DETAILED ACTION
In the response filed July 11, 2025, the Applicant amended claims 1, 10, and 19. Claims 1, 5-10, 14-19, and 23-29, are pending in the current application.
Notice of 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
Claims 1, 5-10, 14-19, and 23-29, were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. Examiner thanks the Applicant for revising and amending the claim language and hereby withdraws the rejection from the previous Office action.
Applicant’s arguments for claims 1, 5-10, 14-19, and 23-29, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been considered but are unpersuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception but present internet-centric solutions unique to the internet, necessarily rooted in computer technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specific problem (toll leakage) is not a problem specifically arising in the technical field of computer-implemented business methods. The fact that the performing of toll collection is executed on a networked system with roadside units and onboard databases does not somehow automatically make problem unique to the realm of computer networks. The fact that the determinations are made by a generic computer processor does not somehow automatically make the solution necessarily rooted in computer technology. The problem, as identified by Applicant, is “toll leakage.” The claim language amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. The instant claims merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment - that being a computer environment. Limitations that link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not qualify as "significantly more," and do not transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter.
Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible as they integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims at issue recite conventional computing components arranged in a conventional manner leveraged only as mechanism for achieving an improvement in the commercial practice - e.g. prevention of toll leakage/reconciliation of tolling information. To reiterate, there are no improvements to the conventional computing components arranged in a conventional manner and as such, there is no technical improvement to the commercial practice (e.g., business practice).
As recited before, although the claims recite a specific sequence of computer-implemented functions, and although the specification suggests certain functions may be advantageous for various reasons (e.g., business reasons), the Examiner has determined that the ordered combination of claim elements (i.e., the claims as a whole) are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
Applicant’s arguments for claims 1, 5-10, 14-19, and 23-29, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been considered but are moot as they do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant argues Yoshida does not teach “store both the sensor data and a TUM in a TUM log entry of the TUM database of the vehicle, the TUM including information with respect to traversal of the vehicle along the roadway, the information including an indication of usage of the lanes by the vehicle.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yoshida teaches store both the sensor data (Par. [0061], The camera image data and the GPS measurement data may be associated with each other according to date and time information) and a TUM, the TUM including information with respect to traversal of the vehicle along the roadway, the information including an indication of usage of the lanes by the vehicle (Par. [0057], movement information data, including information for identifying a position of the mobile body; Par. [0070], movement information data stored with identification information such as lane id, time information, etc.; Par. [0072], toll information data stored and updated). Yoshida also teaches sensor data combined with (Par. [0061], The observation data acquisition unit 21 acquires camera image data output from the camera 2 and GPS measurement data output from the GPS sensor 3 via the input/output interface unit 10, and outputs them to the movement information acquisition unit 22) vehicle location data, lane usage data (Par. [0064], The chargeable area determination unit 222 determines whether or not a travel position of the mobile body 4 is within the chargeable area, based on the chargeable area data received from the chargeable area information acquisition unit 221 and the camera image data and GPS measurement data received from the observation data acquisition unit 21; Par. [0065], When it is determined that the mobile body 4 is traveling within the chargeable area, the lane specification unit 223 performs processing of: specifying a lane in which the mobile body 4 is traveling; and acquiring identification information (ID) of the specified lane) in a TUM log entry of the TUM database of the vehicle (Par. [0057], The movement information memory 32 is used to store, for the mobile body 4 moving within the geographical area as a chargeable area, movement information data including identification information of the mobile body 4, information for identifying a position of the mobile body 4, in particular, a lane in which the mobile body 4 is moving, and time information on a time when the mobile body 4 is moving). As such, Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Applicant’s remain unpersuasive and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is hereby maintained.
Applicant’s arguments for claims 1, 5-10, 14-19, and 23-29, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections have been considered but are moot as they do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 13, “sends the TUM” should read --sends a TUM-- as this is a typographical error of a TUM.
Claim 1, line 14, “data and a TUM” should read --data and the TUM-- as this is a typographical error of the TUM.
Claim 10, line 10, “sends the TUM” should read --sends a TUM-- as this is a typographical error of a TUM.
Claim 10, line 11, “data and a TUM” should read --data and the TUM-- as this is a typographical error of the TUM.
Claim 19, line 11, “sends the TUM” should read --sends a TUM-- as this is a typographical error of a TUM.
Claim 19, line 12, “data and a TUM” should read --data and the TUM-- as this is a typographical error of the TUM.
Appropriate correction 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, 5-10, 14-19, and 23-27, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1 and 6-9 are drawn to a device, claims 10 and 14-18 are drawn to a process, and claims 19 and 23-27 are drawn to a product of manufacture, each of which is within the four statutory categories (e.g., a process, a machine). (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1 (representative of independent claims 10 and 19) recites/describes the following steps:
“receive …, a toll advertisement message (TAM) broadcast from a road-side unit (RSU) in communication with a tolling system, the TAM indicating geographic locations of lanes of a roadway for which tolls are due and charge information for traversing the lanes of the roadway for which charges are incurred for travel, wherein the TAM defines one or more trigger node points that define a boundary of a TUM trigger zone,”
“responsive to the vehicle entering the TUM trigger zone as defined by the TAM received from the RSU, capture sensor data using sensors of the vehicle, the sensor data including image data of the surroundings of the vehicle at the time the vehicle sends the TUM,”
“store both the sensor data and a TUM in a TUM log entry of the TUM database of the vehicle, the TUM including information with respect to traversal of the vehicle along the roadway, the information including an indication of usage of the lanes by the vehicle, wherein the TUM log entry is retained to the TUM database by the controller as proof of reconciliation to reduce leakage during dispute resolution,”
“send,…, the TUM to the RSU”
“receive, …, a toll receipt message (TRM) from the tolling system, the TRM,”
“reconcile the TUM with the TRM using the TUM log entry of the TUM database,” and
“indicate a status of the reconcile.”
These steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth recording and reconciling a toll for a vehicle on a roadway, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Each of the depending claims likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any elements recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The claims recite the additional elements/limitations of: “a vehicle for smart tolling leakage prevention, comprising: a toll usage message (TUM) database; a transceiver; and a controller including one or more processors and a storage,” “a road-side unit (RSU) in communication with a tolling system,” (claim 1); “a toll usage message (TUM) database;” “a vehicle,” “a transceiver of the vehicle,” and “a road-side unit (RSU) in communication with a tolling system,” (claim 10); and “a non-transitory computer readable medium,” “a processor,” “a TUM database,” “a vehicle,” ,”a transceiver of the vehicle,” and “a road-side unit (RSU) in communication with a tolling system,” (claim 19).
The claims also recite the additional elements/limitations of: “a human machine interface (HMI) of the vehicle,” (claims 7, 16, and 25) and “a blockchain record,” (claims 9, 18, and 27).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a vehicle for smart tolling leakage prevention, comprising: a toll usage message (TUM) database; a transceiver; and a controller including one or more processors and a storage,” “a road-side unit (RSU) in communication with a tolling system,” (claim 1); “a toll usage message (TUM) database;” “a vehicle,” “a transceiver of the vehicle,” and “a road-side unit (RSU) in communication with a tolling system,” (claim 10); and “a non-transitory computer readable medium,” “a processor,” “a TUM database,” “a vehicle,” ,”a transceiver of the vehicle,” and “a road-side unit (RSU) in communication with a tolling system,” (claim 19), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a human machine interface (HMI) of the vehicle,” (claims 7, 16, and 25) and “a blockchain record,” (claims 9, 18, and 27), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
Remaining dependent claims 5-9, 14-18, and 23-29 either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2,” the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a vehicle for smart tolling leakage prevention, comprising: a toll usage message (TUM) database; a transceiver; and a controller including one or more processors and a storage,” “a road-side unit (RSU) in communication with a tolling system,” (claim 1); “a toll usage message (TUM) database;” “a vehicle,” “a transceiver of the vehicle,” and “a road-side unit (RSU) in communication with a tolling system,” (claim 10); and “a non-transitory computer readable medium,” “a processor,” “a TUM database,” “a vehicle,” ,”a transceiver of the vehicle,” and “a road-side unit (RSU) in communication with a tolling system,” (claim 19), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2,” the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a human machine interface (HMI) of the vehicle,” (claims 7, 16, and 25) and “a blockchain record,” (claims 9, 18, and 27), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately.
Remaining dependent claims 5-9, 14-18, and 23-29 either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
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.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 16, 17, 19, 25, 26, 28, and 29, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hassett (US 2006/0145893 A1) in view of Studnicka (US 2020/0184166 A1) and Yoshida et al. (US 2021/0312720 A1), hereinafter Yoshida.
Regarding claim 1, Hassett discloses a vehicle for smart tolling leakage prevention, comprising:
a toll usage message (TUM) database (Par. [0097], in-vehicle component contains transponder, microprocessor, and memory);
a transceiver (Par. [0097]); and a
controller including one or more processors and a storage (Par. [0097], in-vehicle component contains transponder, microprocessor, and memory), programmed to
receive, via the transceiver, a toll advertisement message (TAM) broadcast from a road-side unit (RSU) (Par. [0138], [0146], toll schedule field is recorded by the IVC) in communication with a tolling system (Par. [0230], information sent from IVC to toll station receiver), the TAM indicating geographic locations of lanes of a roadway (Par. [0146], toll values based on entry points and exit points on the roadway; Examiner note: Current disclosure, Par. [0035], discloses the TAM includes information indicating the layout of the lanes of the roadway) for which tolls are due and charge information for traversing the lanes of the roadway (Par. [0146], toll values based on entry points and exit points on the roadway) for which charges are incurred for travel (Par. [0231], data transmitted by the IVC to toll collection site includes IVC identification number, toll amount, account balance), wherein the TAM defines one or more trigger node points that define a boundary of a TUM trigger zone (Par. [0181], toll zone determined),
wherein the TUM log entry is retained to the TUM database by the controller as proof of reconciliation to reduce leakage during dispute resolution (Par. [0146], The 256 bit toll schedule field in the progressive toll T1 record is a matrix of toll values based on entry points (A-C in this example) and exit points (A-C) specified in the T0 and T1 - Examiner notes that the limitation “as proof of reconciliation to reduce leakage during dispute resolution” is merely an intended use of the TUM log entry. As such, it is non-functional descriptive material within the scope of the claim. In other words, the system merely requires “wherein the TUM log entry is retained to the TUM database,” as the claim language only describes a later action that may or may not occur. This descriptive material is not functionally involved in the steps recited. Limitations that are not functionally interrelated with the useful acts, structure, or properties of the claimed invention carry little or no patentable weight. Only retaining a TUM log entry to the TUM database is positively recited. The actual steps being positively recited within the scope of the claim (and the actual steps/functions actually being performed by the claimed computing device or system) would be performed regardless as the details of actions that may or may not occur have nothing to do with (i.e., fail to affect) how the TUM log entry is retained. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (CAFC 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Hassett is cited to teach this limitation merely for the sake of facilitating compact prosecution).
send, via the transceiver, the TUM to the RSU (Par. [0230], information sent from IVC to toll station receiver),
receive, via the transceiver, a toll receipt message (TRM) from the tolling system, the TRM (Par. [0230], [0235], IVC receives acknowledgement from the toll station receiver as it passes the station),
reconcile the TUM with the TRM (Par. [0104], [0230], IVC stores the debited balance after the toll has been paid) using the TUM log entry of the TUM database (Par. [0146], Par. [0230], After receiving the exit or toll station identifier from T1 as the vehicle approaches an exit or toll station, the IVC processor 50 retrieves the toll amount from its stored toll schedule and debits the balance), and
indicate a status of the reconcile (Par. [0235], the RE receiver/reader 24 at a toll site receives the vehicle toll transaction report from an IVC, it sends an acknowledgment to the IVC…it is presumed valid and allowed to pass).
Hassett does not explicitly disclose: responsive to the vehicle entering the TUM trigger zone as defined by the TAM received from the RSU, capture sensor data using sensors of the vehicle, the sensor data including image data of the surroundings of the vehicle at the time the vehicle sends the TUM,
Studnicka teaches responsive to the vehicle entering the TUM trigger zone as defined by the message received (Par. [0029], trigger or request to capture at least one image of a scene; trigger command may be based on sensed data, such as a location – received request defines the zone or location and the camera is triggered by sensing the location), capture sensor data using sensors of the vehicle, the sensor data including image data of the surroundings of the vehicle at the time the vehicle sends the TUM (Par. [0050], As a vehicle associated with vehicle device 110 travels through a location, a trigger may cause vehicle device 110 to capture image 1002 in interface 1000).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the toll payment system of Hassett to include the sensor acquisition abilities of Studnicka to teach “responsive to the vehicle entering the TUM trigger zone as defined by the TAM received from the RSU, capture sensor data using sensors of the vehicle, the sensor data including image data of the surroundings of the vehicle at the time the vehicle sends the TUM, store both the sensor data and a TUM in a TUM log entry of the TUM database of the vehicle, the TUM including information with respect to traversal of the vehicle along the roadway, the information including an indication of usage of the lanes by the vehicle,” as a need exists to enhance the capabilities of a vehicle (Studnicka, Par. [0002]). As in Studnicka, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a trigger command based on location to Hassett’s toll advertisement message transmitted from the RSU with the predicted result of accurately determining the position of the vehicle for toll assessment purposes as needed in Hassett.
Hassett in view of Studnicka do not explicitly disclose: store both the sensor data and a TUM in a TUM log entry of the TUM database of the vehicle, the TUM including information with respect to traversal of the vehicle along the roadway, the information including an indication of usage of the lanes by the vehicle.
Yoshida teaches store both the sensor data (Par. [0061], The camera image data and the GPS measurement data may be associated with each other according to date and time information) and a TUM, the TUM including information with respect to traversal of the vehicle along the roadway, the information including an indication of usage of the lanes by the vehicle (Par. [0064], The chargeable area determination unit 222 determines whether or not a travel position of the mobile body 4 is within the chargeable area, based on the chargeable area data received from the chargeable area information acquisition unit 221 and the camera image data and GPS measurement data received from the observation data acquisition unit 21; Par. [0065], When it is determined that the mobile body 4 is traveling within the chargeable area, the lane specification unit 223 performs processing of: specifying a lane in which the mobile body 4 is traveling; and acquiring identification information (ID) of the specified lane) in a TUM log entry of the TUM database of the vehicle (Par. [0057], The movement information memory 32 is used to store, for the mobile body 4 moving within the geographical area as a chargeable area, movement information data including identification information of the mobile body 4, information for identifying a position of the mobile body 4, in particular, a lane in which the mobile body 4 is moving, and time information on a time when the mobile body 4 is moving).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the toll payment system of Hassett and Studnicka to include the location defining abilities of Yoshida to teach “wherein the TAM defines one or more trigger node points that define a boundary of a TUM trigger zone, store both the sensor data and a TUM in a TUM log entry of the TUM database of the vehicle, the TUM including information with respect to traversal of the vehicle along the roadway, the information including an indication of usage of the lanes by the vehicle,” as a need exists accurate determination as to whether or not a vehicle has entered a chargeable area (Yoshida, Par. [0005]). As in Yoshida, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include one or more trigger node points that define a boundary of a trigger zone to Hassett and Studnicka’s toll advertisement message transmitted from the RSU with the predicted result of accurately determining the position of the vehicle for toll assessment purposes as needed in Hassett and Studnicka.
Regarding claim 7, Hassett discloses wherein to indicate the status of the reconcile includes to display the status in a human machine interface (HMI) of the vehicle (Par. [0105], available balance remaining in the account is displayed).
Regarding claim 8, Hassett discloses wherein to indicate the status of the reconcile includes to send the status to the tolling system (Par. [0234], transmits information signifying that the balance has been incremented).
Regarding claim 10, Hassett discloses a method for smart tolling leakage prevention, comprising:
receiving, via the transceiver, a toll advertisement message (TAM) broadcast from a road-side unit (RSU) (Par. [0138], [0146], toll schedule field is recorded by the IVC) in communication with a tolling system (Par. [0230], information sent from IVC to toll station receiver), the TAM indicating geographic locations of lanes of a roadway (Par. [0146], toll values based on entry points and exit points on the roadway; Examiner note: Current disclosure, Par. [0035], discloses the TAM includes information indicating the layout of the lanes of the roadway) for which tolls are due and charge information for traversing the lanes of the roadway (Par. [0146], toll values based on entry points and exit points on the roadway) for which charges are incurred for travel (Par. [0231], data transmitted by the IVC to toll collection site includes IVC identification number, toll amount, account balance), wherein the TAM defines one or more trigger node points that define a boundary of a TUM trigger zone (Par. [0181], toll zone determined),
wherein the TUM log entry is retained to the TUM database by the controller as proof of reconciliation to reduce leakage during dispute resolution (Par. [0146], The 256 bit toll schedule field in the progressive toll T1 record is a matrix of toll values based on entry points (A-C in this example) and exit points (A-C) specified in the T0 and T1 - Examiner notes that the limitation “as proof of reconciliation to reduce leakage during dispute resolution” is merely an intended use of the TUM log entry. As such, it is non-functional descriptive material within the scope of the claim. In other words, the method merely requires “wherein the TUM log entry is retained to the TUM database,” as the claim language only describes a later action that may or may not occur. This descriptive material is not functionally involved in the steps recited. Limitations that are not functionally interrelated with the useful acts, structure, or properties of the claimed invention carry little or no patentable weight. Only retaining a TUM log entry to the TUM database is positively recited. The actual steps being positively recited within the scope of the claim (and the actual steps/functions actually being performed by the claimed computing device or system) would be performed regardless as the details of actions that may or may not occur have nothing to do with (i.e., fail to affect) how the TUM log entry is retained. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (CAFC 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Hassett is cited to teach this limitation merely for the sake of facilitating compact prosecution).
send, via the transceiver, the TUM to the RSU (Par. [0230], information sent from IVC to toll station receiver),
receive, via the transceiver, a toll receipt message (TRM) from the tolling system, the TRM (Par. [0230], [0235], IVC receives acknowledgement from the toll station receiver as it passes the station),
reconcile the TUM with the TRM (Par. [0104], [0230], IVC stores the debited balance after the toll has been paid) using the TUM log entry of the TUM database (Par. [0146], Par. [0230], After receiving the exit or toll station identifier from T1 as the vehicle approaches an exit or toll station, the IVC processor 50 retrieves the toll amount from its stored toll schedule and debits the balance), and
indicate a status of the reconcile (Par. [0235], the RE receiver/reader 24 at a toll site receives the vehicle toll transaction report from an IVC, it sends an acknowledgment to the IVC…it is presumed valid and allowed to pass).
Hassett does not explicitly disclose: responsive to the vehicle entering the TUM trigger zone as defined by the TAM received from the RSU, capture sensor data using sensors of the vehicle, the sensor data including image data of the surroundings of the vehicle at the time the vehicle sends the TUM,
Studnicka teaches responsive to the vehicle entering the TUM trigger zone as defined by the message received (Par. [0029], trigger or request to capture at least one image of a scene; trigger command may be based on sensed data, such as a location – received request defines the zone or location and the camera is triggered by sensing the location), capture sensor data using sensors of the vehicle, the sensor data including image data of the surroundings of the vehicle at the time the vehicle sends the TUM (Par. [0050], As a vehicle associated with vehicle device 110 travels through a location, a trigger may cause vehicle device 110 to capture image 1002 in interface 1000).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the toll payment system of Hassett to include the sensor acquisition abilities of Studnicka to teach “responsive to the vehicle entering the TUM trigger zone as defined by the TAM received from the RSU, capture sensor data using sensors of the vehicle, the sensor data including image data of the surroundings of the vehicle at the time the vehicle sends the TUM, store both the sensor data and a TUM in a TUM log entry of the TUM database of the vehicle, the TUM including information with respect to traversal of the vehicle along the roadway, the information including an indication of usage of the lanes by the vehicle,” as a need exists to enhance the capabilities of a vehicle (Studnicka, Par. [0002]). As in Studnicka, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a trigger command based on location to Hassett’s toll advertisement message transmitted from the RSU with the predicted result of accurately determining the position of the vehicle for toll assessment purposes as needed in Hassett.
Hassett in view of Studnicka do not explicitly disclose: store both the sensor data and a TUM in a TUM log entry of the TUM database of the vehicle, the TUM including information with respect to traversal of the vehicle along the roadway, the information including an indication of usage of the lanes by the vehicle.
Yoshida teaches store both the sensor data (Par. [0061], The camera image data and the GPS measurement data may be associated with each other according to date and time information) and a TUM, the TUM including information with respect to traversal of the vehicle along the roadway, the information including an indication of usage of the lanes by the vehicle (Par. [0064], The chargeable area determination unit 222 determines whether or not a travel position of the mobile body 4 is within the chargeable area, based on the chargeable area data received from the chargeable area information acquisition unit 221 and the camera image data and GPS measurement data received from the observation data acquisition unit 21; Par. [0065], When it is determined that the mobile body 4 is traveling within the chargeable area, the lane specification unit 223 performs processing of: specifying a lane in which the mobile body 4 is traveling; and acquiring identification information (ID) of the specified lane) in a TUM log entry of the TUM database of the vehicle (Par. [0057], The movement information memory 32 is used to store, for the mobile body 4 moving within the geographical area as a chargeable area, movement information data including identification information of the mobile body 4, information for identifying a position of the mobile body 4, in particular, a lane in which the mobile body 4 is moving, and time information on a time when the mobile body 4 is moving).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the toll payment system of Hassett and Studnicka to include the location defining abilities of Yoshida to teach “wherein the TAM defines one or more trigger node points that define a boundary of a TUM trigger zone, store both the sensor data and a TUM in a TUM log entry of the TUM database of the vehicle, the TUM including information with respect to traversal of the vehicle along the roadway, the information including an indication of usage of the lanes by the vehicle,” as a need exists accurate determination as to whether or not a vehicle has entered a chargeable area (Yoshida, Par. [0005]). As in Yoshida, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include one or more trigger node points that define a boundary of a trigger zone to Hassett and Studnicka’s toll advertisement message transmitted from the RSU with the predicted result of accurately determining the position of the vehicle for toll assessment purposes as needed in Hassett and Studnicka.
Regarding claim 16, Hassett discloses wherein to indicate the status of the reconcile includes to display the status in a human machine interface (HMI) of the vehicle (Par. [0105], available balance remaining in the account is displayed).
Regarding claim 17, Hassett discloses wherein to indicate the status of the reconcile includes to send the status to the tolling system (Par. [0234], transmits information signifying that the balance has been incremented).
Regarding claim 19, Hassett discloses non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions for smart tolling leakage prevention, that, when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform operations including to:
receive, via the transceiver, a toll advertisement message (TAM) broadcast from a road-side unit (RSU) (Par. [0138], [0146], toll schedule field is recorded by the IVC) in communication with a tolling system (Par. [0230], information sent from IVC to toll station receiver), the TAM indicating geographic locations of lanes of a roadway (Par. [0146], toll values based on entry points and exit points on the roadway; Examiner note: Current disclosure, Par. [0035], discloses the TAM includes information indicating the layout of the lanes of the roadway) for which tolls are due and charge information for traversing the lanes of the roadway (Par. [0146], toll values based on entry points and exit points on the roadway) for which charges are incurred for travel (Par. [0231], data transmitted by the IVC to toll collection site includes IVC identification number, toll amount, account balance), wherein the TAM defines one or more trigger node points that define a boundary of a TUM trigger zone (Par. [0181], toll zone determined),
wherein the TUM log entry is retained to the TUM database by the controller as proof of reconciliation to reduce leakage during dispute resolution (Par. [0146], The 256 bit toll schedule field in the progressive toll T1 record is a matrix of toll values based on entry points (A-C in this example) and exit points (A-C) specified in the T0 and T1 - Examiner notes that the limitation “as proof of reconciliation to reduce leakage during dispute resolution” is merely an intended use of the TUM log entry. As such, it is non-functional descriptive material within the scope of the claim. In other words, the medium merely requires “wherein the TUM log entry is retained to the TUM database,” as the claim language only describes a later action that may or may not occur. This descriptive material is not functionally involved in the steps recited. Limitations that are not functionally interrelated with the useful acts, structure, or properties of the claimed invention carry little or no patentable weight. Only retaining a TUM log entry to the TUM database is positively recited. The actual steps being positively recited within the scope of the claim (and the actual steps/functions actually being performed by the claimed computing device or system) would be performed regardless as the details of actions that may or may not occur have nothing to do with (i.e., fail to affect) how the TUM log entry is retained. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (CAFC 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Hassett is cited to teach this limitation merely for the sake of facilitating compact prosecution).
send, via the transceiver, the TUM to the RSU (Par. [0230], information sent from IVC to toll station receiver),
receive, via the transceiver, a toll receipt message (TRM) from the tolling system, the TRM (Par. [0230], [0235], IVC receives acknowledgement from the toll station receiver as it passes the station),
reconcile the TUM with the TRM (Par. [0104], [0230], IVC stores the debited balance after the toll has been paid) using the TUM log entry of the TUM database (Par. [0146], Par. [0230], After receiving the exit or toll station identifier from T1 as the vehicle approaches an exit or toll station, the IVC processor 50 retrieves the toll amount from its stored toll schedule and debits the balance), and
indicate a status of the reconcile (Par. [0235], the RE receiver/reader 24 at a toll site receives the vehicle toll transaction report from an IVC, it sends an acknowledgment to the IVC…it is presumed valid and allowed to pass).
Hassett does not explicitly disclose: responsive to the vehicle entering the TUM trigger zone as defined by the TAM received from the RSU, capture sensor data using sensors of the vehicle, the sensor data including image data of the surroundings of the vehicle at the time the vehicle sends the TUM,
Studnicka teaches responsive to the vehicle entering the TUM trigger zone as defined by the message received (Par. [0029], trigger or request to capture at least one image of a scene; trigger command may be based on sensed data, such as a location – received request defines the zone or location and the camera is triggered by sensing the location), capture sensor data using sensors of the vehicle, the sensor data including image data of the surroundings of the vehicle at the time the vehicle sends the TUM (Par. [0050], As a vehicle associated with vehicle device 110 travels through a location, a trigger may cause vehicle device 110 to capture image 1002 in interface 1000).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the toll payment system of Hassett to include the sensor acquisition abilities of Studnicka to teach “responsive to the vehicle entering the TUM trigger zone as defined by the TAM received from the RSU, capture sensor data using sensors of the vehicle, the sensor data including image data of the surroundings of the vehicle at the time the vehicle sends the TUM, store both the sensor data and a TUM in a TUM log entry of the TUM database of the vehicle, the TUM including information with respect to traversal of the vehicle along the roadway, the information including an indication of usage of the lanes by the vehicle,” as a need exists to enhance the capabilities of a vehicle (Studnicka, Par. [0002]). As in Studnicka, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a trigger command based on location to Hassett’s toll advertisement message transmitted from the RSU with the predicted result of accurately determining the position of the vehicle for toll assessment purposes as needed in Hassett.
Hassett in view of Studnicka do not explicitly disclose: store both the sensor data and a TUM in a TUM log entry of the TUM database of the vehicle, the TUM including information with respect to traversal of the vehicle along the roadway, the information including an indication of usage of the lanes by the vehicle.
Yoshida teaches store both the sensor data (Par. [0061], The camera image data and the GPS measurement data may be associated with each other according to date and time information) and a TUM, the TUM including information with respect to traversal of the vehicle along the roadway, the information including an indication of usage of the lanes by the vehicle (Par. [0064], The chargeable area determination unit 222 determines whether or not a travel position of the mobile body 4 is within the chargeable area, based on the chargeable area data received from the chargeable area information acquisition unit 221 and the camera image data and GPS measurement data received from the observation data acquisition unit 21; Par. [0065], When it is determined that the mobile body 4 is traveling within the chargeable area, the lane specification unit 223 performs processing of: specifying a lane in which the mobile body 4 is traveling; and acquiring identification information (ID) of the specified lane) in a TUM log entry of the TUM database of the vehicle (Par. [0057], The movement information memory 32 is used to store, for the mobile body 4 moving within the geographical area as a chargeable area, movement information data including identification information of the mobile body 4, information for identifying a position of the mobile body 4, in particular, a lane in which the mobile body 4 is moving, and time information on a time when the mobile body 4 is moving).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the toll payment system of Hassett and Studnicka to include the location defining abilities of Yoshida to teach “wherein the TAM defines one or more trigger node points that define a boundary of a TUM trigger zone, store both the sensor data and a TUM in a TUM log entry of the TUM database of the vehicle, the TUM including information with respect to traversal of the vehicle along the roadway, the information including an indication of usage of the lanes by the vehicle,” as a need exists accurate determination as to whether or not a vehicle has entered a chargeable area (Yoshida, Par. [0005]). As in Yoshida, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include one or more trigger node points that define a boundary of a trigger zone to Hassett and Studnicka’s toll advertisement message transmitted from the RSU with the predicted result of accurately determining the position of the vehicle for toll assessment purposes as needed in Hassett and Studnicka.
Regarding claim 25, Hassett discloses wherein to indicate the status of the reconcile includes to display the status in a human machine interface (HMI) of the vehicle (Par. [0105], available balance remaining in the account is displayed).
Regarding claim 26, Hassett discloses wherein to indicate the status of the reconcile includes to send the status to the tolling system (Par. [0234], transmits information signifying that the balance has been incremented).
Regarding claim 28, Hassett discloses wherein the status of the reconcile indicates that TUM log entry is proof that the vehicle did not use the toll service as indicated by the TRM (Par. [0146], Par. [0230], After receiving the exit or toll station identifier from T1 as the vehicle approaches an exit or toll station, the IVC processor 50 retrieves the toll amount from its stored toll schedule and debits the balance).
Regarding claim 29, Hassett discloses wherein the status of the reconcile indicates that the TUM log entry contradicts information in the TRM, and the controller is further programmed to automatically request a correction of the tolls that are due responsive to the contradiction (Par. [0235], balance discrepancy, error record generated and entered into central records for inspection of the records).
Claims 5, 6, 14, 15, 23, and 24, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hassett (US 2006/0145893 A1) in view of Studnicka (US 2020/0184166 A1); Yoshida (US 2021/0312720 A1); and Robinson et al. (US 2007/0192177 A1), hereinafter Robinson.
Regarding claim 5, Hassett does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is further programmed to determine that the status is a mismatch of the TUM and the TRM responsive to one or more fields in the TUM and the TRM not being a match. Robinson discloses wherein the controller is further programmed to determine that the status is a mismatch of the TUM and the TRM responsive to one or more fields in the TUM and the TRM not being a match (Par. [0073], system determines that no toll match is found). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the toll payment system of Hassett, Studnicka, and Yoshida to include the data matching abilities of Robinson since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 6, Hassett discloses wherein the one or more fields include data indicative of latitude, longitude, and/or elevation of the vehicle; speed and/or heading of the vehicle; an identifier of a toll charger server; an identifier of a toll pay center; a license plate number of the vehicle; and/or an account identifier specified in the TUM and the TRM (Par. [0231], data transmitted by the IVC to toll collection site includes IVC identification number).
Regarding claim 14, Hassett does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is further programmed to determine that the status is a mismatch of the TUM and the TRM responsive to one or more fields in th