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 .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 4/08/2026. Applicant amended claims 1, 8-9, 12; and canceled claim 7. Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are pending and are examined below.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
In regards to the specification objections Applicant’s amendments to the specification filed on 4/08/2026 obviate said objections — accordingly, the specification objections are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim objections, Applicant’s amendments to the specification filed on 4/08/2026 obviate the objections to claims 7 and 9 – accordingly, the respective claim objections are withdrawn.
Claim 12 still recites the same grounds of objection – accordingly, the respective claim objections are maintained.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 101, Applicant’s amendments obviate the claim rejections – accordingly, the claim rejections under § 101 are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 102, Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 4/08/2026 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
As to amended claim 1, Applicant argues that Domingos does not disclose (a) “changing an operational mode of the vehicle system based at least in part on the predictive vehicle status” or (b) wherein changing the operational mode comprises at least one of a changing a speed of the vehicle system, changing a route of the vehicle system, or a combination thereof.” Applicant argues that Domingos ¶ 30 merely discloses calculating profiles and comparing profiles to identify status of an element such as an oil filter.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully submits that Applicant mischaracterizes Domingos, and that Domingos reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim limitations at issue. Recall that Domingos discloses: changing an operational mode of the vehicle system based at least in part on the predictive vehicle status (here, the predictive vehicle status is tied to an oil filter): “If the additional expected or predicted damage due to operation according to the trip plan will exceed a designated threshold (e.g., a percentage of filter clogging, an exhaust gas temperature, etc.), then the monitoring system can request a new or different trip plan.” (Emphasis added; ¶ 63.) Indeed, Domingos explicitly ties the status of an oil filter to a predictive vehicle status upon which vehicle control is based on: “One or more controllers of the vehicle system may restrict engine operation in response to detection of a critical issue (e.g., the oil filter stops functioning).” (¶ 28.) Finally, Domingos discloses changing a speed of the vehicle system based on the predictive vehicle status (e.g., oil filter status): “The trip plans (e.g., the first, new, and/or modified trip plans) dictate operational settings of the vehicle at different locations, distances along routes, or times. For example, the trip plans can dictate the throttle settings, speeds, braking efforts, or the like, that the vehicle system is to implement for travel along routes.” (¶ 6.) “For example, the monitoring system can calculate different profiles of rotor speeds that represent a temporal delay from shut down or deactivation of the propulsion system and the reduction of the rotor speed to a designated speed (e.g., zero speed or another speed).” (¶ 30.) Note well that reduction of the rotor speed in a propulsion system analogizes to changing a speed of the vehicle system as the speed of the vehicle system depends on the rotor speed.
Accordingly, Domingos discloses both (a) “changing an operational mode of the vehicle system based at least in part on the predictive vehicle status” and (b) wherein changing the operational mode comprises at least one of a changing a speed of the vehicle system, changing a route of the vehicle system, or a combination thereof” — therefore, the claim rejections under § 102 are maintained.
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are objected to because of claim informalities.
As to claim 1, the status identifier should read “Currently Amended”.
As to claim 12, the claim still recites “axel” – such should be amended to “axle”.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C § 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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9-14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Domingos et al. (US20190359240A1; “Domingos”)
As to claim 1, Domingos discloses a method, comprising:
obtaining sensor data of a vehicle system during operation of the vehicle system, and vehicle data associated with a current status of the vehicle system (“The controller circuit 202 can be operably connected to the sensor 222 and receive the parameters of the propulsion subsystem 208. The controller circuit 202 is configured to calculate cumulative usage of the component of the propulsion subsystem 208 based on the parameters and determine the end of life of the component relative to the cumulative usage.” ¶ 59.);
determining a predictive vehicle status using a predictive model and the sensor data and the vehicle data (“At least one technical effect of embodiments described herein includes real-time tracking of the remaining useful life or service life of components of a propulsion subsystem by identifying a cumulative usage model.” ¶ 32. “The operable life of the component may be based on the one or more parameters measured by the one or more sensors 222. For example, the projected life may represent an amount of operable life prior to the end of life of the component.” ¶ 72. “The controller circuit 202 may be configured to utilize the trip plan generated by the energy management system 220 to predict an amount of cumulative usage for the at least one component.” ¶ 90.); and
changing an operational mode of the vehicle system based at least in part on the predictive vehicle status, wherein changing the operational mode comprises at least one of a changing a speed of the vehicle system (“The trip plans (e.g., the first, new, and/or modified trip plans) dictate operational settings of the vehicle at different locations, distances along routes, or times. For example, the trip plans can dictate the throttle settings, speeds, braking efforts, or the like, that the vehicle system is to implement for travel along routes.” ¶ 6. “One or more controllers of the vehicle system may restrict engine operation in response to detection of a critical issue (e.g., the oil filter stops functioning).” ¶ 28. “For example, the monitoring system can calculate different profiles of rotor speeds that represent a temporal delay from shut down or deactivation of the propulsion system and the reduction of the rotor speed to a designated speed (e.g., zero speed or another speed).” ¶ 30. “If the additional expected or predicted damage due to operation according to the trip plan will exceed a designated threshold (e.g., a percentage of filter clogging, an exhaust gas temperature, etc.), then the monitoring system can request a new or different trip plan.” ¶ 63. Note: reduction of the rotor speed in a propulsion system analogizes to changing a speed of the vehicle system as the speed of the vehicle system depends on the rotor speed.).
Independent claim 18 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1 as the claims recite similar subject matter but for minor differences.
As to claim 2, Domingos discloses: communicating a change in the operational mode to the vehicle system via a positive vehicle control system (“A vehicle control system (VCS) 218 can include hardware circuits or circuitry that include and/or are connected with one or more processors to the controller circuit 202 …. The VCS 218 includes and/or represents a positive train control system.” ¶ 42. “An energy management system 220 can include hardware circuits or circuitry that include and/or are connected with one or more processors to the controller circuit 202. The energy management system 220 can create and/or update the trip plans described herein …. Based on the parameters received from the sensors 222, the controller circuit 202 may instruct the energy management system 220 to revise and/or modify the trip plan.” ¶ 43.).
As to claim 5, Domingos discloses: modeling data of components in a plurality of vehicles of the vehicle system based on at least one of: route information for a route over which the vehicle system is planned to traverse in an operational plan (“If the additional expected or predicted damage due to operation according to the trip plan will exceed a designated threshold (e.g., a percentage of filter clogging, an exhaust gas temperature, etc.), then the monitoring system can request a new or different trip plan.” ¶ 63.); and
predicting performance of the components via the modeling data and the route information (“At least one technical effect of embodiments described herein includes real-time tracking of the remaining useful life or service life of components of a propulsion subsystem by identifying a cumulative usage model.” ¶ 32. “The operable life of the component may be based on the one or more parameters measured by the one or more sensors 222. For example, the projected life may represent an amount of operable life prior to the end of life of the component.” ¶ 72. “The controller circuit 202 may be configured to utilize the trip plan generated by the energy management system 220 to predict an amount of cumulative usage for the at least one component.” ¶ 90.).
As to claims 9 and 20, Domingos discloses: wherein the predictive vehicle status further comprises: determining an expected value of a vehicle component; comparing the sensor data of the vehicle component to the expected value of the vehicle component; determining the sensor data is below a minimum threshold compared to the expected value; and calculating a time or distance to failure for the vehicle component based on the sensor data and the predictive model (“The monitoring system may change or request that an operational plan of the component (or a system that includes the component) be modified based on the predicted usage. For example, a vehicle may be scheduled or expected to travel along one or more routes in an upcoming trip according to a trip plan. The trip plan may designate or dictate operational settings of the vehicle at different locations, distances along the route(s), and/or times during the upcoming trip. These operational settings can include throttle settings, brake settings, speeds, or the like. The monitoring system can change or request that the trip plan be modified responsive to examining cumulative or prior usage, simulating potential additional usage to the component due to operating according to the trip plan, and determining that the component … will have a remaining service or useful life that will decrease below a threshold.” ¶ 23.).
As to claim 10, Domingos discloses: associating the sensor data with a component of a vehicle in the vehicle system (“The controller circuit 202 can be operably connected to the sensor 222 and receive the parameters of the propulsion subsystem 208. The controller circuit 202 is configured to calculate cumulative usage of the component of the propulsion subsystem 208 based on the parameters and determine the end of life of the component relative to the cumulative usage.” ¶ 59.).
As to claim 11, Domingos discloses: determining the sensor data comprises at least one of: thermal data (“The sensor is configured to acquire at least one of a rotor speed, a pressure, or a temperature of the propulsion subsystem as the parameter.” ¶ 115.).
As to claim 12, Domingos discloses: determining the component comprises any one of: a vehicle brake (“The at least one component may be a part of the one or more … brakes.” ¶ 65.).
As to claim 13, Domingos discloses: determining the predictive vehicle status based on the vehicle data, wherein the vehicle data comprises information associated with vehicle use history (“At least one technical effect of embodiments described herein includes real-time tracking of the remaining useful life or service life of components of a propulsion subsystem by identifying a cumulative usage model.” ¶ 32. “The operable life of the component may be based on the one or more parameters measured by the one or more sensors 222. For example, the projected life may represent an amount of operable life prior to the end of life of the component.” ¶ 72. “The controller circuit 202 may be configured to utilize the trip plan generated by the energy management system 220 to predict an amount of cumulative usage for the at least one component.” ¶ 90.).
As to claim 14, Domingos discloses: determining the predictive vehicle status based on the vehicle data, wherein the vehicle data comprises damage events associated with one or more vehicles in the vehicle system (“The monitoring system can project and/or forecast the cumulative damage based on a trip plan generated by the energy management system 220.” ¶ 62.).
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 103
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 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 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.
Claims 3-4, 6 and 19 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Domingos in view of Claussen et al. (US20210134081A1 “Claussen”).
As to claims 3 and 19, Domingos discloses: wherein the positive vehicle control system is a positive train control system (“A vehicle control system (VCS) 218 can include hardware circuits or circuitry that include and/or are connected with one or more processors to the controller circuit 202 …. The VCS 218 includes and/or represents a positive train control system.” ¶ 42.).
Domingos fails to explicitly disclose: communicating the change in the operational mode comprises issuing a bulletin to the vehicle system
Nevertheless, Claussen teaches: communicating a change in an operational mode comprises issuing a bulletin to the vehicle system (“The protection system can be an off-board system that controls where vehicle systems are allowed to travel by issuing (e.g., communicating) signals (e.g., bulletins) to the vehicle systems. In one example, protection system can be a positive vehicle control system.” ¶ 18.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Domingos to include the feature of: communicating a change in an operational mode comprises issuing a bulletin to the vehicle system, as taught by Claussen, with a reasonable expectation of success because it is well-known in the art that positive vehicle control systems operate by issuing bulletins.
As to claim 4, Domingos discloses: routing the vehicle system to a scheduled destination set out in an operational plan (“At least one of the controllers is configured to generate a first trip plan and to automatically control the vehicle according to the first trip plan.” ¶ 6.).
Domingos fails to explicitly disclose: re-routing the vehicle system to a different destination relative to a scheduled destination set out in an operational plan , and the different destination is based at least in part on a current location of the vehicle system and the predictive vehicle status.
Nevertheless, Claussen teaches: re-routing a vehicle system to a different destination relative to a scheduled destination, and the different destination is based at least in part on a current location of the vehicle system and the predictive vehicle status (“The off-board controller can change which route a vehicle system travels along responsive to receiving the sensor signal. With respect to the vehicle system that was examined, the off-board controller can send a control signal to the vehicle system, to a switch, to a signal, or to another device that controls which route(s) the vehicle system travels. The off-board controller can change which route the vehicle system travels on to direct the vehicle system toward a repair facility 128 for inspection, repair, or to replace one or more vehicles in the vehicle system.” ¶ 36 and FIG. 1. NOTE: From the context of FIG. 1 and the ordinary understanding of vehicle re-routing, the re-routing of a vehicle system to a facility 128 would necessarily be based on the current location of the vehicle system.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Domingos to include the feature of: re-routing a vehicle system to a different destination relative to a scheduled destination, and the different destination is based at least in part on a current location of the vehicle system and the predictive vehicle status, as taught by Claussen, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for directing a “vehicle system toward a repair facility 128 for inspection, repair, or to replace one or more vehicles in the vehicle system” when appropriate. (Claussen, ¶ 36.)
As to claim 6, Domingos discloses: determining the sensor data from a sensor in a vehicle communication network (“The controller circuit 202 can be operably connected to the sensor 222 and receive the parameters of the propulsion subsystem 208. The controller circuit 202 is configured to calculate cumulative usage of the component of the propulsion subsystem 208 based on the parameters and determine the end of life of the component relative to the cumulative usage.” ¶ 59.).
Domingos fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the sensor comprises at least one of a wheel impact load detector, railway bearing acoustic monitor, hot box detector, hot wheel detector, or any combination thereof.
Nevertheless, Claussen teaches: where a sensor comprises at least one of a hot box detector (“The sensor assemblies can include hot box detectors” ¶ 12.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Domingos to include the feature of: where a sensor comprises at least one of a hot box detector, as taught by Claussen, with a reasonable expectation of success because hot box detectors are well-known in the art.
Claim 8 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Domingos in view of Lardennois et al. (US3964702A; “Lardennois”).
As to claim 8, Domingos fails to explicitly disclose: changing the speed comprises reducing the speed of the vehicle system to zero within a determined distance.
Nevertheless, Lardennois teaches: reducing a speed of a vehicle system to zero within a determined distance (“Each vehicle loop comprises control circuits for determining the distance to the next preceding vehicle, for determining a safe stopping distance for the vehicle, and for stopping the vehicle if the distance to the preceding vehicle becomes smaller than the safe stopping distance or if there is a failure of a safety circuit.” Abstract. NOTE: Here, the vehicle system is necessarily controlled to zero velocity within a determined distance as the vehicle system is controlled to stop within a safe stopping distance.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Domingos to include the feature of: reducing a speed of a vehicle system to zero within a determined distance, as taught by Lardennois, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for stopping a vehicle within a safe stopping distance, thereby enhancing safety.
Claim 15 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Domingos in view of Kodama (US20200039544A1; “Kodama”).
As to claim 15, Domingos fails to explicitly disclose: determining a distance remaining for the vehicle system to reach either a waypoint or a scheduled destination based on a current location of the vehicle system.
Nevertheless, Kodama teaches: determining a distance remaining for the vehicle system to reach a scheduled destination based on a current location of the vehicle system (“The proximity detecting unit 141 calculates the distance between the current position and the destination from the position information of the both of the current position and the destination.” ¶ 74.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Domingos to include the feature of: determining a distance remaining for the vehicle system to reach a scheduled destination based on a current location of the vehicle system, as taught by Kodama, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is well-known in the art as being useful for determining a proximity of a vehicle system to a vehicle destination, thereby aiding in determining appropriate actions (e.g., re-routing) based on a predictive vehicle status.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Domingos in view of Kodama as applied to claim 15 — further in view of Liu et al. (US20140236403A1; “Liu”).
As to claim 16, the combination of Domingos and Kodama fails to explicitly disclose: determining a probability of success for the vehicle system to reach the scheduled destination at a normal speed and at a restricted speed based on a predetermined probability threshold.
Nevertheless, Liu teaches: determining a probability of success for the vehicle system to reach a scheduled destination at a given speed based on a predetermined probability threshold (“The likelihood of successfully traversing the routes” may be determined based on at least “driving (braking/speeding) pattern” - ¶ 33; see also ¶ 42. Additionally, “the likelihood of a driver reaching a destination may be below a desirable or predetermined threshold.” ¶ 47.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Domingos and Kodama to include the feature of: determining a probability of success for the vehicle system to reach a scheduled destination at a given speed based on a predetermined probability threshold, as taught by Liu, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for determining whether a vehicle system will be able to reach a scheduled destination.
Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would have been obvious to apply Liu’s teaching to Domingos’ speeds (i.e., an original speed vs. a reduced speed as discussed in at least Domingos, ¶ 30) as such would be a simple repetition of applying Liu’s teaching to these certain speeds. Such would be useful for further determining whether the vehicle system will be able to reach a scheduled destination.
As to claim 17, the combination of Domingos and Kodama fails to explicitly disclose:
determining the probability of success for the vehicle system to reach the scheduled destination is below the predetermined probability threshold, at the normal speed and at the restricted speed; and
determining an unscheduled destination based on the probability of success for the vehicle system to reach the scheduled destination.
Nevertheless, Liu teaches:
determining a probability of success for a vehicle system to reach a scheduled destination is below a predetermined probability threshold (“The likelihood of successfully traversing the routes” may be determined based on at least “driving (braking/speeding) pattern” - ¶ 33; see also ¶ 42. Additionally, “the likelihood of a driver reaching a destination may be below a desirable or predetermined threshold.” ¶ 47.); and
determining an unscheduled destination based on the probability of success for the vehicle system to reach the scheduled destination (“The destination is designated by B 305. Along the vectored route, a point T 303 is also shown. This represents the point where it is likely, above a certain threshold (e.g., without limitation, 90%) that can be reached by a driver.” ¶ 51 and FIG. 3.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Domingos and Kodama to include the features of: determining a probability of success for a vehicle system to reach a scheduled destination is below a predetermined probability threshold; and determining an unscheduled destination based on the probability of success for the vehicle system to reach the scheduled destination, as taught by Liu, to yield the claim limitations at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful for (1) determining whether a vehicle system will be able to reach a scheduled destination; and (2) determining an unscheduled destination which provides an alternate destination in the case that a vehicle system requires re-routing based on a predictive vehicle status.
Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would have been obvious to apply Liu’s teaching to Domingos’ speeds (i.e., an original speed vs. a reduced speed as discussed in at least Domingos, ¶ 30) as such would be a simple repetition of applying Liu’s teaching to these certain speeds. Such would be useful for further determining whether the vehicle system will be able to reach a scheduled destination.
CONCLUSION
This action is final. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire three months from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within two months of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the three-month shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/M.C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights