DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final rejection dated March 2, 2026. In Response, submitted June 2, 2026, claims 1, 11, and 20 were amended, and claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 were cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-5, 8-15, and 18-20 are currently pending and subject to the following final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 14-18 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered and are not found persuasive.
On Pages 14-18 of the Response, Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully submits that, under Step 2A, the present claims are not directed to an abstract idea and therefore, the present claims are patent eligible. … features of the present claims do not merely receive and analyze data or report information, but instead use the results of the process to control a physical asset to actuate movement of the physical asset. In particular, the claimed system processes data signals to generate an enhanced ETA and a dynamic time window for the ETA, and then sends a control signal that is generated based on the enhanced ETA and the dynamic time window to a physical asset to actuate movement of the physical asset. In this manner, systems implemented in accordance with the present claims are able to leverage and apply the enhanced ETA and a dynamic time window generated by the system. This is a practical application of the alleged abstract idea. … instead of operating a sorting gate, claim 1 generates a control signal to a physical asset to cause the physical movement actuation of the physical asset, and the control signal is based on the enhanced ETA and the dynamic time window. In both cases, the claimed system uses the analytical results to automatically control physical equipment, improving the functioning, reliability, and efficiency of a real-world technical system. In this manner, claim 1 ‘employs the information provided by the [alleged] judicial exception ... to operate’ a physical component of a physical system, rather than merely presenting or organizing information. See Example 46 at page 40. Accordingly, Example 46 provides clear support for finding that claim 1 integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application, and therefore, claim 1 is patent eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two. Independent claims 11 and 20, as amended, recite features that are similar to features recited in claim 1, discussed above. Therefore, at least for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, claims 11 and 20 are also patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 are patent eligible at least by virtue of their dependency from a patent eligible claim. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.”
Examiner notes, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, the claimed invention can be interpreted as a human worker performing the “actuat[ing] movement of the physical asset” under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Specifically, consistent with the examples provided in specification paras. 46 and 160, the physical assets may include “locomotives, hostlers, trucks, cranes, loading equipment, and/or any other movable equipment used in rail transportation operations” (emphasis added). As defined by dictionary.com, a hostler is “an employee who moves and services trains, buses, or other vehicles after their regular runs or who does the maintenance work on large machines.” (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hostler) No definitions were found that defined a hostler as anything other than an employee or worker, i.e. a human, the Applicant’s specification fails to define a hostler as anything other than its common definition. Therefore, examples provided in Para. 46 of the specification of “an automatic control signal may instruct a hostler to relocate to a specific track in anticipation of an incoming train, based on the dynamic time window provided by the enhanced ETA. Alternatively, the control signals may be used to guide manual operation of the physical asset 135, with operators using the information to make informed decisions about asset positioning and relocation” serve as further support for this interpretation. Therefore counter to Example 46 claim 3, which deploys a specific sensor which provides specific data used to analyze cows and operates the motor mechanisms of a gate in response, the instant claims represents distilling data from generic “data signal” sources and providing instruction to a worker/operator, such as the hostler, to relocate and/or relocate equipment. Under BRI, limitations such as “process[ing] data … generat[ing] an enhanced ETA and a dynamic time window for the ETA, and then sends a control … that is generated based on the enhanced ETA and the dynamic time window to a physical asset to actuate movement of the physical asset” are aspects of the abstract idea as they amount to the abstract processes of processing data, generating data, and sending the data to a human worker to carry out.
Examiner further notes, the technologies of the claims are not themselves improved, rather the alleged improvements to “functioning, reliability, and efficiency” are direct results of alleged improvements to the abstract ideas of processing data for generating “enhanced ETAs”. This analysis is supported by high generality of the technical aspects of the claimed invention, that are often disclosed only at face value within the specification.
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 18-21 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
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.
Step 1
Claims 1-10 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); claims 11-19 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); and claim 20 is directed to a computer-based tool comprising non-transitory computer readable media (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1-20 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 substantially recite receiving one or more data;
standardizing the received data into a format compatible with an enhanced ETA model;
processing, by the enhanced ETA model, the standardized data to generate an enhanced ETA, wherein the enhanced ETA model comprises:
a station dwell time model configured to predict a dwell time of a train within a station based on a real-time location of the train within the station and one or more scheduled events associated with the train within the station, wherein the one or more scheduled events include one or more of a planned inspection, a planned car setout, and a planned car pickup, and wherein the station dwell time model is configured to generate an estimated train departure time from the station based on the predicted dwell time; and
a train travel time model configured to predict an expected travel time for the train from a source to a destination, wherein the train travel time model is configured to predict the expected travel time by dividing a route of the train into a plurality of segments, predicting a segment travel time for each segment of the plurality of segments, and combining the segment travel times for the plurality of segments to predict the expected travel time for the train;
generating, by the enhanced ETA model, a dynamic time window for the enhanced ETA based on the dwell time of the train and the expected travel time for the train, wherein the dynamic time window becomes smaller as the train approaches the destination, wherein generating the dynamic time window includes generating the enhanced ETA based on a combination of the estimated train departure time generated by the station dwell time model and the expected travel time predicted by the train travel time model; and
sending a control generated based on the enhanced ETA and the dynamic time window to a physical asset, wherein the control is configured to actuate movement of the physical asset, wherein the control includes one or more directives for movement, routing, operation, or positioning of the physical asset, and wherein the control causes the physical asset to move from a first location to a second location in preparation for arrival of the train based on the dynamic time window.
The “physical asset” is interpreted as a hostler individually or acting as an operator of equipment, in light of the Specification Para. 46 stating: “These physical assets may include, but are not limited to… hostlers”. Therefore the final limitation, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is interpreted as instructions to a hostler (i.e. a human worker) to “actuate movement of the physical asset” (claim 1) and the instructions include “one or more directives for movement, routing, operation, or positioning of the physical asset” and direct the hostler “to move from a first location to a second location in preparation for arrival of the train based on the dynamic time window”. This interpretation applies to instructing a hostler to relocate assets such as “locomotives, … trucks, cranes, loading equipment, and/or any other movable equipment used in rail transportation operations.” (Para. 46, Specification). This interpretation aligns with the disclosure of these activities in Para. 46 of the specification, stating: “these control signals may be used to automatically actuate the physical asset 135, causing the physical asset 135 to move from one location to another. For example, an automatic control signal may instruct a hostler to relocate to a specific track in anticipation of an incoming train, based on the dynamic time window provided by the enhanced ETA.” And further that “control signals may be used to guide manual operation of the physical asset 135, with operators using the information to make informed decisions about asset positioning and relocation.”
The limitations stated above are processes/functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial interactions) of “generating an enhanced ETA with a dynamic time window” (specification, para. 2). Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 11, 20 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent). The claim recites the additional elements of: (i) an enhanced ETA system (claims 1, 11, 20), (ii) one or more data signals (claims 1, 11, 20), (iii) a data ingestion and standardization manager (claims 1, 11, 20), (iv) an asset control manager (claims 1, 11, 20), (v) a control signal (claims 1, 11, 20), and (vi) a physical asset (claims 1, 11, 20).
The additional elements of (i) an enhanced ETA system, (ii) one or more data signals, (iii) a data ingestion and standardization manager, (iv) an asset control manager, (v) a control signal, and (vi) a physical asset are recited at a high-level of generality (See [0016/0053] of Applicant’s Specification discussing the enhanced ETA system, data ingestion and standardization manager, and asset control manager; and [0047] discussing the one or more data signals, [0046/0160] discussing the control signal, and [0046] discussing the physical asset), such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination [See Figs. 1 and 2 showing all the additional elements (i) an enhanced ETA system, (ii) one or more data signals, (iii) a data ingestion and standardization manager, (iv) an asset control manager, (v) a control signal in combination], do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of: ((i) an enhanced ETA system, (ii) one or more data signals, (iii) a data ingestion and standardization manager, (iv) an asset control manager, (v) a control signal (configured to actuate movement of the physical asset), and (vi) a physical asset, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination [See Figs. 1 and 2 showing all the additional elements (i) an enhanced ETA system, (ii) one or more data signals, (iii) a data ingestion and standardization manager, (iv) an asset control manager, (v) a control signal, and (vi) a physical asset in combination], nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 1, 11, and 20 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 5, 8, 15, and 18 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For reasons described above with respect to claims 1 and 11 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 5, 8, 15, and 18 are also ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claims 2 and 12 further narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claims 2 and 12 also recites the additional elements of historical data signals, projected traffic signals, and real-time signals, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0047] of the Applicant’s Specification disclosing the historical data signals, projected traffic signals, and real-time signals), such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of historical data signals, projected traffic signals, and real-time signals do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2 and 12 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For reasons described above with respect to claims 2 and 12 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 are also ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claim 9 further narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claim 9 also recites the additional elements of a locomotive, a hostler, a truck, a crane, loading equipment, and any movable equipment used in rail transportation operations, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0046] of the Applicant’s Specification disclosing the locomotive, hostler, truck, crane, loading equipment, and any movable equipment used in rail transportation operations) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., networked railroad assets) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of a locomotive, a hostler, a truck, a crane, loading equipment, and any movable equipment used in rail transportation operations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 9 is ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claims 10 and 19 further narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claims 10 and 19 also recites the additional elements of a static ETA calculator, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0127] of the Applicant’s Specification disclosing the static ETA calculator), such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of a static ETA calculator does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 10 and 19 are ineligible.
Novel and Non-Obvious Over the Prior Art
Claims 1-5, 8-15, and 18-20 are novel and non-obvious over the prior art; however, these claims are subject to the above rejections.
The closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0004931 to Con et al (hereafter Con). Con discloses generating an enhanced ETA with dynamic time window from received data and data standardization, using dwell time, expected travel times, and route segmentation.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2024/0095611to Dzugan et al (hereafter Dzugan). Dzugan discloses use of a station dwell time model for determining dwell time of a train in a station and a train travel time model to predict the expected travel time between locations, and narrowing time windows as train approaches its destination.
The next closest prior art is Japanese Patent Application No. 2021/154754 Sugaya et al (hereafter Sugaya). Sugaya discloses using an asset control manager to actuate a physical asset.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0398074 to Bollapragada et al (hereafter Bollapragada). Bollapragada discloses the inclusion of scheduled events within the determination of the predicted dwell time.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2025/0074487 to Goncalves et al (hereafter Goncalves). Goncalves discloses control signals including directives to cause movement of physical assets based on ETAs.
While the closest prior art above teaches the various aspects of the claimed invention individually, the combination of these references are not obvious in such a way that they would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Specifically, Con in view of Dzugan further in view of Sugava and further in view of Bollapragada and even further in view of Goncalves does not explicitly disclose “sending, by an asset control manager, a control signal generated based on the enhanced ETA and the dynamic time window to a physical asset, wherein the control signal is configured to actuate movement of the physical asset, wherein the control signal includes one or more directives for movement, routing, operation, or positioning of the physical asset, and wherein the control signal causes the physical asset to move from a first location to a second location in preparation for arrival of the train based on the dynamic time window.” (emphasis added) Therefore, the claims are rendered novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Shannon S Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DAVID G. GODBOLD/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
