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
The amendment of 04/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Analysis - 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 1-14 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 at step 2A prong 2 because the claim limitation “a function of performing packet control of the data based on the communication environment and the transmission priority” in the independent claims applies or uses the recited judicial exceptions 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 7, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BESSHO (WO 2011/074116, provided by Applicant on 10/08/2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, BESSHO discloses a railway communication system for transmitting data of a plurality of applications (implied i.a. traffic, pg. 9 line 21 - pg. 10 line 1) between a ground facility (1, Fig. 1) and an on-vehicle facility (5+6, Fig. 1, pg. 11 lines 19-21) using the same wireless network (Fig. 1), wherein
an on-vehicle wireless control unit (5) included in the on-vehicle facility has
a function of monitoring a communication environment (i.a. step S2, Fig. 4, pg. 8 lines 10-12),
a function of setting a transmission priority of each of the plurality of applications (step S4, Fig. 4, priority class determining unit 55, pg. 9 line 19 - pg. 10 line 3), and
a function of performing packet control of the data based on the communication environment and the transmission priority (pg. 9 lines 1-14).
Regarding claim 2, BESSHO discloses the railway communication system according to claim 1.
BESSHO further discloses wherein the wireless network is a public wireless network (pg. 4 lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 7, BESSHO discloses the railway communication system according to claim 1.
BESSHO further discloses wherein the function of performing packet control of the data based on the communication environment and the transmission priority (pg. 9 lines 1-14) is a function of increasing a transmission cycle of data having a low transmission priority (pg. 10 lines 18-20) when the communication environment is deteriorated (i.a. pg. 9 lines 14-15).
Regarding claim 9, BESSHO discloses a railway communication method for transmitting data of a plurality of applications (implied i.a. traffic, pg. 9 line 21 - pg. 10 line 1) between a ground facility (1, Fig. 1) and an on-vehicle facility (5+6, Fig. 1, pg. 11 lines 19-21) using the same wireless network (Fig. 1), the railway communication method comprising: on the on-vehicle facility side (5), monitoring a communication environment (i.a. step S2, Fig. 4, pg. 8 lines 10-12), setting a transmission priority for each of the plurality of applications (step S4, Fig. 4, priority class determining unit 55, pg. 9 line 19 - pg. 10 line 3), and performing packet control of the data based on the communication environment and the transmission priority (pg. 9 lines 1-14).
Regarding claim 14, BESSHO discloses the railway communication method according to claim 9.
BESSHO further discloses wherein the packet control of the data (pg. 9 lines 1-14) is increasing a transmission cycle of data having a low transmission priority (pg. 10 lines 18-20) when the communication environment is deteriorated (i.a. pg. 9 lines 14-15).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BESSHO (WO 2011/074116, provided by Applicant on 10/08/2024 IDS) in view of GOTLUND (US 2023/0391382).
Regrading claim 3, BESSHO discloses the railway communication system according to claim 1.
BESSHO discloses the function of setting a transmission priority for each of the plurality of applications (step S4, Fig. 4, priority class determining unit 55, pg. 9 line 19 - pg. 10 line 3).
BESSHO is not relied upon to teach setting a transmission priority for each of the applications in real time in accordance with a status generated inside the application.
GOTLUND teaches a function of setting a transmission priority for applications in real time in accordance with a status generated inside the application (e.g., load status, 0054 lines 34-end; acceleration, 0279 lines 18-23) to automatically obtain data regarding a variety of objects, such as railcars, and provide a unified interface for tracking and monitoring a variety of the objects fitted with a variety of task tracking devices for monitoring the railcars and reporting the monitored condition of the railcars (0054 lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of BESSHO as taught by GOTLUND to automatically obtain data regarding a variety of objects, such as railcars, and provide a unified interface for tracking and monitoring a variety of the objects fitted with a variety of task tracking devices for monitoring the railcars and reporting the monitored condition of the railcars.
BESSHO as modified teaches wherein the function of setting a transmission priority for each of the plurality of applications is a function of setting a transmission priority for each of the applications in real time in accordance with a status generated inside the application.
Regarding claim 10, BESSHO discloses the railway communication method according to claim 9.
BESSHO discloses the function of setting a transmission priority for each of the plurality of applications (step S4, Fig. 4, priority class determining unit 55, pg. 9 line 19 - pg. 10 line 3).
BESSHO is not relied upon to teach setting a transmission priority for each of the applications in real time in accordance with a status generated inside the application.
GOTLUND teaches a transmission priority for applications is set in real time in accordance with a status generated inside the application (e.g., load status, 0054 lines 34-end; acceleration, 0279 lines 18-23) to automatically obtain data regarding a variety of objects, such as railcars, and provide a unified interface for tracking and monitoring a variety of the objects fitted with a variety of task tracking devices for monitoring the railcars and reporting the monitored condition of the railcars (0054 lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of BESSHO as taught by GOTLUND to automatically obtain data regarding a variety of objects, such as railcars, and provide a unified interface for tracking and monitoring a variety of the objects fitted with a variety of task tracking devices for monitoring the railcars and reporting the monitored condition of the railcars.
BESSHO as modified teaches wherein the transmission priority of each of the plurality of applications is set in real time in accordance with a status generated inside the application.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BESSHO (WO 2011/074116, provided by Applicant on 10/08/2024 IDS) in view of NOFFSINGER (US 8,655,516).
Regarding claim 6, BESSHO discloses the railway communication system according to claim 1.
BESSHO discloses the function of performing packet control of the data based on the communication environment and the transmission priority (pg. 9 lines 1-14).
BESSHO is not relied upon to teaching stopping transmission of data having a low transmission priority when a communication environment is deteriorated.
NOFFSINGER teaches stopping transmission of data having a low transmission priority when the communication environment is deteriorated (col. 12 lines 27-34).
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 system of BESSHO as taught by NOFFSINGER to ensure high-priority data is successfully received first.
BESSHO as modified teaches wherein the function of performing packet control of the data based on the communication environment and the transmission priority is a function of stopping transmission of data having a low transmission priority when the communication environment is deteriorated.
Regarding claim 13, BESSHO discloses the railway communication method according to claim 9.
BESSHO discloses the packet control of the data (pg. 9 lines 1-14).
BESSHO is not relied upon to teach stopping transmission of data having a low transmission priority when the communication environment is deteriorated.
NOFFSINGER teaches stopping transmission of data having a low transmission priority when the communication environment is deteriorated (col. 12 lines 27-34).
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 method of BESSHO as taught by NOFFSINGER to ensure high-priority data is successfully received first.
BESSHO as modified teaches wherein the packet control of the data is stopping transmission of data having a low transmission priority when the communication environment is deteriorated.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BESSHO (WO 2011/074116, provided by Applicant on 10/08/2024 IDS) in view of KENDELBACHER (WO 2018/033319).
Regarding claim 8, BESSHO discloses the railway communication system according to claim 1.
BESSHO is not relied upon to teach the further limitations of the claim.
KENDELBACHER teaches a railway communication system comprising plurality of applications (9-12, 0063 lines 1-2) includes a security application (ETCS, i.a. 0063 lines 1-end) configured to perform operation control of a train including a vehicle equipped with the on-vehicle facility (implied/inherent as one of ordinary skill would readily recognize ETCS to perform this function).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of BESSHO to include the security application taught by KENDELBACHER to ensure train protection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
BESSHO (WO 2011/074116, provided by Applicant on 10/08/2024 IDS) and SEKI (JP 2009-089122, provided by Applicant on 10/08/2024 IDS) are the closest prior art of record.
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the limitation an on-vehicle wireless control unit has a function of setting a transmission priority of each of a plurality of applications…in accordance with a traveling position [or operation section] of a vehicle equipped with the on-vehicle facility” in the manner defined in the claims.
Response to Arguments
The following remarks respond to Applicant’s arguments filed 04/27/2026.
Applicant’s arguments could not be fully considered because Applicant has cited paragraph numbers of the BESSHO reference while no English language translation containing paragraph numbers has been provided.
Applicant’s argument that Bessho fails to disclose the limitation “setting a transmission priority of each of the plurality of applications”, see pp. 5-6, has been fully considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that acquiring priority information (p. 6 ll. 4-5) and determining correspondence between traffic and priority class (p. 6 ll. 6-7) do not fall within the scope of the claim limitation “setting a transmission priority.”
Applicant has not provided a special definition for the claim term “setting” in the original disclosure nor asserted one in their arguments. Therefore, the claim term has been interpreted in light of the specification. Applicant has disclosed three examples for setting a transmission priority: 1) setting low/high priority of a video application based on whether the video contains normal/abnormal information, where the determination of video normalcy is performed on the vehicle (0031 lines 1-end), 2) setting the priority of a CBTC security application, apparently always, to high priority (no example of when, if ever, the CBTC security application is set to low priority is provided)(0032 lines 1-end), and 3) setting priority based on train position and operation section (0034 lines 5-6).
The Examiner maintains that acquiring and determining priority information as disclosed by Bessho falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term “setting” inasmuch as Applicant’s example of setting transmission priority where CBTC security application is, apparently always, provided a high priority.
The claim does not recite setting the priority based on the normalcy of a video application nor setting the priority based on a location of the train. If Applicant seeks a narrower construction of the claim term “setting a transmission priority” the claim may be amended accordingly.
Applicant’s arguments that Bessho fails to teach certain features of the invention, see pg. 7 lines 1-7, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., reducing the number of facilities of the line for each application, operational benefits or techniques of the present application) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s argument regarding claim 9, see p. 7 ll. 10-12, has been fully considered but is not persuasive for the same reasons, mutatis mutandis, as provided for claim 1 above.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the dependent claims, see p. 7 l. 12 - p. 8 l. 3, have been fully considered but are not persuasive because no deficiency is found in the disclosure of the Bessho reference.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights