DETAILED ACTION
This rejection is in response to Amendments filed 05/02/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments filed 05/02/2025 on pages 7-12 that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the invention improves the utilization of resources such as roads and accurately determine toll process based on estimated traffic and recites displaying via a transceiver and receiving responses via a keyboard, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
One of the enumerated groupings is defined as certain methods of organizing human activity that includes fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
The claims are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity associated with sales activities and commercial interactions involving an auction for toll prices including bids from users for toll prices based on estimated congestion on toll roads, a value of time, historical toll bidding information, bidding responses from users, notifying the toll price to the users, receiving responses from users, and adjusting the toll price for the user. This invention solves a commercial problem of determining toll prices based on traffic which helps utilization of roads rather than solving a problem rooted in technology. Displaying via a transceiver and the keyboard are not directed to an abstract idea but are considered as additional elements in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection below.
With respect to applicant’s arguments filed 05/02/2025 on pages 12-15 that the claims are integrated into a practical application because the claims recite sensors that collect traffic data that is processed through servers that employ algorithms to ensure real-time transmission of data and that the claims recite significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims add steps to a particular useful application and improves toll/traffic management, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim limitations that do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a transceiver. The claims implemented via a transceiver, processor, and keyboard do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B.
With respect to applicant’s arguments filed 05/02/2025 on pages 13-15 that the claims recite significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims add steps to a particular useful application and improves toll/traffic management, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II).
It is unclear how improvements to toll and traffic management improve or solve a problem rooted in technology. Applicant merely adds generic computer components such as a transceiver, processor, and keyboard, to perform the method of auctions for toll bidding which is not sufficient. Therefore, the claims do not add significantly more in Step 2B.
With respect to applicant’s arguments filed 05/02/2025 on pages 15-16 that Varma does not teach determining toll price based on historical toll bidding information that comprises bidding responses from a plurality of users on different toll prices at different toll roads in the past, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Varma teaches determining toll price based on historical toll bidding information that comprises bidding responses from a plurality of users on different toll prices at different toll roads in the past because this reference teaches setting prices based on historical traffic information, auctions of routes/journeys, auctions of intersections to resell to others, and results of bidding and/or sales of routes. Prices are set based on results of bidding and reselling routes for future resale that have already been bought before. The information the bidding authority uses includes historical information including bids. (Varma, [0108]; [0038]; [0094]; [0098]; [0021]; [0071]).
With respect to applicant’s arguments filed 05/02/2025 on pages 16-17 that Varma does not teach determine a value of time for the one or more users based on the respective user behavior and characteristics, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the aforementioned claim amendments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to applicant’s arguments filed 05/02/2025 on pages 17-19 that Varma does not teach dynamically adjust the initial toll price for the toll road, for each of a next one or more users, based on the real-time toll bidding responses, claims 2, 4-10, 12, and 14-20 as well as claims 3 and 13, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1 and 11 recite:… wherein the plurality of inputs comprises traffic information, and user behavior and characteristics associated with a plurality of users; …determine a value of time for the one or more users based on the respective user behavior and characteristics, rendering said claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the first recitation of characteristics is the same or different from the subsequent recitation of characteristics. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claims 4 and 14 recite: characteristics…:…number of vehicles registered to a user profile,…and user profile rendering said claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the first recitation of characteristics in claims 1 and 11 and a user profile in claims 4 and 14 are the same or different from the subsequent recitation of characteristics and user profile in claims 4 and 14. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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 (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. See MPEP § 2106. In the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed to a system and claims 11-20 are directed to a method each of which falls within one of the four statutory categories of inventions (process/apparatus). Accordingly, the claims will be further analyzed under revised step 2:
Under step 2A (prong 1) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea by referring to the groupings of subject matter. One of the enumerated groupings is defined as certain methods of organizing human activity that includes fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Regarding representative independent claim 1, the abstract idea includes:
receive a plurality of inputs to estimate congestion on the toll road, wherein the plurality of inputs comprises traffic information, and user behavior and characteristics associated with a plurality of users; and
receive a request from one or more users, of the plurality of users, to provide prices of the toll road; and
estimate, based on the plurality of inputs, the congestion on the toll road;
determine a value of time for the one or more users based on the respective user behavior and characteristics;
determine, for each of the one or more users, an initial toll price at the toll road based on the estimated congestion on the toll road, the value of time, and historical toll bidding information, wherein the historical toll bidding information comprises bidding responses from a plurality of users on different toll prices at different toll roads in the past;
receive,…, real-time toll bidding responses from… the one or more users on the respective initial toll price, wherein receiving the real-time toll bidding responses…; …
dynamically adjust the initial toll price for the toll road, for each of a next one or more users, based on the real-time toll bidding responses.
This arrangement amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity associated with sales activities and commercial interactions involving an auction for toll prices including bids from users for toll prices based on estimated congestion on toll roads, historical toll bidding information, bidding responses from users, notifying the toll price to the users, receiving responses from users, and adjusting the toll price for the user. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
The Step 2A (prong 2) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements such as:
A platform for dynamically adjusting a toll price for a toll road, the platform comprising: a transceiver configured to: and a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver, wherein the processor is configured to: display, via the transceiver, the respective initial toll price to each of the one or more users on their respective user devices; …via the transceiver… the respective user devices associated with…, …from the respective user devices comprising receiving the responses via a keypad of the respective user device (Claim 1 );
transceiver (claims 2 and 12, 6 and 16, 9 and 19);
processor (claims 5 and 15, 8 and 18, 10 and 20);
displaying the initial toll price to each of the one or more users on their respective user devices;… from the respective user devices… from the respective user devices comprising receiving the responses via a keypad of the respective user device (claim 11).
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations above are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Independent claims and dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, independent claims and dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. See MPEP § 2106.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
A platform for dynamically adjusting a toll price for a toll road, the platform comprising: a transceiver configured to: and a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver, wherein the processor is configured to: display, via the transceiver, the respective initial toll price to each of the one or more users on their respective user devices; …via the transceiver… the respective user devices associated with…, …from the respective user devices comprising receiving the responses via a keypad of the respective user device (Claim 1 );
transceiver (claims 2 and 12, 6 and 16, 9 and 19);
processor (claims 5 and 15, 8 and 18, 10 and 20);
displaying the initial toll price to each of the one or more users on their respective user devices;… from the respective user devices… from the respective user devices comprising receiving the responses via a keypad of the respective user device (claim 11).
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the independent claims and dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because the recitations above do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. In addition, they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-12, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varma et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20200311807 A1, hereinafter “Varma”) in view of Simanek et al. (US Pub. No. 20130006725 A1, hereinafter “Simanek”).
Regarding claims 1 and 11
Varma discloses a platform for dynamically adjusting a toll price for a toll road, the platform comprising: a transceiver configured to (Varma, [0026]: communication device and system to pay toll):
receive a plurality of inputs to estimate congestion on the toll road, wherein the plurality of inputs comprises traffic information, and user behavior and characteristics associated with a plurality of users; and receive a request from one or more users, of the plurality of users, to provide prices of the toll road (Varma, [0029]: user request route based on fastest time and takes into consideration other similar or conflicting requests from other vehicles as well as road conditions, known and actual traffic, weather and any other factor influencing said route;[0027]: track and communicate user’s travel [0026]: a user 102 identifies a journey 104 that (s)he wishes to take and the conditions/constraints under which (s)he is willing to undertake the journey, such as to pay up to $X for the fastest route, or is willing to be paid $Y to go by a less congested route. Other users 112 may also communicate their interests and constraints 114. Calculate price subject to constraints (e.g. type of users and vehicle) and notify user actions when in transit; [0035]: A Traffic Feedback System 148 (FIG. 4) informs the Central Computing Unit about traffic conditions on each road and uniquely identify individual vehicles on the roads and the route taken by each users; [0083]: speed of vehicles; [0107]: relay current congestion and other driving conditions (weather, for example) to the car, routing app, Central Computing Unit etc., for the purpose of calculating prices for the routes/priorities/lanes/etc.);
and a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver, wherein the processor is configured to: estimate, based on the plurality of inputs, the congestion on the toll road (Varma, [0012]: processor; [0035] A Traffic Feedback System (FIG. 4) informs the Central Computing Unit about traffic conditions on each road which is part of the system; [0107]: relay current congestion and other driving conditions (weather, for example) to the car, routing app, Central Computing Unit etc., for the purpose of calculating prices for the routes/priorities/lanes/etc., or auctioning the routes/priorities/lanes/etc. or any other related or useful purpose; [0064]: a user purchases a ‘fast’ journey from Darien, Conn. to New York City for US$10.00 the night before his departure. In the morning, he checks the system before departing, and learns the price for this journey has now risen to $20 (because now many users also want to travel the same journey));
determine a value of time for the one or more users …; determine, for each of the one or more users, an initial toll price at the toll road based on the estimated congestion on the toll road, the value of time, and historical toll bidding information, wherein the historical toll bidding information comprises bidding responses from a plurality of users on different toll prices at different toll roads in the past (Varma, [0108]: bidding authority can share aggregated real-time and historical information with its users as well as show possible future traffic or other patterns or data to bid on so that users are able to bid intelligently for their routes; [0038]: resale of bid; [0094]: Project future route costs based on the information gathered such as results traffic information and results of bidding/sales of routes and facilitate owners of routes/intersection priorities to resell to other users; [0098]: allow external users to bid to make certain routes cheaper; [0021]: provide users with information about current traffic conditions and suggests optimal routes to achieve transit time and cost and based on the inputs of users and traffic, toll, transit time, change estimated transit time(s) and achieve the cost; [0071]: the computer 108, 130 would give the user a price corresponding to an expected time for getting there);
…., the respective initial toll price to each of the one or more users on their respective user devices; receive, via the transceiver, real-time toll bidding responses from the respective user devices associated with the one or more users on the respective initial toll price, wherein receiving the real-time toll bidding responses from the respective user devices…; and dynamically adjust the initial toll price for the toll road, for each of a next one or more users, based on the real-time toll bidding responses (Varma, [0101]: The results of these auctions, sales, bids and offers, would be communicated back to the bidders; [0020]: create real-time bidding for the fastest (at a cost) and/or slower journey (at a lower or even negative cost=receive payment); [0109]: bidding authority can conduct sales or auction in real time or in advance, optionally with a discount/premium for buying in advance; [0092]: auctions; [0026]: calculates, for example, prices to collect from users; [0076]: a dynamic price; [0021]: provide users with information about current traffic conditions and suggests optimal routes to achieve minimal cost).
Varma does not teach:
determine a value of time for the one or more users based on the respective user behavior and characteristics (emphasis added);
display, via the transceiver, the respective initial toll prices…
comprising receiving the responses via a keypad of the respective user device (emphasis added);
However, Simanek teaches:
determine a value of time for the one or more users based on the respective user behavior and characteristics (Simanek, [0041]: determine variable charges based on time according to tolling data; [0035]:tolling data used to calculate toll charge; [0034]: receive tolling data (e.g. characteristics of driver, traffic congestion data, how driver is using tolled roads, time); [0036]: communicate tolling data;
display, via the transceiver, the respective initial toll prices…(Simanek, FIG. 12B, [0094]: display toll charge)
comprising receiving the responses via a keypad of the respective user device (Simanek, [0116]: users provide input via keyboard of computer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the determination of the value of time, the initial toll prices, and receiving responses of Varma with a value of time for the one or more users based on the respective user behavior and characteristics, display, via the transceiver, the respective initial toll prices…, receiving the responses via a keypad of the respective user device as taught by Simanek because the results of such a modification would be predictable. Specifically, Varma would continue to teach the determination of the value of time, the initial toll prices, and receiving responses except that now a value of time for the one or more users based on the respective user behavior and characteristics, display, via the transceiver, the respective initial toll prices…, receiving the responses via a keypad of the respective user device is taught according to the teachings of Simanek in order to receive and process large amounts of tolling data. This is a predictable result of the combination. (Simanek, [0034-0036]).
Regarding claims 2 and 12
The combination of Varma and Simanek teaches the platform of claim 1, wherein the transceiver is further configured to notify the adjusted toll price to each of the next one or more users, and receive further real-time bidding responses on the adjusted toll price (Varma, [0101]: The results of these auctions, sales, bids and offers, would be communicated back to the bidders; [0020]: real-time bidding; [0026]: calculates, for example, prices to collect from users; [0076]: a dynamic price; [0021]: provide users with information about current traffic conditions and suggests optimal routes to achieve minimal cost; [0026]: communication device and system to pay toll).
Regarding claims 4 and 14
The combination of Varma and Simanek teaches the platform of claim 3, wherein the user behavior and characteristics includes one or more of: frequency of usage of toll roads for different routes, purpose of travel, number of vehicles registered to a user profile, location of the destination, and user profile (Varma, [0022]: Superplayers, such as emergency vehicles and/or law enforcement in emergency travel, can outbid (with or without payment, as desired by the relevant authorities) any bidder and can be granted fastest driving times to their destination; [0029]: a user 102 requests a route for right to transit that route with the fastest time; [0031]: tracked which user(s) owned which routes; [0034]: communicates with billing servers 122 in order to identify users 112, verify credit and receive clearance to allocate routes; [0097]: sell monthly/yearly/other discounted passes for bulk trips whether unlimited or a fixed number of trips; [0025]: manage the number of active personnel and their supply chain by knowing the number of vehicles expected to drive by their location; [0027]: user’s account; [0083]: user vehicle information and account information).
Regarding claims 5 and 15
The combination of Varma and Simanek teaches the platform of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to recommend one or more of time and route to a user, of the one or more users, based on the plurality of inputs and the real-time toll bidding responses (Varma, [0021]: Navigation systems provide users with information about current traffic conditions and suggests optimal routes to achieve either minimal transit time or minimal cost (by way of example, by avoiding tolls); [0109]: real-time auction).
Regarding claims 6 and 16
The combination of Varma and Simanek teaches the platform of claim 1, wherein the transceiver is further configured to receive a first request to provide a clear passage at the toll road (Varma, [0020]: real-time bidding for the fastest journey; [0026]: that emergency users police vehicles have absolute right of way and don't have to pay, or that ambulances and fire trucks are to be given all green lights, etc.; [0079]: Bidding may be for entire journeys, partial journeys, or even just one or more traffic lights. For example, at a single traffic light, a user would bid (subject to maximum) for the light to turn green).
Regarding claims 7 and 17
The combination of Varma and Simanek teaches the platform of claim 6, wherein the first request is received from one or more of an emergency vehicle, a police vehicle, and a fire brigade (Varma, [0026]: emergency users (E1-En) police vehicles have absolute right of way and don't have to pay, or that ambulances and fire trucks are to be given all green lights, etc.; [0050] Police and emergency vehicles E1-En could receive priority to enable essential services to get to their destination quicker).
Regarding claims 8 and 18
The combination of Varma and Simanek teaches the platform of claim 6, wherein the processor is further configured to dynamically adjust the initial toll price for the next one or more users based on the received first request (Varma, [0025]: their price can simply be raised and new routes could be priced higher to pay for their building; [0026]: calculates, for example, prices to collect from users; [0076]: a dynamic price; [0021]: provide users with information about current traffic conditions and suggests optimal routes to achieve minimal cost; [0029]: needs to take into consideration other similar or conflicting requests from other vehicles as well as road conditions, known and actual traffic, weather and any other factor influencing said route).
Regarding claims 9 and 19
The combination of Varma and Simanek teaches the platform of claim 1, wherein the transceiver is further configured to receive a second request to move a large number of vehicles through the toll road (Varma, [0029]: after receiving a request, request that is processed needs to take into consideration other similar or conflicting requests from other vehicles; [0034]: c with users A1-An 112 in order to receive route requests and send allocated routes and communicates with emergency users E1-En 110 in order to receive route requests 136 and send 138 allocated routes; [0021]: change the traffic patterns by bidding to achieve minimal transit time or cost; [0025]: influence traffic patterns to increase visits at their location can do so by bidding).
Regarding claims 10 and 20
The combination of Varma and Simanek teaches the platform of claim 9, wherein the processor is further configured to notify, based on the second request, one or more of: an estimated congestion at different times, a capacity of the toll road at different times to handle the movement of the large number of vehicles, recommendation of route and time based on the plurality of inputs and real-time bidding responses (Varma, [0034]: communicates with traffic control tools 116 in order to act on traffic control 116 tools to prioritize allocated routes 150 and receive information about status of roads and key points on routes; [0085]: bid receiving systems that would receive and act upon bids and offers to buy and sell routes, intersection priorities, requests for priority usage, requests for specific lane usage, requests for free or reduced cost usage, requests for official or emergency usage; [0021]: Navigation systems provide users with information about current traffic conditions and suggests optimal routes to achieve either minimal transit time or minimal cost and change the traffic patterns by bidding to achieve minimal transit time or cost; [0102]: reduction of congestion at certain places at certain times; [0104]: the congestion control would occur via bidding on routes).
Claim(s) 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varma and Simanek as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barnett et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0339919 A1, hereinafter “Barnett”).
Regarding claims 3 and 13
The combination of Varma and Simanek teaches the platform of claim 1, wherein the plurality of inputs comprise real time traffic information, historical traffic information, accident information, weather patterns, time of the day, schedule of flight, transit, and events, …, traffic on complementary and competing roads, and their combination thereof (Varma, [0094]: Project future route costs based on the information gathered such as: historical traffic information on those roadways, the current weather, the projected weather, the occurrence of any special traffic events such as sports or holidays (similar to a bookie); [0072]: roadwork, accidents; [0104]: airline ticket; [0109]: airline fares; [0110]: gas stations; [0102]: natural disasters and reduction of road congestion).
The combination of Varma and Simanek do not teach:
usage of water, electricity and gas.
However, Barnett teaches that it is known to include:
usage of water, electricity and gas (Barnett, [0021]: Data ports to provide an interface to receive data from an electric usage meter; a gas usage meter; a water usage meter; [0027]: the interface provides traffic information; [0043]: traffic flow reporting and forecasting).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the plurality of inputs of Varma and Simanek with usage of water, gas, and electricity as taught by Barnett because the results of such a modification would be predictable. Specifically, Varma and Simanek would continue to teach a plurality of inputs except that now the inputs also include usage of water, gas, and electricity according to the teachings of Barnett in order to improve traffic control system and better understand natural resources to improve fuel usage efficiency. This is a predictable result of the combination. (Barnett, [0004]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is cited as Hamilton, II et al. (US Patent No. 7969325 B2) related to variable rate travel fees, Ali et al. (US Pub. No. 20080046363 A1) related to a bill generator generating a toll bill for a user, as well as non-patent literature cited as “Traffic optimization via road pricing for queuing and flow congestion” related to a road pricing mechanism for alleviating the queuing and flow congestions.
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 LATASHA DEVI RAMPHAL whose telephone number is (571)272-2644. The examiner can normally be reached 11 AM - 7:30 PM (EST).
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, Jeffrey A Smith can be reached on 5712726763. 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.
/LATASHA D RAMPHAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688