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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the office action filed 04/01/2026, Applicant added new claims 15-19. Claims 1-19 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2026, with respect to Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lill et al. (U.S. 2023/0278608) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, regarding Applicants argument “Claim 1 has been rejected as being anticipated by Lill. Applicant respectfully disagrees with the rejection because the cited prior art does not teach each and every limitation of the claimed invention, expressly or inherently. Specifically, Lill fails to disclose and/or suggest at least the claimed limitations of via the user interface "a second selection user input corresponding to a selection of a stopping element representing a stopping point of the rail vehicle path"; "a first drag user input corresponding to a drag of the stopping element in at least one of the first dimension, thereby changing a time of the stopping point, and/or in the second dimension, thereby changing the location of the stopping point"; and/or "a third selection user input corresponding to a selection of a starting element representing a starting point of the rail vehicle path"; and "a second drag user input corresponding to a drag of the starting element in at least one of the first dimension, thereby changing the time of the starting point, and/or in the second dimension, thereby changing the location of the starting point."; “Lill does not disclose distinct graphical UI objects representing a stopping point and a starting point of a train path. Nor does Lill disclose selecting such objects independently and dragging them independently to change the respective time and/or location of those points. The Office interprets the horizontal or diagonal segments as implying corresponding stopping and starting elements. However, a geometric point or segment in a displayed line is not analogous to a discrete, selectable user interface element. Lill does not disclose visual control items, point-like items, or control dots corresponding to start/stop points. Lill does not disclose a user first selecting a path and then selecting a stop or start element on that path as a separate UI object. Lill discloses moving a line, not manipulating semantically distinct, independently selectable start/stop elements”; and “That is, in the present application, the discrete UI controls objects corresponding to start/stop semantics; whereas, in Lill, continuous line objects represent movement history/plans of yard containers”; Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP2144.01 states “"[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). In Preda, as in the instant case here, the courts determined that it was reasonable and proper to take into account not only specific expressly disclosed teachings of the single applied reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom for the purpose of establishing that the reference anticipated the claims.
In this case, as previously indicated in the rejection of record, Lill discloses “A rail planning system for planning movement of trains is disclosed. At least some trains comprising a plurality of containers and each container includes at least one train appliance. The system comprises a data storage device arranged to store container data indicative of the or each appliance associated with each container and planned future locations of the containers. The system is arranged to produce data indicative of a train graph for display, the train graph including a line for each container, each line indicative of the planned locations in time and space of a container, and the system includes an interface arranged to facilitate modification by a user of the planned location of a container and thereby modification of the line associated with the container on the train graph.” (Abstract)”; and “receiving at least one of the following: via the user interface (Fig. 1, user input device 18):
a second selection user input corresponding to a selection of a stopping element representing a stopping point of the rail vehicle path; and/or via the user interface: a third selection user input corresponding to a selection of a starting element representing a starting point of the rail vehicle path (¶0119; “a yard planner is able to define and modify planned (future) train and appliance movements at the port yard by interacting with the train graph application 16, for example by interacting with the yard train graph 180 by dragging lines on the yard train graph using a mouse, and/or by interacting with directly with the train graph application, for example using a suitable dialog box”.; see Fig. 9-11 showing both selection and modification of plans for movement of the train(s) which includes stopping locations and times of the stopping locations. For example, Fig. 11, diagonal segments 236 and 238 each represent tentative plans, each with a starting point (transition from horizontal segment 240) where the train appliance is starting movement and a stopping point (where the segments transition to only horizontal) Via the user interface input device 18, the planner is able to select and modify starting and stopping times/locations. See also ¶0133 “by using the yard train graph 180, a yard planner is able to define and/or modify a plan for movement of train appliances, and to finalize the planned movements for implementation by a train controller by interacting with the yard train graph 180, either directly, for example using a mouse, and/or indirectly by activating a suitable dialog box”)).
and a first drag user input corresponding to a drag of the stopping element in at least one of the first dimension, thereby changing a time of the stopping point, and/or in the second dimension, thereby changing the location of the stopping point; and a second drag user input corresponding to a drag of the starting element in at least one of the first dimension, thereby changing the time of the starting point, and/or in the second dimension, thereby changing the location of the starting point (¶0119; “a yard planner is able to define and modify planned (future) train and appliance movements at the port yard by interacting with the train graph application 16, for example by interacting with the yard train graph 180 by dragging lines on the yard train graph using a mouse, and/or by interacting with directly with the train graph application, for example using a suitable dialog box”)”
Lill further discloses “During a second time period 202, the yard loco container and brake car container arrive at the ‘yard in’ location from the south. The brake car container attaches to the train at the ‘yard in’ location with the brake car container disposed to the south of the tag container and therefore behind the tag container. [0110] During a third time period 204, and after the brake car container has been moved to the train by the yard loco container, the yard loco container moves south back to the ‘brake car spur’ location. In order, the main line loco container, the tag container and the brake car container move north to the ‘dumper’ location.” (¶0108)
Persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing upon review of the entirety of the prior art disclosure would understand that modifying the yard train graph (Fig. 9-11) based on a user clicking and dragging the displayed lines (horizontal lines indicating period(s) of time that vehicles remain at a given location while vertical/diagonal lines indicate departure from a first location and arrival at a second location; see ¶0102), wherein the lines represent planned time/location/movement of rail vehicles necessarily includes modifying implied/inferred corresponding ‘arrival and departure locations/times’, which are visually represented in the graphical user interface by transitions between a horizontal line and a vertical/diagonal line.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments “key aspects of the claimed features are….that a rail vehicle path represented by a line graph is first selected, and that then actual modification is performed…The specification describes that the stopping and starting elements are understood as visualized items on the line graph, and more specifically as point-like items or “control dots”.” And “Further, the present application explains that the second dimension is preferably represented by stations or stops on a Y-axis, and that the current location represents a station at which the rail vehicle may stop and start. This reinforces the concept of a station-based train path in a graphical timetable environment. Lill, by contrast, is centered on yard locations, dumper/refueling/brake spur locations, and container handling movement in a yard planning context. Additionally, the present application states that the modified rail vehicle path is output to a physical transportation system and used for operation.”;”; it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a claimed sequential order or steps and/or point-like items or “control dots and/or station-based train path vs yard-based locations) are not recited in rejected Claim 1. 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).
Regarding Applicant’s argument “In summary, none of the references, whether taken alone or in any combination, either show or suggest the features of claim 1. Claim 1 is, therefore, patentable over the art and since all of the dependent claims are ultimately dependent on claim 1, they are patentable as well.”; Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reason(s) presented above as well as the rejection of record reiterated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 9-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lill et al. (U.S. 2023/0278608A1). Lill discloses “A rail planning system for planning movement of trains is disclosed. At least some trains comprising a plurality of containers and each container includes at least one train appliance. The system comprises a data storage device arranged to store container data indicative of the or each appliance associated with each container, and planned future locations of the containers. The system is arranged to produce data indicative of a train graph for display, the train graph including a line for each container, each line indicative of the planned locations in time and space of a container, and the system includes an interface arranged to facilitate modification by a user of the planned location of a container and thereby modification of the line associated with the container on the train graph.” (Abstract)
Regarding Claim 1, Lill discloses: A computer-implemented (Fig. 1; ¶0072; “The following embodiments are described in relation to a rail planning system (and associated method) for planning and managing movement of train appliances at a rail yard, although it will be understood that other applications of the rail planning system other than for a rail yard are envisaged.”) method of modifying (Fig. 9, ¶0119; “a yard planner is able to define and modify planned (future) train and appliance movements at the port yard by interacting with the train graph application 16, for example by interacting with the yard train graph 180 by dragging lines on the yard train graph using a mouse, and/or by interacting with directly with the train graph application, for example using a suitable dialog box.”) a rail vehicle path (Fig. 9-11) provided by a graphical timetable application (Fig. 1, 16) , the method comprising the following steps:
displaying the graphical timetable by a display (Fig. 1, “display 12 arranged to display a train graph 14”; ¶0075) , the graphical timetable including:
a first dimension representing time, and a second dimension representing a location of the rail vehicle (Fig. 9, graph axes represent time and distance of the rail vehicles);
receiving via a user interface (Fig. 1, user input device 18) a first selection user input corresponding to a selection of a rail vehicle path represented by a line graph (Fig. 9, 180 or Fig. 11) displayed as part of the graphical timetable (¶0123; “the yard planner is able to lock planned container movements by selecting a position on the yard train graph corresponding to one or more lines and associated containers, for example using a mouse. In the example shown in FIG. 11, the yard planner has selected a location indicated by reference numeral 240 “) (¶0119; “a yard planner is able to define and modify planned (future) train and appliance movements at the port yard by interacting with the train graph application 16, for example by interacting with the yard train graph 180 by dragging lines on the yard train graph using a mouse, and/or by interacting with directly with the train graph application, for example using a suitable dialog box.”);
receiving at least one of the following: via the user interface (Fig. 1, user input device 18):
a second selection user input corresponding to a selection of a stopping element representing a stopping point of the rail vehicle path; and/or via the user interface: a third selection user input corresponding to a selection of a starting element representing a starting point of the rail vehicle path (¶0119; “a yard planner is able to define and modify planned (future) train and appliance movements at the port yard by interacting with the train graph application 16, for example by interacting with the yard train graph 180 by dragging lines on the yard train graph using a mouse, and/or by interacting with directly with the train graph application, for example using a suitable dialog box”.; see Fig. 9-11 showing both selection and modification of plans for movement of the train(s) which includes stopping locations and times of the stopping locations. See ¶0102. For example, Fig. 11, diagonal segments 236 and 238 each represent tentative plans, each with a starting point (transition from horizontal segment 240) where the train appliance is starting movement and a stopping point (where the segments transition to only horizontal) Via the user interface input device 18, the planner is able to select and modify starting and stopping times/locations. See also ¶0133 “by using the yard train graph 180, a yard planner is able to define and/or modify a plan for movement of train appliances, and to finalise the planned movements for implementation by a train controller by interacting with the yard train graph 180, either directly, for example using a mouse, and/or indirectly by activating a suitable dialog box”)).
and a first drag user input corresponding to a drag of the stopping element in at least one of the first dimension, thereby changing a time of the stopping point, and/or in the second dimension, thereby changing the location of the stopping point; and a second drag user input corresponding to a drag of the starting element in at least one of the first dimension, thereby changing the time of the starting point, and/or in the second dimension, thereby changing the location of the starting point (¶0119; “a yard planner is able to define and modify planned (future) train and appliance movements at the port yard by interacting with the train graph application 16, for example by interacting with the yard train graph 180 by dragging lines on the yard train graph using a mouse, and/or by interacting with directly with the train graph application, for example using a suitable dialog box”)
Regarding Claim 13, Lill discloses: An apparatus (Fig. 1; ¶0072; “The following embodiments are described in relation to a rail planning system (and associated method) for planning and managing movement of train appliances at a rail yard, although it will be understood that other applications of the rail planning system other than for a rail yard are envisaged.”) for providing a modification (Fig. 9, ¶0119; “a yard planner is able to define and modify planned (future) train and appliance movements at the port yard by interacting with the train graph application 16, for example by interacting with the yard train graph 180 by dragging lines on the yard train graph using a mouse, and/or by interacting with directly with the train graph application, for example using a suitable dialog box.”) of a rail vehicle path (Fig. 9-11), the apparatus comprising:
a graphical timetable application (Fig. 1, 16) for providing the rail vehicle path (Fig. 9-11);
a display (Fig. 1, “display 12 arranged to display a train graph 14”; ¶0075) configured for displaying a graphical timetable (Fig. 9-11, e.g. timetable 180 and 231), the graphical timetable having:
a first dimension representing time and a second dimension representing a location of the rail vehicle (Fig. 9, graph axes represent time and distance of the rail vehicles);;
a user interface (Fig. 1, 18); ¶0076) configured for receiving a first selection user input corresponding to a selection of a rail vehicle path represented by a line graph (Fig. 9, 180 or Fig. 11) displayed as part of the graphical timetable (¶0123; “the yard planner is able to lock planned container movements by selecting a position on the yard train graph corresponding to one or more lines and associated containers, for example using a mouse. In the example shown in FIG. 11, the yard planner has selected a location indicated by reference numeral 240 “) (¶0119; “a yard planner is able to define and modify planned (future) train and appliance movements at the port yard by interacting with the train graph application 16, for example by interacting with the yard train graph 180 by dragging lines on the yard train graph using a mouse, and/or by interacting with directly with the train graph application, for example using a suitable dialog box.”);;
said graphical timetable application being configured for at least one of:
receiving via the user interface a second selection user input corresponding to a selection of a stopping element representing a stopping point of the rail vehicle path, and/or receiving via the user interface a third selection user input corresponding to a selection of a starting element representing a starting point of the rail vehicle path, (¶0119; “a yard planner is able to define and modify planned (future) train and appliance movements at the port yard by interacting with the train graph application 16, for example by interacting with the yard train graph 180 by dragging lines on the yard train graph using a mouse, and/or by interacting with directly with the train graph application, for example using a suitable dialog box”.; see Fig. 9-11 showing both selection and modification of plans for movement of the train(s) which includes stopping locations and times of the stopping locations. For example, Fig. 11, diagonal segments 236 and 238 each represent tentative plans, each with a starting point (transition from horizontal segment 240) where the train appliance is starting movement and a stopping point (where the segments transition to only horizontal) Via the user interface input device 18, the planner is able to select and modify starting and stopping times/locations. See also ¶0133 “by using the yard train graph 180, a yard planner is able to define and/or modify a plan for movement of train appliances, and to finalise the planned movements for implementation by a train controller by interacting with the yard train graph 180, either directly, for example using a mouse, and/or indirectly by activating a suitable dialog box”)).
and a first drag user input corresponding to a drag of the stopping element in at least one of the first dimension, thereby changing the time of the stopping point, and/or in the second dimension, thereby changing the location of the stopping point; and a second drag user input corresponding to a drag of the starting element in at least one of the first dimension, thereby changing the time of the starting point, and/or in the second dimension, thereby changing the location of the starting point (¶0119; “a yard planner is able to define and modify planned (future) train and appliance movements at the port yard by interacting with the train graph application 16, for example by interacting with the yard train graph 180 by dragging lines on the yard train graph using a mouse, and/or by interacting with directly with the train graph application, for example using a suitable dialog box”)
Regarding Claim 3, Lill further discloses: updating a value of a data representation, the data representation indicating the location and the time of at least one of the stopping point or starting point in response to modifying the rail vehicle path by changing the location and the time of at least one of the stopping point or starting point while at least one of the first or second drag user input is received by the graphical timetable application (¶0119, and Fig. 9-11; ““a yard planner is able to define and modify planned (future) train and appliance movements at the port yard by interacting with the train graph application 16, for example by interacting with the yard train graph 180 by dragging lines on the yard train graph using a mouse, and/or by interacting with directly with the train graph application, for example using a suitable dialog box.”)
Regarding Claim 4, Lill further discloses: displaying a preliminary modified rail vehicle path in addition to the rail vehicle path displayed as part of the graphical timetable, the preliminary modifiedrail vehicle path representing the drag user input received by the graphical timetable application via the user interface (Fig. 11, ¶0122; “The unlocked line portions 236, 238 represent appliance movements that are contemplated by the yard planner but have not yet been finalized by the yard planner for implementation by the train controller.”)
Regarding Claim 5, Lill further discloses: providing a pair element consisting of the stopping element and starting element at one location of the rail vehicle path; receiving by the graphical timetable application via the user interface a fifth selection user input corresponding to a selection of the pair element; and receiving by the graphical timetable application via the user interface a third drag user input corresponding to a drag of the pair element in the second dimension, thereby changing the location of the pair element (Fig. 9, ¶0119; “a yard planner is able to define and modify planned (future) train and appliance movements at the port yard by interacting with the train graph application 16, for example by interacting with the yard train graph 180 by dragging lines on the yard train graph using a mouse”. Each line horizontal segment that is parallel to the time axis represents the rail vehicle stopped at the location in view that the distance does not change. Each of said segments is connected to a diagonal segment which represents movement of the rail vehicle over time. Therefore it is implicitly disclosed that each horizontal segment comprises a stopping end (element) and starting end (element) at one location. In view of the disclosure, a yard planner selecting a horizontal line segment and dragging in a vertical direction to a different location would necessarily include dragging the starting end (element) and stopping end (element) to the different location.
Regarding Claim 6, Lill further discloses providing a pair element consisting of the stopping element and starting element at one location of the rail vehicle path; receiving by the graphical timetable application via the user interface: a sixth selection user input corresponding to a selection of the stopping element and a fourth drag user input corresponding to a drag of the stopping element in the first dimension, thereby changing the time of the stopping point; or a seventh selection user input corresponding to a selection of the starting element and a fifth drag user input corresponding to a drag of the starting element the first dimension, thereby changing the time of the starting element (Fig. 9, ¶0119; “a yard planner is able to define and modify planned (future) train and appliance movements at the port yard by interacting with the train graph application 16, for example by interacting with the yard train graph 180 by dragging lines on the yard train graph using a mouse”. Each line horizontal segment that is parallel to the time axis represents the rail vehicle stopped at the location in view that the distance does not change. Each of said segments is connected to a diagonal segment which represents movement of the rail vehicle over time. Therefore it is implicitly disclosed that for example, each horizontal segment comprises a stopping end (element) and starting end (element) at one location. In view of the disclosure, a yard planner selecting a horizontal line segment and dragging in a horizontal direction to a different time would necessarily include dragging (changing) the starting end (element) and stopping end (element) time(s) respecively.)
Regarding Claim 9, Lill further discloses: A data processing apparatus, comprising a processor for carrying out the method according to claim 1. (Fig. 1, system 10, comprising a computing device for carrying out the associated planning method; see ¶0076)
Regarding Claim 10, Lill further discloses: A computer program, comprising non-transitory instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method according to claim 1. (Fig. 1, system 10, comprising a computing device 28 for carrying out the associated planning method based on the train graph application 16; see ¶0076)
Regarding Claim 11, Lill further discloses: A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method according to claim 1. (Fig. 1, system 10, comprising a computing device 28 and data storage device 22 for carrying out the associated planning method based on the train graph application 16; see ¶0076)
Regarding Claim 12, Lill further discloses: A method of operating a transportation system having a plurality of rail vehicles, the method comprising: operating (¶0120; “The yard train graph 180 and associated train control screen 220 may then be used by a train controller to implement movement of appliances, for example using appropriate Movement Authorities.”) at least one of the plurality of rail vehicles (¶0025; “each appliance comprises: [0026] at least one locomotive; [0027] a plurality of rail cars loadable with material; or [0028] at least one brake car.”) in accordance with a rail vehicle path (Fig. 9-11; ¶0119) generated by executing the method according to claim 1. (Fig. 1, system 10, comprising a computing device 28 and data storage device 22 for carrying out the associated planning method based on the train graph application 16 for a ; see ¶0076)
Regarding Claim 14, Lill further discloses: A transportation system (¶0001; “a rail planning system for planning and managing movement of trains in a rail yard of a rail network”), comprising: a plurality of rail vehicles (¶0025; “each appliance comprises: [0026] at least one locomotive; [0027] a plurality of rail cars loadable with material; or [0028] at least one brake car.”), and an apparatus (Fig. 1) according to claim 13.
Regarding Claim 16, Lill further discloses: wherein the second dimension is represented by stations or stops on a Y-axis (Fig. 9, Y-axis 184 represents distance and identified locations/stops, e.g. yard in, dumper, yard out, refueling area)
Regarding Claim 17, Lill further discloses: wherein the graphical timetable application outputs the modified rail vehicle path to a physical transportation system for operation. (¶0120; “The yard train graph 180 and associated train control screen 220 may then be used by a train controller to implement movement of appliances, for example using appropriate Movement Authorities.”)
Regarding Claim 18, Lill further discloses: wherein the graphical timetable application is supplied real-time data representing the current location of the rail vehicle at the current time. (¶0117, sensors provide location data)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 7-8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lill et al. (U.S. 2023/0278608A1) in view of Kubo (U.S. 2017/057529A1). Kubo discloses “A train scheduling diagram correction apparatus complies earliest and latest timings of a node on a schedule line placed in a shift direction and updates a network diagram by correcting a running hour/minute of the same train between a pair of neighboring trans on the schedule line placed in a schedule line shift direction on the basis of constraint time requirement data of arcs relating to the corresponding nodes in response to shift point information of the schedule line input from an input unit.” (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 2, Lill discloses all the elements of Claim 1 as indicated above. Lill further discloses “FIG. 14 is a schematic conceptual diagram illustrating procedures implemented by a train graph application of the system shown in FIG. 1;[0070] FIG. 15 is a representation of a control panel of the train graph application of the system shown in FIG. 1” (¶0069-0070). However, with respect to modifying the yard train graph (Fig. 9) “for example by interacting with the yard train graph 180 by dragging lines on the yard train graph using a mouse, and/or by interacting with directly with the train graph application, for example using a suitable dialog box” (¶0119); Lill does not explicitly teach a specific initiation “user input” for the modifications, and therefore does not explicitly teach: receiving a fourth selection user input corresponding to a selection of a displayed item via the user interface and initiating a modification of the rail vehicle path in response to receiving the fourth selection user input
Kubo teaches: receiving a fourth selection user input corresponding to a selection of a displayed item via the user interface and initiating a modification of the rail vehicle path in response to receiving the fourth selection user input (¶0043; “The input unit 12 includes various input interfaces such as a mouse used to enter information from a user. For example, using the input unit 12, a user selects one of schedule lines included in the network diagram and enters shift point information in a time-series manner on an editing screen displayed on the display unit 17.”; and “ FIG. 19 is a flowchart illustrating a specific example of a network diagram update process using the network diagram update unit 14b of FIG. 1. This process is started when a user edits the scheduling diagram on a screen.”; ¶0226 and “In step S113, the network diagram update unit 14b determines whether or not a user completes the schedule line editing. Specifically, it is determined whether or not a user instructs to close the editing screen. Here, if it is determined that the schedule line editing is completed (YES in step S113), the process is terminated. Otherwise, if it is determined that the schedule line editing is not completed (NO in step S113), the process returns to step S101.”; ¶0251)
“The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Here, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to include receiving a fourth selection user input corresponding to a selection of a displayed item via the user interface and initiating a modification of the rail vehicle path in response to receiving the fourth selection user input by Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results as taught by Kubo into the teachings of Lill because it does no more than yield predictable results of including a step that definitively starts or initiates the modification of the schedule lines on the graph in response to a clearly intentional specific user input which is conventional in the software art as demonstrated by Kubo since it has been held that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Regarding Claim 7, Lill discloses all the elements of Claim 1 as indicated above but does not explicitly teach: providing the rail vehicle path with a plurality of stopping points represented by stopping elements (212, 222, 232, 242) and a plurality of starting points represented by starting elements (213, 224, 234, 244);receiving by the graphical timetable application via the user interface an eighth selection user input corresponding to a selection of a subset (222, 224, 232, 234) of the plurality of stopping elements and starting elements, the selection comprising drawing a selection area over the subset (222, 224, 232, 234);modifying the rail vehicle path based on receiving a sixth drag user input corresponding to a drag of the subset in at least one of the first dimension, thereby changing the time of the subset (222, 224, 232, 234), or in the second dimension, thereby changing the location of the subset (222, 224, 232, 234)
Kubo teaches providing the rail vehicle path with a plurality of stopping points represented by stopping elements (212, 222, 232, 242) and a plurality of starting points represented by starting elements (213, 224, 234, 244);receiving by the graphical timetable application via the user interface an eighth selection user input corresponding to a selection of a subset (222, 224, 232, 234) of the plurality of stopping elements and starting elements, the selection comprising drawing a selection area over the subset (222, 224, 232, 234);modifying the rail vehicle path based on receiving a sixth drag user input corresponding to a drag of the subset in at least one of the first dimension, thereby changing the time of the subset (222, 224, 232, 234), or in the second dimension, thereby changing the location of the subset (222, 224, 232, 234) (See Fig. 21; ¶0265; “when a user selects a range from the departure node C2 to the arrival node F1 using a mouse cursor and drags it to the right as a whole, the timings of the nodes indicated by the dotted circles are updated.”; in other words a user may select a subset of all of the stopping points and starting points to edit/change location/times as a subset instead of having to edit/change each node individually.)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the rail planning and managing system of Lill to incorporate the teachings of Kubo to include providing the rail vehicle path with a plurality of stopping points represented by stopping elements (212, 222, 232, 242) and a plurality of starting points represented by starting elements (213, 224, 234, 244);receiving by the graphical timetable application via the user interface an eighth selection user input corresponding to a selection of a subset (222, 224, 232, 234) of the plurality of stopping elements and starting elements, the selection comprising drawing a selection area over the subset (222, 224, 232, 234);modifying the rail vehicle path based on receiving a sixth drag user input corresponding to a drag of the subset in at least one of the first dimension, thereby changing the time of the subset (222, 224, 232, 234), or in the second dimension, thereby changing the location of the subset (222, 224, 232, 234) in order efficiently edit/change a vehicle path schedule by enabling a user to select a subset of all of the stopping points and starting points to edit/change location/times as a subset instead of having to edit/change each node individually.
Regarding Claim 8, Lill discloses all the elements of Claim 1 as indicated above but does not explicitly teach: providing the rail vehicle path with a plurality of stopping points represented by stopping elements (212, 222, 232, 242) and a plurality of starting points represented by starting elements (213, 224, 234, 244);receiving a ninth selection user input corresponding to a selection of a further displayed item via the user interface, thereby selecting all stopping elements and starting elements of the rail vehicle path part; and modifying the rail vehicle path based on receiving a seventh drag user input corresponding to a drag of all selected stopping elements and starting elements.
Kubo teaches providing the rail vehicle path with a plurality of stopping points represented by stopping elements (212, 222, 232, 242) and a plurality of starting points represented by starting elements (213, 224, 234, 244);receiving a ninth selection user input corresponding to a selection of a further displayed item via the user interface, thereby selecting all stopping elements and starting elements of the rail vehicle path part; and modifying the rail vehicle path based on receiving a seventh drag user input corresponding to a drag of all selected stopping elements and starting elements. (See Fig. 23-27; ¶0267-0271; a user may select all of the stopping points and starting points to edit/change location/times as a group instead of having to edit/change each node individually.)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the rail planning and managing system of Lill to incorporate the teachings of Kubo to include providing the rail vehicle path with a plurality of stopping points represented by stopping elements (212, 222, 232, 242) and a plurality of starting points represented by starting elements (213, 224, 234, 244);receiving a ninth selection user input corresponding to a selection of a further displayed item via the user interface, thereby selecting all stopping elements and starting elements of the rail vehicle path part; and modifying the rail vehicle path based on receiving a seventh drag user input corresponding to a drag of all selected stopping elements and starting elements in order efficiently edit/change a vehicle path schedule by enabling a user to select a subset of all of the stopping points and starting points to edit/change location/times as a subset instead of having to edit/change each node individually.
Regarding Claim 15, Lill discloses all the elements of Claim 1 as indicated above but does not explicitly teach wherein the stopping element and starting element are displayed as point-like visual items on the line graph
Kubo teaches: wherein the stopping element and starting element are displayed as point-like visual items on the line graph (See Fig. 23-27; ¶0267-0271; ¶0046; “The network diagram creating unit 14a reads the timetable data from the timetable data memory unit 11 to create nodes and sequentially connects the nodes using arcs each representing a time interval between the nodes and a time-series arrival/departure sequence to create a network diagram for visualizing the timetable data. I” and a user may select all of the stopping points and starting points to edit/change location/times as a group instead of having to edit/change each node individually.) in order to create a network diagram for visualizing the timetable data and in order to efficiently edit/change a vehicle path schedule by enabling a user to select a subset of all of the stopping points and starting points to edit/change location/times as a subset instead of having to edit/change each node individually.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the rail planning and managing system of Lill to incorporate the teachings of Kubo to include wherein the stopping element and starting element are displayed as point-like visual items on the line graph in order to create a network diagram for visualizing the timetable data and in order to efficiently edit/change a vehicle path schedule by enabling a user to select a subset of all of the stopping points and starting points to edit/change location/times as a subset instead of having to edit/change each node individually.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lill et al. (U.S. 2023/0278608A1) in view of Otsuki et al. (U.S. 11702120). Otsuki discloses “FIG. 6 shows a graph (a network) of another example of the diagram 210 input from the diagram information input unit 110. FIG. 7 shows, in the form of a table, as an attribute of each of the nodes, the diagram 210 including the same content as the content of FIG. 6. A form of the diagram 210 input from the diagram information input unit 110 may be either the form of a table of FIG. 7 or the form of graphs (the network) of FIG. 6. One of the table and the graph may be input and converted into the other. In the present embodiment, it is assumed that the diagram 210 of the form of a table is input and is converted into the network by the network creator 520 described below.” (Col. 6 line 64+)
Regarding Claim 19, Lill discloses all the elements of Claim 1 but does not explicitly teach: wherein a separate visualized panel displays the time and/or location data associated with the stopping and/or starting point, in addition to the graphical timetable
Otsuki teaches: wherein a separate visualized panel displays the time and/or location data associated with the stopping and/or starting point (See Fig. 7, NODE ID table is shown on display 400; Fig. 1) , in addition to the graphical timetable (Fig. 6, nodes represent starting and stopping points are shown on display 400; Fig. 1).
“The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Here, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to include the wherein a separate visualized panel displays the time and/or location data associated with the stopping and/or starting point, in addition to the graphical timetable by (E) “Obvious to try”as taught by Otsuki into the teachings of Lill because it does no more than yield predictable results of visually presenting train time/location data of starting and stopping points to a user in multiple known formats since it has been held that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Conclusion
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted. Please note that the Office also offers initiatives that are available to applicants after the close of prosecution. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/uspto-patent-applications-iniatives-timeline for more information.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/free-legal-assistance. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final reply that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE 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 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kubo et al. (U.S. 2020/0039548A1) discloses “According to one embodiment, a train operation planning support system displays a timetable of a train in which a first required time and a first buffer time are placed for running time of the train and a second required time and a second buffer time are placed for dwell time of the train.” (Abstract; Fig. 6)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R KIRBY whose telephone number is (571)270-3665. The examiner can normally be reached Telework: M-F, 9a-5p.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at 571-272-1196. 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.
/BRIAN R KIRBY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LINDSAY M LOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights