DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to claims filed 5/27/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 5/27/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
To enhance clarity, claim language is underlined throughout this Office Action, except for the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 which follow specific formatting guidelines detailed therein.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 11, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites a state of a railroad and retrieve railroad states. These limitations fail to establish a clear antecedent relationship and makes it ambiguous whether these limitations are introducing entirely new and separate “states.” Claim 11 is objected to for similar reasons.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of partition hierarchy without defining its structural boundaries or relationship to the “one or more domains,” and thus, the metes and bounds of the limitation of “partition hierarchy” cannot be reasonably determined by one of ordinary skill in the art. For example, the partition hierarchy may pertain to physical memory, a database, geographic regions, etc. Claim 11 is objected to for similar reasons.
Claim 3 recites the limitation of ARS. Limitations from the specification are not incorporated into the claim language, and thus, it is recommended to amend the acronym of “ARS” to recite “auto-routing system,” as supported by the specification. Claim 13 is objected to for similar reasons.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of the domain in line 9 of page 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, the preceding limitation recites “one or more domains,” and one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine if “the domain” is referencing one of the “one or more domains” or is to be interpreted distinct from the “one or more domains.” Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of all of the events necessary to represent the state of the railroad at a specific data and time in lines 12 and 13 on page 1. The term “all of the events necessary” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “all of the events necessary” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, the metes and bounds of the limitation of “all of the events necessary” cannot be reasonably determined by one of ordinary skill in the art. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of the events in line 12 on page 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine if “the events” is referencing the “events” in line 3 or the “one or more events” in lines 9-10. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine if the “events” in line 3 and the “one or more events” in lines 9-10 are to be interpreted separate and distinct from one another. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons.
Claim 2 recites the limitation of the plurality of events. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, the preceding limitations recite “one or more events” and “all of the events necessary.” One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably interpret the “plurality of events” in light of the preceding limitations. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons.
Claim 4 recites the limitation of the differences between a previous railroad network state and a current railroad network state. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, “differences” cannot be considered inherent to a previous and current railroad network state. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons.
Claims 7 and 8 recite the limitation of the event. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, the preceding limitations recite “one or more events,” and one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine if “the event” is referencing one of the “one or more events” or is to be interpreted distinct from the “one or more events.” Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons.
Claim 10 recites the limitation of the events. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, the preceding limitations recite “one or more events” and “all of the events necessary.” One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably interpret the “events” in light of the preceding limitations. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons.
Claims 3-6, 9, 13-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for incorporating the errors of independent claims 1 and 11 by dependency.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis of Claim 1
Claim 1. A system for snapshot and playback of events in a railroad network, comprising:
a memory configured to store railroad data; and
a processor operably coupled to the memory and capable of executing machine-readable instructions to perform program steps, the program steps including:
organizing railroad data into one or more domains;
periodically storing a state of a railroad into one or more snapshots according to the domain and organized in a partition hierarchy, wherein each snapshot includes one or more events;
analyzing the railroad data according to the hierarchy to retrieve railroad states; and
replaying all of the events necessary to represent the state of the railroad at a specific date and time.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a system. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
The claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of organizing railroad data into one or more domains. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “railroad data” is data related to a railroad, and the limitation of “domain” is merely a data field or type. The concept of grouping generally recited data into categories (i.e. “domains”) is a logical step.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. railroad data) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. organize railroad data into a domain). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of periodically storing a state of a railroad into one or more snapshots according to the domain and organized in a partition hierarchy, wherein each snapshot includes one or more events. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “state of a railroad” is data related to a railroad state, and the limitation of “snapshot” is a data log. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “event,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data related to an event, which does not require any particular sensors or controlled operations associated with a railroad vehicle. The limitation of “partition hierarchy” is merely a logical structure, defining the arrangement of generally recited data logs. No physical hardware is claimed.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. a snapshot defined as a state of a railroad) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. organizing the snapshot in a partition hierarchy). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of analyzing the railroad data according to the hierarchy to retrieve railroad states. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “railroad states” is data related to states of a railroad. As discussed above, the “hierarchy” is merely a logical structure, defining the arrangement of generally recited data logs.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. railroad data) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. analyze the railroad data to retrieve railroad states). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “processor”). The recitation of the “processor” as performing the abstract ideas is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a computer (i.e. processor) as a tool to perform the processes (i.e. the “organizing,” “storing,” and “analyzing” steps) which does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract process when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)#3.
Thus, the claim recites, describes, or sets forth a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claim is evaluated for whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined potions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites additional elements of:
a memory configured to store railroad data; and
a processor operably coupled to the memory and capable of executing machine-readable instructions to perform program steps, the program steps including:
replaying all of the events necessary to represent the state of the railroad at a specific date and time.
The “replaying” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general replay of events for a specific data and time) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
No technological details are recited with respect to the “replaying” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the “replaying” step is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The “memory” merely acts in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to store data), and therefore, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The “processor” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computing environment. The “processor” is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automating the claimed steps, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim is evaluated for whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the replaying step was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus, it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The technical field describes a playback and snapshot API as known in the art, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor and memory are anything other than conventional computer components. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016), OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015), buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014), indicate that storing and retrieving information in memory, and receiving or transmitting data over a network are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 2-10
Dependent claims 2-10 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 2 recites the additional elements of each event in the plurality of events can be a detailed description of a train movement at an indicated time.
Further limiting the “each event” to be a detailed description of a train movement at an indicated time represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 2 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the additional elements of the domain is moves, schedules, constraints, crew, ARS, or third party.
Further limiting the “domain” to be moves, schedules, constraints, crew, ARS, or third party represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 3 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the additional elements of the program steps further comprising tracking the differences between a previous railroad network state and a current railroad network state.
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. previous railroad network state and a current railroad network state) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. tracking differences between the previous and current railroad network states). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
As discussed above, the “processor” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computing environment. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automating the “tracking” step, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 4 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the additional elements of the partition hierarchy organizes partitions within an individual topic.
Further limiting the “partition hierarchy” to organize partitions within an individual topic represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 5 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the additional elements of the snapshot provides a window in time, given a start time and an end time, for system playback.
Further limiting the “snapshot” to provide a window in time, given a start time and an end time, for system playback represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 6 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the additional elements of the event is an immutable fact that cannot be changed or modified.
Further limiting the “event” to be an immutable fact that cannot be changed or modified represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 7 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the additional elements of the event is stored and keyed by date and time.
Further limiting the “event” to be stored and keyed by date and time represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 8 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the additional elements of the program steps further comprising storing information into topics containing unique partitions.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of “topics,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is a data category, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of “unique partitions” is a division of data. The “storing” step encompasses a general method of organizing generally recited data using generic computing components.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. information) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. store information into topics with partitions). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
As discussed above, the “processor” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computing environment. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automating the “storing” step, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 9 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the additional elements of the partitions contain segments that contain the events.
Further limiting the “partitions” to include segments that contain the events represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 10 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
101 Analysis of Claim 11
Claim 11. A method of snapshot and playback of events in a railroad network, comprising:
organizing railroad data into one or more domains;
periodically storing a state of a railroad into one or more snapshots according to the domain and organized in a partition hierarchy, wherein each snapshot includes one or more events;
analyzing the railroad data according to the hierarchy to retrieve railroad states; and
replaying all of the events necessary to represent the state of the railroad at a specific date and time.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 11 in step 2A prong one.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 11 in step 2A prong two.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 11 in step 2B.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 12-20
Dependent claims 12-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Specifically, claims 12-20 correspond in scope to claims 2-10, respectively, and therefore, the limitations of claims 12-20 represent a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) with no additional computer-based elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B) using analyses similar to those discussed in the rejections of dependent claims 2-10 above.
Claims 1-20 are thus found ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 as directed to an abstract idea, with the additional computer-based elements, as tested above, not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more (Step 2B).
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 2016/0090111 A1), hereinafter Miller, in view of Birnbaum et al. (US 2015/0254318 A1), hereinafter Birnbaum.
Claim 1
Miller discloses the claimed system for snapshot and playback of events in a railroad network (see ¶0006, regarding the event recorder playback system for a plurality of locomotives), comprising:
a memory configured to store railroad data (see ¶0017, regarding recording system 200 is configured to store datasets to non-volatile memory stores; ¶0015-0016, regarding that datasets contain operational data from locomotives, such as travel velocity, time information, date information, geographic information, GPS information, alarm status, power level, audio recording data, and/or other control information in connection with the operation of the locomotive); and
a processor operably coupled to the memory and capable of executing machine-readable instructions to perform program steps (see ¶0019, regarding recording system 200 includes computer-readable storage medium storing program code operable to cause a processor to perform the data storage operations, where the processor may be a central processing unit), the program steps including:
organizing railroad data into one or more domains (see ¶0023-0024, regarding that datasets associated with locomotives, e.g., dataset 302, dataset 304, and dataset 304 in Figure 3, are recorded by event recorders and subsequently aligned with respect to the same event, e.g., event 308). The datasets of Miller are organized by their respective locomotives, which may reasonably be interpreted as a “domain.”
While Miller further discloses that the program steps include periodically storing a state of a railroad into one or more snapshots according to the domain, wherein each snapshot includes one or more events (see ¶0026-0028, regarding that each dataset associated with a respective locomotive for a particular event is saved to an operatively connected computer memory and aligned with respect to time; ¶0002, regarding that the data may be collected periodically), Miller does not further disclose that the “one or more snapshots” is organized in a partition hierarchy, such that the program steps further include analyzing the railroad data according to the hierarchy to retrieve railroad states. However, providing a hierarchical storage of similar data for subsequent analysis and retrieval would be obvious to incorporate into the system of Miller, in light of Birnbaum.
Specifically, Birnbaum teaches a similar system for storing transactions in a historical database and replaying data starting from a particular moment (see ¶0020-0021). Birnbaum further teaches storing the state of one or more data records, defined as geolocation data associated with vehicles in ¶0037-0038, at one or more predetermined intervals in historical database 112 (similar to the step of periodically storing a state of a railroad into one or more snapshots of Miller) (see ¶0027), where the data records are organized in a partition hierarchy (see ¶0027, regarding the historical database 112 is organized to store the status of the records at predetermined intervals; ¶0034, regarding that the records in historical database 112 are versioned by time; ¶0030, regarding that the records in historical database 112 are stored based on access patterns or age of the data, e.g., older or less used data is stored on slower storage devices), and analyzing the data records (similar to the railroad data of Miller described in ¶0015 as including geographic or GPS information) according to the hierarchy to retrieve state of the records in the historical database 112 (similar to the railroad states of Miller) (see ¶0034, regarding that the system scans the historical database for the state of all records at the moment requested by the user and returns the results to the user; ¶0054, regarding rewind module 124 retrieves the status of records at a specified moment from historical database 112). The limitation of “partition hierarchy” is not defined in the claim and may be reasonably interpreted as time-partitioned records that are stored in a hierarchal manner by age or access patterns.
In Miller, data pertaining to locomotives is used for snapshot and playback of events in a railroad network. In Birnbaum, data pertaining to vehicles is used for snapshot and playback of events in a road network. However, it is the technique of organizing snapshots in a partition hierarchy for subsequent analysis to retrieve particular states that is modified by Birnbaum; therefore, the type of vehicles associated with the data used for snapshot does not influence this combination.
Since the systems of Miller and Birnbaum are directed to the same purpose, i.e. performing snapshot and playback of events, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the one or more snapshots of Miller to be organized in a partition hierarchy, such that the program steps of Miller further include analyzing the railroad data according to the hierarchy to retrieve railroad states, in light of Birnbaum, with the predictable result of providing a quick and easy manner in which data can be rewound to any moment in time for replay (¶0039 of Birnbaum), which may be influenced by the age of the data or access patterns (¶0030 of Birnbaum).
Miller further discloses that the program steps include replaying all of the events necessary to represent the state of the railroad at a specific date and time (see ¶0031, regarding that system 300 outputs the datasets on an output device where the output is aligned with respect to time).
Claims 2 and 12
Miller further discloses that each event in the plurality of events can be a detailed description of a train movement at an indicated time (see ¶0015, regarding that the data sets include operational data, such as travel velocity, time information, date information, geographic information, GPS information, alarm status, power level, audio recording data, and/or other control information in connection with the operation of the locomotive).
Claims 3 and 13
Miller further discloses that the domain is moves, schedules, constraints, crew, ARS, or third party (see ¶0023-0024, regarding that datasets associated with locomotives, e.g., dataset 302, dataset 304, and dataset 304 in Figure 3, are recorded by event recorders and subsequently aligned with respect to the same event, e.g., event 308, defined as a derailment or crash in ¶0003, such as a vehicle intersecting the path of the consist described in ¶0022). The datasets of Miller are organized by their respective locomotives and/or events, which may reasonably be interpreted as a “domain” that may reflect “moves” or “third party,” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language.
Claims 4 and 14
Miller does not further disclose that the program steps further comprising tracking the differences between a previous railroad network state and a current railroad network state. However, it would be obvious to track differences between current and historic datasets of Miller, given that this feature does not influence any of the claimed steps.
Birnbaum further teaches the known technique of tracking the differences between a previous network state and a current network state (see ¶0058, with respect to Figure 4, regarding that computer replay system 101 determines when changes occurred to records, e.g., R0, R1, R3, as a result of a transaction, e.g., records 411-414). Thus, applying this technique of Birnbaum to the datasets recorded in Miller teaches tracking the differences between a previous railroad network state and a current railroad network state, where the datasets of Miller are associated with locomotives, as described in at least ¶0015.
In Miller, data pertaining to locomotives is used for snapshot and playback of events in a railroad network. In Birnbaum, data pertaining to vehicles is used for snapshot and playback of events in a road network. However, it is the technique of tracking differences between a previous and current network state that is modified by Birnbaum; therefore, the type of vehicles associated with the data used for snapshot does not influence this combination.
Since the systems of Miller and Birnbaum are directed to the same purpose, i.e. performing snapshot and playback of events, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the program steps of Miller to further include tracking the differences between a previous railroad network state and a current railroad network state, in light of Birnbaum, with the predictable result of identifying which records have changed (¶0058 of Birnbaum) so as to filter relevant records before communicating with a user (¶0059 of Birnbaum).
Claims 5 and 15
Birnbaum further teaches that the partition hierarchy organizes partitions within an individual topic (see ¶0027, regarding the historical database 112 is organized to store the status of the records at predetermined intervals; ¶0034, regarding that the records in historical database 112 are versioned by time; ¶0030, regarding that the records in historical database 112 are stored based on access patterns or age of the data, e.g., older or less used data is stored on slower storage devices). Limitations from the specification are not read into the claim language. An “individual topic” may be broadly interpreted as merely the status of the records.
Claims 6 and 16
Miller further discloses that the snapshot provides a window in time, given a start time and an end time, for system playback (see Figure 3, depicting a “window in time” that is aligned with respect to each dataset for output, described in ¶0031).
Birnbaum similarly teaches the known technique in which a snapshot provides a window in time, given a start time and an end time, for system playback (see ¶0056, regarding a query is received for all records between moments t1 and 52, such that the replay module sequentially communicates the transactions occurring within that window).
Claims 7 and 17
Miller further discloses that the event is an immutable fact that cannot be changed or modified (see ¶0002, regarding that the event recorder collects data from multiple subsystems within a locomotive, e.g., after an event such as an accident; ¶0015, regarding that operational data in connection with the operation of the locomotive is recorded). Alignment of the event 308 depicted in Figure 3 of Miller does not “change” or “modify” the event.
Claims 8 and 18
Miller further discloses that the event is stored and keyed by date and time (see ¶0019, regarding that the data is received as time-stamped data signals; ¶0015, regarding that operational data recorded as datasets includes time information and date information).
Claims 9 and 19
Miller further discloses storing information into topics containing unique partitions (see ¶0024, with respect to Figure 3, regarding video data 310, audio data 312, and signal data 314 are provided in dataset 302). As depicted in Figure 3, Miller shows the different types (i.e. “topics”) of data as uniquely partitioned.
Claims 10 and 20
Miller further discloses that the partitions contain segments that contain the events (see ¶0024, with respect to Figure 3, regarding video data 310, audio data 312, and signal data 314 provided in dataset 302 are associated with event 308).
Claim 11
The combination of Miller and Birnbaum discloses the claimed method of snapshot and playback of events in a railroad network, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Davidson (US 2013/0304349 A1) teaches a system that creates snapshots for (automotive) vehicle movements and pulls snapshots for identification of the state of the overall system based on user requests. Jericho et al. (US 2014/0088820 A1) teaches a system that stores (mining) vehicle movements for playback based on user requests. Clifton et al. (US 5,947,423) teaches a system that maintains a state of the railway (SOR) that identifies changes in train locations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights