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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 20 May 2025 and 14 February and 22 May 2026 are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite methods and a system with non-transitory computer readable medium for generating a motion plan for a rail vehicle. These fall under “process” and “apparatus”, which are both statutory invention categories.
The language of claims 1, 12 and 17 recite steps of accessing, correlating data/information and transmitting information which is similar to concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as collecting and storing information, and then accessing and retrieving the stored information as seen in the court case of Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co. (Fed. Cir. 2017), wherein the Courts stated “We have previously held other patent claims ineligible for reciting similar abstract concepts that merely collect, classify, or otherwise filter data. For example, in In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation, we concluded that the concept of classifying data (an image) and storing it based on its classification is abstract under step one. 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Content Extraction, we similarly held that the concept of data collection, recognition, and storage abstract as well. 776 F.3d at 1347. More recently, in Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, we held that a claim to a “content filtering system for filtering content retrieved from an Internet computer network” was directed to an abstract idea….. The mobile interface relies on these pointers to retrieve user resources and information over the network so that a user may view them. But receiving transmitted data over a network and displaying it to a user merely implicates purely conventional activities that are the “most basic functions of a computer.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359. As the ’002 patent observes, pointers themselves are conventional, as is the manner in which the claims employ them in conjunction with the mobile interface.’002 patent col. 1 ll. 34–38.”.
The current claims and specification do not associate the steps of determining, transmitting and performing an action with any specific processes or algorithms that would suggest that the recited steps amount to anything more than the abstract idea of receiving and calculating data.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because these claims to not define specific, explicit real world components that would be necessary to carry out the steps. There are no special hardware features of the process recited in the claims as presented. The hardware of a computing system, communication system or a computing system, transmitter and non-transitory computer-readable medium or a radio communication system and computing system processor are recited in the specification at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions of the judicial exception linked to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. These limitations essentially linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP2106.05(h), MPEP2106.04(d)). This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Furthermore, these claims do not include the additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims recite only generic data. These additional features merely imply generic computers and/or generic components that are claimed in a generic manner. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into specific components, the defined elements are no more than mere instructions of the judicial exception linked to a particular technological environment. The concepts recited are merely directed towards performing the recited abstract idea using implied generic computing devices/components.
These claims 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 specific components, computing system, transmitter or a non-transitory computer-readable medium are no more than mere instructions of the judicial exception linked to a particular technological environment. There is no inventive concept in system, the non-transitory computer-readable medium and the method. Mere linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment cannot provide an integrated inventive concept. These claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 2-11, 13-16 and 18-20 have been rejected on the same grounds and recite substantially similar abstract ideas to the cited independent claims 1, 12 and 17. The dependent claims fail to integrate the inventions into a practical application and/or define additional specific components that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, dependent claims 2-11, 13-16 and 18-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are not patent eligible.
For the reasons set forth above, the claims 1-20 are directed towards an abstract idea.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Morariu, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0074544).
For claim 1, Morariu discloses a method, comprising: with a first computing system (see Fig. 1, #2), determining a motion plan for an autonomous rail vehicle based on a set of track rules (see paras. 0006, 0013); based on the motion plan and a position of the autonomous rail vehicle, dynamically (see paras. 0015-0018) determining an exclusive track reservation for the autonomous rail vehicle (see paras. 0051, 0092, 0120); based on the exclusive track reservation and using a communication system, transmitting a set of commands, wherein the set of commands directs operation of the autonomous rail vehicle (see Fig. 4, #146, paras. 0106, 0109); based on transmission of the set of commands, determining a set of location parameters associated with the autonomous rail vehicle (see paras. 0018, 0100); and based on the set of location parameters, performing an action at the first computing system (see paras. 0110, 0206-0212).
Pertaining to claim 2, Morariu further discloses wherein the action comprises transmitting an instruction for a second rail vehicle (see paras. 0110, 0206-0212).
With reference to claim 3, Morariu further discloses wherein the instruction for the second rail vehicle is determined based on the exclusive track reservation (see paras. 0110, 0206-0212).
Regarding claim 4, Morariu further teaches wherein dynamically determining the exclusive track reservation comprises using an predetermined map of signal connectivity (see para. 0006).
For claim 5, Morariu further discloses wherein determining the exclusive track reservation comprises determining a physical length of the exclusive track reservation (see paras. 0143, 0182).
Referring to claim 6, Morariu further teaches wherein the physical length is based on a location of a switch (see paras. 0143, 0182).
With regards to claim 7, Morariu further teaches wherein determining the exclusive track reservation comprises determining a temporal duration of the exclusive reservation (see paras. 0113-0115, 0050).
With reference to claim 8, Morariu further discloses wherein the temporal duration is based on an expiration parameter (see paras. 0168-0169).
Pertaining to claim 9, Morariu further discloses wherein the temporal duration is based on the set of track rules (see paras. 0169, 0180, 0182, 0194).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morariu, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0074544).
For claim 10, Morariu does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. However, Morariu teaches authority for reservations are required (see paras. 0050, 0064) and is interpreted to be equivalent to the claimed warrants. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that reservation authority is equivalent to track warrants based on the motivation to improve traffic planners that employ rail infrastructure data (e.g., tracks; signals; switches), data about the individual trains to be planned, train schedules, physical and operational constraints, and other data pertinent to the movement of trains (see para. 0006).
With reference to claim 11, Morariu further teaches wherein the exclusive track reservation is spatially a strict subset of the track warrant (see para. 0050).
Regarding claim 12, it defines elements and limitations that are substantially similar to the elements and limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning applied above for claim 1. Additionally, Morariu does not explicitly disclose determining a second set of location parameters. However, Morariu teaches that locations and reservations thereof may be updated as the train executes the commands (see paras. 0051, 0092, 0120). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that a second set of location parameters would be determined based on the motivation to improve traffic planners that employ rail infrastructure data (e.g., tracks; signals; switches), data about the individual trains to be planned, train schedules, physical and operational constraints, and other data pertinent to the movement of trains (see para. 0006).
Pertaining to claim 13, Morariu further teaches a computer memory which persistently stores a set of exclusive track reservations determined by the computing system (see para. 0166), wherein dynamically determining the exclusive track reservation comprises updating the set of exclusive track reservations within the computer memory (see para. 0122).
With regards to claim 14, Morariu further discloses wherein the instructions further comprise commanding a second rail vehicle based on the exclusive track reservation (see paras. 0110, 0206-0212).
Referring to claim 15, does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. However, Morariu discloses that entry and exit times of a specific section is known (see para. 0050). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that a length of the track reservation is implicitly related to the time it takes to traverse the section based on the motivation to improve traffic planners that employ rail infrastructure data (e.g., tracks; signals; switches), data about the individual trains to be planned, train schedules, physical and operational constraints, and other data pertinent to the movement of trains (see para. 0006).
With reference to claim 16, does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. However, Morariu teaches that reservations are based on switch location (see para. 0094) and length of sections (see para. 0193). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that switch position and section length may be used to determine reservation length based on the motivation to improve traffic planners that employ rail infrastructure data (e.g., tracks; signals; switches), data about the individual trains to be planned, train schedules, physical and operational constraints, and other data pertinent to the movement of trains (see para. 0006).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dembinski, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0120862).
For claim 17, Dembinski discloses a method comprising: at a first time, receiving, at a communication system of a rail vehicle, a wireless signal comprising a set of commands for the rail vehicle (see para. 0022), wherein the set of commands are associated with a dynamically-sized track reservation for the rail vehicle (see para. 0032); at a computing system of the rail vehicle, autonomously executing the set of commands (see para. 0033); responsive to receiving the set of commands, transmitting a vehicle state via the radio communication system (see para. 0038); at a second time, determining satisfaction of a trigger condition based on receipt of the wireless signal at the first time (see para. 0038); and responsive to satisfaction of the trigger condition, executing a stop command at the computing system of the rail vehicle (see para. 0038-0039, 0029). Dembinski does not explicitly disclose the use of a radio communication system. However, Dembinski teaches wireless communication (see para. 0022). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that radio communication would have been included under wireless communication based on the motivation to improve determining actual positions and associated actual timestamps of vehicles within the multiple virtual trains along the path, and comparing the actual positions and associated actual timestamps to the multiple schedules (see para. 0006).
With reference to claim 18, Dembinski does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. However, it is well known in the art that wireless communication involves repeated and continuous check ins communications. It is further known that if none are received, systems include failsafe actions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that a failsafe action would be executed if continuous wireless communications are not received based on the motivation to improve determining actual positions and associated actual timestamps of vehicles within the multiple virtual trains along the path, and comparing the actual positions and associated actual timestamps to the multiple schedules (see para. 0006). trigger condition comprises failing to receive a second set of commands within a period of command validity.
Regarding claim 19, Dembinski further teaches wherein the controlling a plurality of follower rail vehicles behind the rail vehicle, wherein the rail vehicle and the plurality of follower rail vehicles cooperatively define a platoon of rail vehicles (see paras. 0027-0029).
Pertaining to claim 20, does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. However, Dembinski discloses a loading area that must be crossed that activates an equivalent to the trigger condition in order to load passengers (see para. 0029). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that to load in passengers requires crossing a boundary and interpreted to be equivalent to executing a trigger condition when crossing spatial boundary.
Conclusion
Examiner would like to point out that any reference/citation to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way. The entire cited reference, as well as any secondary teaching reference(s), are to be included in considerations of relevant disclosure relating to the claimed invention. Applicant is herein considered to have implicit knowledge of all cited teachings of the prior art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights