DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Prosecution History
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Application No. 18/822235 filed on 09/01/2024 have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(1) or (pre-AIA ) First Paragraph
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. written description, however, fails to describe how the function of “generate command signals for controlling operations of a train based on the input data from the one or more train control systems in response to said central control device.
Claim 1 and 11 recites a train control module configured to receive input data from one or more train control systems and generate command signals for controlling operations of a train based on the input data from the one or more train control systems in response to said central control device.
With respect to the transportation control module, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material or acts to the function of “signals for controlling operations of a train based on the input data from the one or more train control systems in response to said central control device”. It should first be noted that there is no mention of a “train control module” in the written description at all. However, the specification does describe a situational awareness dashboard where high resolution wayside imagery is captured (see pg. 3 line 21-25). The dashboard is also described as providing procedural and policy guidance when an event occurs (see pg. 4 lines 17-20), uses information from the database to provide train operators tools and information to improve situational awareness and decision making, monitors, adherence to signals and signs or advise when quite zones are in effect so that the horn isn’t sounded (see pg. 10, line 19-28).
The written description, however, fails to describe how the situational awareness dashboard, or any other feature, performs the function of “generate command signals for controlling operations of a transit based on the input data from the one or more train control systems in response to said central control device” as claimed.
As such claims 1, 9 and 18 are rejected under 112 (a) and claims 2-8 and 10-17 and 19-20 depends on those claims thus are rejected as well.
claim 6 and 15 recites “wherein said changed conditions prompt a railroad maintenance request for attention”, there is no mention of prompt for maintenance request pursuant to identification of changed conditions.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 18, claim limitations “ train control module”, “business system module”, “integration module”, has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, because it uses a non-structural term “module” coupled with functional languages “receive, identify, generate” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier. Since this claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, claims 1, 9 and 18 are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification does not show that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth: The modules are within the controller.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action. If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1, 9 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim element “ train”, “integration”, structural term “module” coupled with functional languages “receive, indefiny, generate” is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. Application does not disclose any means in the specification.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-12 of allowed Application No. 17948123. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because applicant merely removed the last limitation of claim 1.
This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. The applicant merely introduces a dependent claim into the pervious patent application which is an obvious type double patent that do not make the claims patentably distinct to each other.
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 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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumar et al. [US 2007/0216771 A1], hereinafter referred to as Kumar.
As to Claim 1, 9 and 18, Kumar discloses a railroad management system, comprising: a display device configured to display information to an operator ([see at least 0052]); and a controller in electronic communication with display device ([see at least 0052]) and a central control device ([see at least Fig.1, 0023, 0024, 0047, 0060 and 0062]) and including: a train control module configured to receive input data from one or more train control systems and generate command signals for controlling operations of a train based on the input data from the one or more train control systems in response to said central control device ([see at least Fig.1, 0023, 0024, 0047, 0060 and 0062]); a business systems module configured to receive input data from one or more railroad data management systems and for providing performance data to said central control device ([see at least 0060, 0061 and 0064]); and an integration module configured to: identify discrepancies among the input data from the one or more train control systems and the railroad data management systems and for reporting said discrepancies to said central control device ([see at least 0060, 0061 and 0064]); and generate corrected input data based on the input data from the one or more train control systems and the railroad data management ([see at least 0060, 0061 and 0064]).
As to Claim 2 and 10, Kumar discloses a railroad management system, wherein the controller is configured to display one or more graphical user interfaces on the display device based at least in part on the corrected input data and causes a change of position of railroad assets in response to a cumulative collection of said discrepancies ([see at least 0052, 0060, 0061 and 0064]).
As to Claim 3 and 11, Kumar discloses a railroad management system, wherein real-time images are compared with historic images to ascertain changed conditions ([see at least 0028, 0038, 0060, 0061 and 0064]).
As to Claim 4 and 12, Kumar discloses a railroad management system, wherein real-time images are compared with a plurality of historic images to ascertain changed conditions over a period of time ([see at least 0028, 0038, 0060, 0061 and 0064]).
As to Claim 5 and 13, Kumar discloses a railroad management system, wherein said changed conditions are tagged for follow-up operator inspection ([see at least 0023 and 0061]).
As to Claim 6 and 15, Kumar discloses a railroad management system, wherein said changed conditions prompt a railroad maintenance request for attention ([see at least 0023 and 0061]).
As to Claim 7 and 16, Kumar discloses a railroad management system, wherein the input data is stored in a database ([see at least 0007, 0028, 0043, 0044 and 0045]).
As to Claim 8 and 17, Kumar discloses a railroad management system, wherein the input data is processed to identify critical asset information in order to create and/or update and validate the database ([see at least 0023, 0039, 0046, 0051 and 0052]).
As to Claim 19, Kumar discloses a railroad management system, wherein said discrepancies are shown in real-time to an operator ([see at least 0060, 0061 and 0064]).
As to Claim 20, Kumar discloses a railroad management system, wherein said critical assets are detected unidirectionally, facing against a direction of travel, and bidirectionally, facing both against and with a direction of travel ([see at least 0010, 0028, 0046 and 0060]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAZAN A SOOFI whose telephone number is (469)295-9189. The examiner can normally be reached on Flex schedule.
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 Jabr can be reached on 572-272-1516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YAZAN A SOOFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668