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 Claim(s)
This action is a non-final office action is response to application 19/036,328 filed on January 24, 2025. Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 24, 2025 and November 05, 2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority filed in China on July 25, 2022, under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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(s) 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Dependent Claim 5, recites the limitation “…corresponding to a resource device required by a target vehicle on a to-be-traveled route….,” However, applicant has previously provided “…a target vehicle…,” “a to-be-traveled-route…,” and “…a resource device…,” in the previously claim(s) from which they depend from thus causing antecedent basis issues.
Examiner, respectfully, suggest that applicant consider amending Dependent Claim 5, to recite the limitation ““…corresponding to the resource device required by the target vehicle on the to-be-traveled route….” Therefore, there is a lack of
antecedent basis for the term(s) “a target vehicle,” “a to-be-traveled-route,” and “a resource device.”
Examiner, respectfully, notes that Dependent Claim 15 is rejected based on its dependency from Dependent Claim 5.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: Independent Claim(s) 1 and 9-10 recites an entity that is able to determine vehicle information. The entity can determine a predicted end time and traveling time. The entity can then adjust a departure time of the vehicle based on the predicted end time, traveling time, and parking time. Independent Claim(s) 1 and 9-10 as a whole recites limitation(s) that are directed to the abstract idea(s) of certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (e.g., insurance) and/or certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic practices or principles, commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., including social activities and/or following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, and/or judgment).
Independent Claim(s) 1 and 9-10 recite(s) “obtaining preceding vehicle information required by a target vehicle on a to-be-traveled route, wherein a preceding vehicle corresponding to the preceding vehicle information represents a vehicle before the target vehicle,” “establishing communication with the preceding vehicle according to the preceding vehicle information, and obtaining a predicted end time in which the preceding vehicle,” “determining a predicted traveling time in which the target vehicle travels,” and “adjusting a departure time of the target vehicle according to the predicted end time, the predicted traveling time, and a planned parking time of the target vehicle,” step(s)/function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices, and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., marketing or sales activities or behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., including following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, and/or judgment). Furthermore, as, explained in the MPEP and the October 2019 update, where a series of step(s) recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. (See, MPEP 2106.04, 2016.05(II) and October 2019 Update at Section I. B.). For instance, in this case, Independent Claim(s) 1 and 9-10, are similar to an entity that is able to adjust a vehicle departure time based on predicted information. The mere recitation of generic computer components (Claim 1: a resource device; Claim 9: a resource device, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and a processor; and Claim 10: a resource device, a vehicle on-board controller, a memory, and a processor) do not take the claims out of the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes. Therefore, Independent Claim(s) 1 and 9-10, recites the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole describes how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of “obtaining,” “establishing,” “determining,” and “adjusting,” respectively. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are as follows (Claim 1: a resource device; Claim 9: a resource device, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and a processor; and Claim 10: a resource device, a vehicle on-board controller, a memory, and a processor). Examiner, notes that the resource device, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, processor, vehicle on-board controller, and memory, are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that certain additional elements are not integrated into a practical application or provide significantly more when the additional elements merely use a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) thus they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, which, amounts to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. Here, the above additional elements are not integrated into a practical application or provide significantly more when they are merely obtaining, establishing, determining, and adjusting, vehicle departure time which is no more than merely invoking computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (e.g., determining and adjusting departure times) thus merely “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Each of the above limitations simply implement an abstract idea that is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which, is not practical application(s) of the abstract idea. Therefore, when viewed in combination these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted previously, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply it,” to the abstract idea in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6-7, 11, and 18-20: The various metrics of Dependent Claim(s) 2-4, 6-7, 11, and 18-20, merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to Independent Claim(s) 1 and 9-10, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 5: The additional limitation of “sending,” and “receiving,” are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity, and/or mental processes, as described in Claim 1. The resource device and vehicle monitoring system are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer The recitation(s) of “sending a first query request,” “receiving preceding vehicle information corresponding to the resource device fed back by the vehicle monitoring system in response to the first query request, the preceding vehicle information being determined by the vehicle monitoring system according to the resource device and a preset vehicle operating plan,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes, and/or mathematical concepts. Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely sending and receiving, information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 5 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6: The additional limitation of “sending,” and “receiving,” are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity, and/or mental processes, as described in Claim 1. The resource device is recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer The recitation(s) of “sending a second query request,” “receiving a predicated end time in which the preceding vehicle fed back by the preceding vehicle in response to the second query request, the predicted end time being determined by the preceding vehicle according to an operating state of the preceding vehicle and usage,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes, and/or mathematical concepts. Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely sending and receiving, information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 6 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 8 and 12-17: The additional limitation of “adjusting,” “re-performing,” and “obtaining,” are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity, and/or mental processes, as described in Claim 1. The resource device is recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer The recitation(s) of “after he adjusting a departure time of the target vehicle according to the predicted end time, the predicted traveling time, and a planned parking time of the target vehicle, re-performing, at an interval of preset duration,” and “the step of obtaining a predicted end time in which the preceding vehicle uses the resource device to the step of adjusting a departure time of the target vehicle according to the predicted end time, the predicted traveling time, and a planned parking time of the target vehicle, until the target vehicle successfully departs,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes, and/or mathematical concepts. Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely adjusting, re-performing, and obtaining, information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 8 and 11-17 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) 2-8 and 11-20, above do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) in the dependent claim(s) above are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s), which, do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, 10-12, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tokumaru (US 2019/0039634 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Tokumaru, teaches a method for adjusting departure time, comprising:
obtaining preceding vehicle information corresponding to a resource device required by a target vehicle on a to-be-traveled route. (Paragraph(s) 0101-0102 and 0133)(Tokumaru teaches a train operation control system is able to recognizes the locations of a plurality of trains present on each route and will extract a train traveling at the forefront (e.g., preceding vehicle) among the trains on the same route (e.g., target vehicle on a to-be-traveled route). The train is traveling along the route toward a platform of station B (e.g., resource device))
wherein a preceding vehicle corresponding to the preceding vehicle information represents a vehicle that uses the resource device before the target vehicle uses the resource device. (Paragraph(s) 0101-0102 and 0133)(Tokumaru teaches a train operation control system the locations of a plurality of trains present on each route and will extract a train traveling at the forefront (e.g., preceding vehicle) among the trains on the same route (e.g., target vehicle on a to-be-traveled route) that will reach a platform such as station B prior to a succeeding train (e.g., preceding vehicle represents a vehicle that uses the resource device before the target vehicle)
establishing communication with the preceding vehicle according to the preceding vehicle information, and obtaining a predicted end time in which the preceding vehicle uses the resource device. (Paragraph(s) 0033-0037, 0040, and 0081-0084)(Tokumaru teaches a train that includes an base device via a transmission line, which the operation management device can receive train operation information. Tokumaru, further, teaches that the train operation information can include a predication and a dwell time prediction. Tokumaru, also, teaches determining a delay time at a station (e.g., predicted end time))
determining a predicted traveling time in which the target vehicle travels to the resource device. (Paragraph(s) 0083)(Tokumaru teaches determining a predicted arrival time (e.g., predicted traveling time) for a train to arrive at the train station)
adjusting a departure time of the target vehicle according to the predicted end time, the predicted traveling time, and a planned parking time of the target vehicle. (Paragraph(s) 0080-0086 and 0134-0142)(Tokumaru teaches a system that is able to determine a delay time (e.g., predicted end time) for the train. The system can also predict the arrival time of the train (e.g., predicted traveling time) to arrive at a train station. The system will also determine a dwell time for all the trains (e.g., planned parking time of the target vehicle). Tokumaru, further, teaches that the system will use this information to then determine a delay time, which the system will then delay the departure times for the succeeding train (e.g., adjusting the departure time of the target vehicle)
Regarding Claim 2, Tokumaru, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1 and wherein the adjusting a departure time of the target vehicle according to the predicted end time, the predicted traveling time, and a planned parking time of the target vehicle comprises:
determining a first time difference between the predicted end time and the predicted traveling time. ((Paragraph(s) 0083-0085)(Tokumaru teaches a delay determination unit that obtains a predicted arrival time. The delay unit can then obtain the difference of T3 that is a difference between the predicted arrival time and a planned arrival time, which the unit can determine if the difference of T3 is larger than or equal to the threshold)
adjusting the departure time of the target vehicle according to a maximum value of the first time difference and the planned parking time. (Paragraph 0086 and 0141-0142)(Tokumaru teaches if the time difference T3 is larger than or equal to the threshold then the determination unit will determine a delay of the departure time of the succeeding train)
Regarding Claim 5, Tokumaru, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1 and wherein the obtaining preceding vehicle information corresponding to a resource device required by a target vehicle on a to-be traveled route comprises:
sending a first query request for the resource device to a vehicle monitoring system. (Paragraph(s) 0033-0037, 0040, and 0081-0084)(Tokumaru teaches a train that includes an base device via a transmission line, which the operation management device can receive train operation information)
receiving preceding vehicle information corresponding to the resource device fed back by the vehicle monitoring system in response to the first query request, the preceding vehicle information being determined by the vehicle monitoring system according to the resource device and a preset vehicle operating plan. (Paragraph(s) 0033-0037, 0040, and 0081-0084)(Tokumaru teaches a train that includes an base device via a transmission line, which the operation management device can receive train operation information. Tokumaru, further, teaches train location information can be received through the trains tacho-generator and transponder (e.g., monitoring system))
Regarding Claim 6, Tokumaru, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1 and wherein the obtaining preceding vehicle information, and obtaining a predicted end time in which the preceding vehicle uses the resource device comprises:
sending a second query request for the resource device to a vehicle monitoring system. (Paragraph(s) 0033-0037, 0040, and 0081-0084)(Tokumaru teaches a train that includes an base device via a transmission line, which the operation management device can receive train operation information)
receiving predicted end time in which the preceding vehicle uses the resource device fed back by the preceding vehicle in response to the second query request, the predicted end time being determined by the preceding vehicle according to an operating state of the preceding vehicle and usage of the resource device. (Paragraph(s) 0097, 0108-0112 and 0117-0118)(Tokumaru teaches a preceding train is waiting on the platform of the station B, where a number of passengers are on the platform and the train only has four cars. Tokumaru, further, teaches the system can determine (e.g., predicted end time being determined) time it takes the passengers to board and detrain from the cars, which will make the stop time for the preceding train take longer than the planned delayed stopping time (e.g., predicted end time))
Regarding Claim 7, Tokumaru, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 2 and wherein a plurality of resource devices are provided, and the determining a first time difference between the predicted end time and the predicted traveling time comprises: for each resource device, determining a difference between the predicted end time in which the preceding vehicle uses the resource device and the predicted traveling time in which the target vehicle travels to the resource device, to obtain a plurality of differences, and defining a maximum value in the plurality of differences as the first time difference. (Paragraph(s) 0060, 0082-0086, 0108-0112, 0117-0118)(Tokumaru teaches a database that stores departure times and arrival times for each station. Tokumaru, further, teaches determining a stopping time of the preceding vehicle at Station B. The system can obtain the predicted arrival time at which the succeeding train will arrive at the next station based on the stopping time. The system can the determine the time difference of the delay, which the system can determine when the succeeding train can travel towards Station B) a preceding train is waiting on the platform of the station B, where a number of passengers are on the platform and the train only has four cars. Tokumaru, further, teaches the system can determine time it takes the passengers to board and detrain from the cars, which will make the stop time for the preceding train take longer than the planned stopping time. The system can then update the stopping limit time (e.g., predicted end time) is updated as the preceding train departs from the station B. The system will allow a certain distance (e.g., maximum value) for the succeeding vehicle prior to entering into Station B)
Regarding Claim 8, Tokumaru, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1 and further comprising:
after he adjusting a departure time of the target vehicle according to the predicted end time, the predicted traveling time, and a planned parking time of the target vehicle, re-performing, at an interval of preset duration. (Paragraph(s) 0083-0086 and 0133-0141)(Tokumaru teaches that the system can adjust the departure time of a train at a station. Tokumaru, further, teaches a system that is able to determine a delay time (e.g., predicted end time) for the train. The system can also predict the arrival time of the train (e.g., predicted traveling time) to arrive at a train station. The system will also determine a dwell time for all the trains (e.g., planned parking time of the target vehicle). Tokumaru, further, teaches that the system will use this information to then determine a delay time, which the system will then delay the departure times for the succeeding train (e.g., adjusting the departure time of the target vehicle)
the step of obtaining a predicted end time in which the preceding vehicle uses the resource device to the step of adjusting a departure time of the target vehicle according to the predicted end time, the predicted traveling time, and a planned parking time of the target vehicle, until the target vehicle successfully departs. (Paragraph(s) 0083-0086 and 0133-0141-0145)(Tokumaru teaches that the system can adjust the departure time of a train at a station. Tokumaru, further, teaches a system that is able to determine a delay time (e.g., predicted end time) for the train. The system can also predict the arrival time of the train (e.g., predicted traveling time) to arrive at a train station. The system will also determine a dwell time for all the trains (e.g., planned parking time of the target vehicle). Tokumaru, further, teaches that the system will use this information to then determine a delay time, which the system will then delay the departure times for the succeeding train (e.g., adjusting the departure time of the target vehicle). Tokumaru, further, teaches the system can determine if the train is delayed for threshold amount of time then the system will issue a command to the train to a next train station)
Regarding Claim 10, Tokumaru, teaches a vehicle on-board controller, comprising: (Paragraph 0035)(Tokumaru teaches a train that includes an on-board radio device)
a memory, having a computer program stored therein. (Paragraph 0149)(Tokumaru teaches a memory)
A processor, configured to execute the computer program in the memory (Paragraph 0149)(Tokumaru teaches a memory and a processor), to implement the steps of the method according to Claim 1. (See, the relevant rejection of Claim 1(a-e))
Regarding Claim 11, Tokumaru, teaches a rail vehicle, comprising the vehicle on-board controller according to Claim 10. (Paragraph 0003)(Tokumaru teaches a train that includes an on-board radio device (e.g., on-board controller))
Regarding Claim 12, Tokumaru, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 2 and further comprising:
after he adjusting a departure time of the target vehicle according to the predicted end time, the predicted traveling time, and a planned parking time of the target vehicle, re-performing, at an interval of preset duration. (See, the relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 2 and 8(a))
the step of obtaining a predicted end time in which the preceding vehicle uses the resource device to the step of adjusting a departure time of the target vehicle according to the predicted end time, the predicted traveling time, and a planned parking time of the target vehicle, until the target vehicle successfully departs. (See, the relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 2 and 8(b))
Regarding Claim 15, Tokumaru, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 5 and further comprising:
after he adjusting a departure time of the target vehicle according to the predicted end time, the predicted traveling time, and a planned parking time of the target vehicle, re-performing, at an interval of preset duration. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 5 and 8(a))
the step of obtaining a predicted end time in which the preceding vehicle uses the resource device to the step of adjusting a departure time of the target vehicle according to the predicted end time, the predicted traveling time, and a planned parking time of the target vehicle, until the target vehicle successfully departs. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 5 and 8(b))
Regarding Claim 16, Tokumaru, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 6 and further comprising:
after he adjusting a departure time of the target vehicle according to the predicted end time, the predicted traveling time, and a planned parking time of the target vehicle, re-performing, at an interval of preset duration. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 6 and 8(a))
the step of obtaining a predicted end time in which the preceding vehicle uses the resource device to the step of adjusting a departure time of the target vehicle according to the predicted end time, the predicted traveling time, and a planned parking time of the target vehicle, until the target vehicle successfully departs. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 6 and 8(b))
Regarding Claim 17, Tokumaru, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 7 and further comprising:
after he adjusting a departure time of the target vehicle according to the predicted end time, the predicted traveling time, and a planned parking time of the target vehicle, re-performing, at an interval of preset duration. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 7 and 8(a))
the step of obtaining a predicted end time in which the preceding vehicle uses the resource device to the step of adjusting a departure time of the target vehicle according to the predicted end time, the predicted traveling time, and a planned parking time of the target vehicle, until the target vehicle successfully departs. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 7 and 8(b))
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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3-4, 9, 13-14, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Tokumaru (US 2019/0039634 A1) in view of Zheng (CN-113954914-A).
Regarding Claim 3, Tokumaru, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Tokumaru, doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the adjusting a departure time of the target vehicle according to the predicted end time, the predicted traveling time, and a planned parking time of the target vehicle comprises:
determining a total time of the planned parking time and the predicted traveling time, and determining a second time difference between the predicted end time and the total time.
adjusting the departure time of the target vehicle according to the second time difference and the planned parking time of the target vehicle.
But, Zheng in the analogous art of determining departure times for trains, teaches wherein the adjusting a departure time of the target vehicle according to the predicted end time, the predicted traveling time, and a planned parking time of the target vehicle comprises:
determining a total time of the planned parking time and the predicted traveling time, and determining a second time difference between the predicted end time and the total time. (Page 2, “When the target train stops…,”); and (Page 6, “When the train arrives at the aligned…,” “In one embodiment,” “In another embodiment, if the actual arrival…,” “In another embodiment, if the actual arrival time of the target train to the target…,”)(Zheng teaches the system can add the arrival time (e.g., predicted traveling time) and the stop time information t2 (e.g., predicted end time), which the summation both of those numbers will then become the departure time)
adjusting the departure time of the target vehicle according to the second time difference and the planned parking time of the target vehicle. (Page 2, “When the target train stops…,”); and (Page 6, “When the train arrives at the aligned…,” “In one embodiment,” “In another embodiment, if the actual arrival…,” “In another embodiment, if the actual arrival time of the target train to the target…,”)(Zheng teaches the system can add the arrival time and the stop time information, which the summation both of those numbers will then become the departure time. The system can determine if the time (e.g., total time) is greater than the stop time then the system can adjust the departure time based on adding the arrival time and the stop time being summed up)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for determining and adjusting a departure time of Tokumaru, by incorporating the teachings of adjusting a departure time based on the total of the arrival and stop time of Zheng, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to improving the time it takes to control the train. (Zheng: Page 1, “In the traditional train...,”)
Regarding Claim 4, Tokumaru/Zheng, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 3.
However, Tokumaru, doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the adjusting the departure time of the target vehicle according to the second time difference and the planned parking time of the target vehicle comprises:
if the predicted end time is less than or equal to the total time, the departure time is a departure time determined according to the planned parking time.
if the predicted end time is greater than the total time, adjusting the departure time according to a sum of the planned parking time and the second time difference.
But, Zheng in the analogous art of determining departure times for trains, teaches wherein the adjusting the departure time of the target vehicle according to the second time difference and the planned parking time of the target vehicle comprises:
if the predicted end time is less than or equal to the total time, the departure time is a departure time determined according to the planned parking time. Or
if the predicted end time is greater than the total time, adjusting the departure time according to a sum of the planned parking time and the second time difference. (Page 2, “When the target train stops…,”); and (Page 6, “When the train arrives at the aligned…,” “In one embodiment,” “In another embodiment, if the actual arrival…,” “In another embodiment, if the actual arrival time of the target train to the target…,”)(Zheng teaches the system can add the arrival time and the stop time information, which the summation both of those numbers will then become the departure time. The system can determine if the time (e.g., total time) is greater than the stop time then the system can adjust the departure time based on adding the arrival time and the stop time being summed up)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for determining and adjusting a departure time of Tokumaru, by incorporating the teachings of adjusting a departure time based on the total of the arrival and stop time of Zheng, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to improving the time it takes to control the train. (Zheng: Page 1, “In the traditional train...,”)
Regarding Claim 9, Tokumaru, teaches Claim 1. (See, the relevant rejection of Claim 1(a-e))
With respect to the above limitations: while Tokumaru teaches obtaining preceding vehicle information, which the system can establish communication with the vehicle. The system can determine a predicted traveling time and then adjust the departure time for the succeeding vehicle. However, Tokumaru, doesn’t explicitly teach a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
But, Zheng in the analogous art of determining departure times for trains, teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having a computer program stored therein. (Page “The computer program…,” and “IF the functions…,”)(Zheng teaches a computer-readable storage medium that uses a processor to execute the steps)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for determining and adjusting a departure time of Tokumaru, by incorporating the teachings of adjusting a departure time based on the total of the arrival and stop time of Zheng, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to improving the time it takes to control the train. (Zheng: Page 1, “In the traditional train...,”)
Regarding Claim 13, Tokumaru/Zheng, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 3 and further comprising:
after he adjusting a departure time of the target vehicle according to the predicted end time, the predicted traveling time, and a planned parking time of the target vehicle, re-performing, at an interval of preset duration. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 3 and 8(a))
the step of obtaining a predicted end time in which the preceding vehicle uses the resource device to the step of adjusting a departure time of the target vehicle according to the predicted end time, the predicted traveling time, and a planned parking time of the target vehicle, until the target vehicle successfully departs. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 3 and 8(b))
Regarding Claim 14, Tokumaru/Zheng, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 4 and further comprising:
after he adjusting a departure time of the target vehicle according to the predicted end time, the predicted traveling time, and a planned parking time of the target vehicle, re-performing, at an interval of preset duration. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 4 and 8(a))
the step of obtaining a predicted end time in which the preceding vehicle uses the resource device to the step of adjusting a departure time of the target vehicle according to the predicted end time, the predicted traveling time, and a planned parking time of the target vehicle, until the target vehicle successfully departs. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 4 and 8(b))
Regarding Claim 18, Tokumaru/Zheng, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 2 and Claim 2)
With respect to the above limitations: while Tokumaru teaches determining a predicted end time and traveling time difference, which will then adjust the departure time. However, Tokumaru, doesn’t explicitly teach a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
But, Zheng in the analogous art of determining departure times for trains, teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having a computer program stored therein. (Page “The computer program…,” and “If the functions…,”)(Zheng teaches a computer-readable storage medium that uses a processor to execute the steps)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for determining and adjusting a departure time of Tokumaru, by incorporating the teachings of adjusting a departure time based on the total of the arrival and stop time of Zheng, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to improving the time it takes to control the train. (Zheng: Page 1, “In the traditional train...,”)
Regarding Claim 19, Tokumaru/Zheng, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 3 and Claim 3)
With respect to the above limitations: while Tokumaru teaches determining a predicted end time and traveling time difference, which will then adjust the departure time. However, Tokumaru, doesn’t explicitly teach a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
But, Zheng in the analogous art of determining departure times for trains, teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having a computer program stored therein. (Page “The computer program…,” and “If the functions…,”)(Zheng teaches a computer-readable storage medium that uses a processor to execute the steps)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for determining and adjusting a departure time of Tokumaru, by incorporating the teachings of adjusting a departure time based on the total of the arrival and stop time of Zheng, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to improving the time it takes to control the train. (Zheng: Page 1, “In the traditional train...,”)
Regarding Claim 20, Tokumaru/Zheng, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 4 and Claim 4)
With respect to the above limitations: while Tokumaru teaches determining a predicted end time and traveling time difference, which will then adjust the departure time. However, Tokumaru, doesn’t explicitly teach a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
But, Zheng in the analogous art of determining departure times for trains, teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having a computer program stored therein. (Page “The computer program…,” and “If the functions…,”)(Zheng teaches a computer-readable storage medium that uses a processor to execute the steps)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for determining and adjusting a departure time of Tokumaru, by incorporating the teachings of adjusting a departure time based on the total of the arrival and stop time of Zheng, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to improving the time it takes to control the train. (Zheng: Page 1, “In the traditional train...,”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A HEFLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3524. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
/B.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628