control system.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Kernwein93 to Schultz as modified by Kernwein93 and Kernwein10 such that the apparatus comprises a user interface coupled to the control circuit, based on the vehicle moving below a threshold speed, the user interface is configured to display: an icon representing the location of the wayside device; and an indication of whether the wayside device is within the position uncertainty. Doing so would provide additional validation and determination of exact train locations which, ensures safety on and along the tracks (Kernwein93 [0010]).
With respect to claims 15-16, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claims 1-2. The apparatus taught/disclosed in claims 1-2 can clearly perform the method of claims 15-16. Therefore claims 15-16 are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 17, Schultz as modified by Kernwein93 and Kernwein10 teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 16. Kernwein93 further discloses receiving a global position system (GPS) signal (Kernwein93 [0037] – [0038] “the positioning system 12 may be a global positioning system (GPS). … receiving transmitted data in a wireless, hardwired or similar form and format.”); setting the position uncertainty to a minimum distance based on the GPS signal (Kernwein93 [0037] “the estimated location area 18 may take the form of a circle with a radius of tolerance (or error). See FIGS. 3(a)-(b).”); and displaying the position uncertainty (Kernwein93 [0041] “a display 36 can be provided in the train TR for use in presenting information and data to the operator.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Kernwein93 to Schultz as modified by Kernwein93 and Kernwein10 such that the apparatus comprises receiving a GPS signal; setting the position uncertainty to a minimum distance based on the GPS signal; and displaying the position uncertainty. Doing so would provide additional validation and determination of exact train locations which, ensures safety on and along the tracks (Kernwein93 [0010]).
Claim(s) 3-5 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz in view of Kernwein93, further in view of Kernwein10 and US-20200393287-A1 to Davis et. al. (“Davis”).
Regarding claim 3, Schultz as modified by Kernwein93 and Kernwein10 teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Schultz as modified by Kernwein93 and Kernwein10 does not disclose that the control circuit is configured to: determine a buffer distance, wherein the buffer distance is based on a distance to be traveled before the vehicle comes to a stop. However, Davis teaches that the control circuit is configured to: determine a buffer distance, wherein the buffer distance is based on a distance to be traveled before the vehicle comes to a stop (Davis [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Davis to Schultz as modified by Kernwein93 and Kernwein10 such that the control circuit is configured to: determine a buffer distance, wherein the buffer distance is based on a distance to be traveled before the vehicle comes to a stop. Doing so would ensure no accidents or crashes occur.
Regarding claim 4, Schultz as modified by Kernwein93, Kernwein10, and Davis teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 3. Kernwein93 further discloses that the control circuit is configured to determine whether the wayside device is located within a segment defined by the buffer distance plus the position uncertainty (Kernwein93 Fig. 5a and [0045] “computer 16 determines or calculates an area of consideration 38. Further, this area of consideration 38 is determined based at least in part upon the track route forward TF, track route backward TB, as well as the determined estimated location area 18.” & [0046] “Once the area of consideration 38 has been determined, the system 10 may then determine which wayside devices WD within that area 38 govern the movement in the travel direction TD of the train TR.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Kernwein93 to Schultz as modified by Kernwein93, Kernwein10, and Davis such that the control circuit is configured to determine whether the wayside device is located within a segment defined by the buffer distance plus the position uncertainty. Doing so would provide additional validation and determination of exact train locations which, ensures safety on and along the tracks (Kernwein93 [0010]).
Regarding claim 5, Schultz as modified by Kernwein93, Kernwein10, and Davis teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 3. Kernwein93 further discloses that the control circuit is configured to determine whether the wayside device is not located within a segment defined by the buffer distance plus the position uncertainty (Kernwein93 [0048] “if none of the or multiple wayside devices WD exhibit a modified signal aspect or signal system data SD, the actual position of the train TR is left unresolved.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Kernwein93 to Schultz as modified by Kernwein93, Kernwein10, and Davis such that the control circuit is configured to determine whether the wayside device is not located within a segment defined by the buffer distance plus the position uncertainty. Doing so would provide additional validation and determination of exact train locations which, ensures safety on and along the tracks (Kernwein93 [0010]).
With respect to claim 18, Schultz as modified by Kernwein93 and Kernwein10 teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 15. Additionally, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claims 3-5. The apparatus taught/disclosed in claims 3-5 can clearly perform the method of claim 18. Therefore claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 19, Schultz as modified by Kernwein93, Kernwein10, and Davis teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 18. Kernwein93 further discloses:
determining whether the vehicle is moving below a threshold speed; and based on the vehicle moving below a threshold speed, displaying: an icon representing the location of the wayside device (Kernwein93 [0029] “various symbols, colors and other visual indicators are used to provide the train operator with information for use in operating the train TR. … color yellow may indicate that some caution or control is required. Further, the color red normally indicates that the train TR must stop”);
and an indication of whether the wayside device is within the position uncertainty (Kernwein93 [0029] – [0030] “the signal system data SD provides some indication of the location of a train TR with respect to the signal S. … wayside devices WD (whether in the form of signal devices S or track circuit monitoring devices MD) may provide signal system data SD to the train TR for use in both manual control by the operator, as well as automated control by an on-board control system.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Kernwein93 to Schultz as modified by Kernwein93, Kernwein10, and Davis such that the method comprises determining whether the vehicle is moving below a threshold speed; and based on the vehicle moving below a threshold speed, displaying: an icon representing the location of the wayside device; and an indication of whether the wayside device is within the position uncertainty.. Doing so would provide additional validation and determination of exact train locations which, ensures safety on and along the tracks (Kernwein93 [0010]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz in view of Kernwein93, further in view of Kernwein10, Davis and US-20160318531-A1 to Johnson et. al. (“Johnson”).
Regarding claim 20, Schultz as modified by Kernwein93, Kernwein10, and Davis teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 19. Kerwein93 further discloses incrementing the position uncertainty (Kernwein93 [0032] “estimated location area 18 is the "best guess" of the positioning system 12 as to the location of the train TR within the track network TN.” and [0047] “The signal system data SD is compared for each wayside device WD, and based upon this comparison, the best possible train TR location can be determined.” and [0050] “capable of dynamically determining the best possible train TR location from amongst multiple possible train TR locations based upon the positioning system 12 and data obtained from the wayside control units 22.”).
Schultz as modified by Kernwein93, Kernwein10, and Davis does not teach that the incrementing is based on at least one of an error in track size or error in a wheel size. However, Johnson teaches that the incrementing is based on at least one of an error in track size or error in a wheel size (Johnson [0058] “For example, the location determining device 308 can include a tachometer that detects revolutions of one or more wheels of the vehicle 300. The size (e.g., circumference) of the wheel can be stored (e.g., in an internal memory of the device 308, in the memory 310, or elsewhere) and can be used (by the controller 304, the device 308, or another component of the system 302) with the number of revolutions of the wheel to determine how far the vehicle 300 has traveled from a designated location, as described herein.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the apparatus of Schultz as modified by Kernwein93, Kernwein10, and Davis to incorporate the teachings of Johnson such that the incrementing is based on at least one of an error in track size or error in a wheel size. Doing so would allow for the system to determine how far the vehicle has travelled (Johnson [0058]).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 03/11/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
Applicant remarks:
Claim 1 is not directed to a mental process. Claim 1 requires receiving a wayside signal representing a location of a wayside device, receiving a leading-edge signal from a positioning system representing a location of a leading edge of a vehicle, determining a distance between two physical entities, calculating a position uncertainty of the leading edge, and determining whether the wayside device lies within that position uncertainty. These operations rely on real-world signals from physical infrastructure and vehicle positioning systems and cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Thus, the claim is not directed to a mental process. Accordingly, Claim 1 is mischaracterized as reciting an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One.
Even assuming, arguendo, that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, the claim is integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. Claim 1 is directed to a specific technological implementation for controlling vehicle operation in proximity to wayside devices based on leading-edge positional uncertainty. Claim 1 evaluates the physical relationship between the vehicle and a wayside device. This is not data processing for its own sake, but a concrete solution that addresses a recognized technological problem in rail operations, managing vehicle movement when precise leading-edge location cannot be guaranteed due to GPS error, wheel slip, or track data inaccuracies.
The Office Action characterizes the control circuit as a "generic computer," but even where conventional components are used, claims that apply logic in a specific manner to control a physical system integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2B). Moreover, the Office Action provides no factual support that the claimed arrangement, particularly the calculation of leading-edge-specific position uncertainty and the determination of whether a wayside device lies within that uncertainty, was well-understood, routine, or conventional as arranged. The ordered combination of claim elements provides a technological improvement in vehicle operations, not merely the automation of mental activity.
Office Response:
Determining a distance can be done mentally, calculating an uncertainty can be done mentally, and determining whether a device lies within a position uncertainty can be done mentally. The signals were not labeled as mental processes but rather generic data transfer that does not integrate the mental processes into a practical application.
The office respectfully disagrees that the claim is integrated into a practical application. There is no controlling of the vehicle based on the positional uncertainty. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, vehicle, or other technology. Rather, the claims use generic computer components to perform the abstract idea. There is no management of vehicle movement stated in claim 1.
The claims are not controlling a physical system. Claim 1 is simply an apparatus for determining position uncertainty of a vehicle in proximity to a wayside device. There is no physical control of any sort of movement. There is no reason to provide any factual support that the calculation limitation is well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field because those limitations were not labeled as an insignificant extra-solution activity, but rather mental processes. The office respectfully disagrees that the ordered combination of claim elements provides a technological improvement.
Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features overcome the 101 and the dependent claims also overcome the 101 since they depend on the independent claims and the Office respectfully disagrees.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant has submitted an IDS that has caused the previous rejection to be removed and has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
However, the Office is still using some of the same cited prior art, thus the Office will attempt to address all remarks that remain relevant
Applicant remarks:
First, Kernwein fails to disclose "wherein the wayside signal represents a location of the wayside device." The Office Action cites to paragraph the abstract and Fig. 3(a). The Office Action relies on Kernwein's disclosure of obtaining "signal system data" from wayside devices. However, Kernwein's signal system data represents signal status or control information associated with track circuits and signal devices, not a signal that represents a location of the wayside device itself, as included in Claim 1. Claim 1 requires a wayside signal whose informational content represents the location of the wayside device, enabling a subsequent distance calculation relative to the vehicle's leading edge. Thus Kernwein fails to disclose "wherein the wayside signal represents a location of the wayside device."
Applicant disagrees that Kernwein discloses claim 6, which states "the control circuit is configured to: receive a GPS signal; and upon receipt of the GPS signal, set the position uncertainty to a minimum distance." The Office Action cites to paragraph [0037]-[0038] of Kernwein. Kernwein is directed to a positioning system and an estimated location area 18. Applicant submits that Kernwein does not set the position uncertainty of a minimum distance and further does not disclose set the position uncertainty to a minimum distance "upon receipt of the GPS signal." The Office Action cites Kernwein's disclosure that a positioning system may include GPS and that an estimated location area may have a tolerance radius. However, Kernwein does not disclose setting a position uncertainty to a minimum distance in response to receipt of a GPS signal. Kernwein's estimated location area reflects ambiguity among possible train locations and does not describe any conditional reset or minimization of a position uncertainty triggered by a receipt of a GPS signal. The specific GPS-triggered behavior required by Claim 6 is absent from Kernwein.
Applicant disagrees that Kernwein discloses claim 7, which states "the control circuit is configured to increment the position uncertainty over time." The Office Action cites to paragraph [0046] of Kernwein. Paragraph [0046] does not disclose incrementing the position uncertainty over time.
Applicant disagrees that Kernwein discloses all elements of claim 9. While Kernwein generally discloses an onboard system with a display (display 36), it does not disclose the specific functionality recited in claim 9. In particular, Kernwein does not disclose displaying a leading edge of the vehicle. Kernwein presents, at most, a generalized train location or estimated location area and does not identify, distinguish, or visually represent a leading edge of the vehicle, which is a required element of Claim 9. Additionally, Kernwein does not disclose displaying a distance between the leading edge of the vehicle and a wayside signal. Kernwein's discussion of an "area of consideration" or candidate tracks does not involve calculating or displaying any distance value between two discrete physical entities, as expressly required by the claim. Kernwein further fails to disclose displaying a position uncertainty of the leading edge of the vehicle. The Office Action's characterization of Kernwein's estimated location area as a position uncertainty is incorrect, as that estimated location area represents a set of possible train locations derived from track ambiguity, not an uncertainty associated with a specific physical point on the vehicle. Finally, because Kernwein does not disclose displaying a leading edge or a leading edge specific position uncertainty, it necessarily does not disclose displaying an indication of whether the leading edge of the vehicle is inside the position uncertainty, as required by Claim 9. At most, Kernwein displays signal or train information for resolving location ambiguity, which is fundamentally different from indicating leading-edge position uncertainty relative to a wayside signal on a user interface.
Office Response:
Using the same art, this limitation has been remapped to further disclose the limitation. Specifically, [0036] states that signal system data can represent location data of the wayside device.
Minimum distance is an incredibly broad term. Without knowing more of what minimum distance can be, the office is interpreting as any sort of distance. In this case, After receiving the GPS signal, an estimated location area with a tolerance radius is set. This reads for setting an uncertainty to a minimum distance and thus the office respectfully disagrees.
See above mapping for claim 7, specifically [0046] and Figs 3a-3b.
None of the limitation’s applicant is arguing are required in claim 9. Displaying a leading edge of the vehicle is not required in claim 9. Displaying a distance between the leading edge of the vehicle and a wayside signal is not required in claim 9. Displaying a position uncertainty of the leading edge of the vehicle is not required in claim 9. Displaying an indication of whether the leading edge of the vehicle is inside the position uncertainty.
Therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain. Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 03/11/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: Off.
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, Scott Browne can be reached on 5712700151. 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.
/J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights