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 .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant makes the following arguments:
The amended claim is not directed to a mental process because the human mind is not equipped to perform several of the recited feature; in particular, storage of specific data in a specific data field cannot be performed in the human mind.
The amendments to the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by providing additional details that place sufficient, meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim.
When analyzing a claim to determine whether significantly more is recited, it is important to remember that the “apply it” consideration often overlaps with the improvements consideration.
Regarding argument A: Determining that a turn restriction exists at an intersection based on the presence of a bypass edge can be performed in the human mind; for example, if a driver sees a bypass road ahead of an intersection, such a driver would recognize that a right turn would be made using the bypass road rather than at the intersection itself. The additionally cited limitations are not cited by the examiner as pertaining to an abstract idea, but rather considered as additional elements which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as discussed below.
Regarding argument B: While the claim presents several limitations which are additional elements, such elements are all recited at a high level of generality. Therefore, they fall within the category of insignificant extra-solution activity, as discussed in further detail below.
Regarding argument C: While it appears to be implicitly argued that the claims provide an improvement to the functioning of technology, neither the claims nor the specification explicitly disclose an improvement to the functioning of the technology; rather, it appears to be merely a novel means of mapping an intersection.
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, 6, 7, 11, 14, 15, 20, 21, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. . The claims recite an apparatus, a method, and a non-transitory storage medium. (Step 1: Yes.) Apparatus claim 1 has been selected for further analysis.
The claim recites the following limitations (bolded text corresponds to the abstract idea):
A communications server apparatus for traffic management of a network of roads, comprising;
a processor; and
a memory, the communications server apparatus being configured, under control of the processor to execute instructions stored in the memory to:
process data corresponding to the network of roads, the data being configured in at least one data record and representing the network of roads as a directed graph comprising nodes and edges, each edge representing a road segment connecting a pair of nodes;
identify, based on the directed graph, an incoming edge and an outgoing edge that intersect at an intersection node, the incoming edge representing a segment of an incoming road and the outgoing edge representing a segment of an outgoing road;
determine, based on geometric layout data associated with the directed graph, an angular relationship between the incoming edge and the outgoing edge indicative of a turn at the intersection node, data indicative of the candidate edge being stored in a candidate data field of the at least one data record;
determine, based on the geometric data associated with the directed graph, a candidate edge connecting a node on the incoming edge to a node on the outgoing edge;
identify the candidate edge as a bypass edge when a reflex angle between the outgoing edge and the candidate edge is greater than a predetermined threshold, the bypass edge providing a traversal from the incoming edge to the outgoing edge without passing through the intersection node;
determine, based on the presence of the bypass edge, that there is a turn restriction prohibiting traversal from the incoming edge to the outgoing edge via the intersection node, data indicative of the turn restriction being stored in a restriction data field of the at least one data record; and
generate data indicative of the turn restriction;
receive a request from a user device of a road user to access data associated with the intersection node;
process the data indicative of the turn restriction to generate visual information to communicate the turn restriction with the outgoing edge; and
communicate the visual information as at least one of textual information and graphical information on a digital map indicative of the turn restriction to the user device to alert the road user of the prohibited traversal from the incoming edge to the outgoing edge via the intersection node in advance of the road user turning onto a road of the network of roads corresponding to the outgoing edge.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this apparatus creates a directed graph based on obtained road data, determines that an edge connecting an incoming edge to an outgoing edge is a bypass edge based on the angle between the incoming edge and the outgoing edge, and determines that a turn is restricted at the intersection between the incoming and outgoing edges if a bypass edge is present. If the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim limitation entails performance in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. A directed graph based on road data can be created using pen and paper and an angle between two edges can be determined in the human mind; therefore, the claim is a mental process. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claim is abstract.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; limitations that are not indicative of integration include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h). The claim recites a generic “processor and a memory”, which amounts to no more than using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the claim recites the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering, the insignificant post-solution activity of “generat[ing] data” and “receiv[ing] a request”, and the step of “communicat[ing] the data”, which is recited at such a high level of generality as to have a broadest reasonable interpretation inclusive of the insignificant post-solution activity of signal transmission. The claim further recites storing data indicative of a candidate edge and a turn restriction in respective data fields; however, this is recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than the insignificant pre-solution activity of storing data. (Step 2A-Prong 2: No. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application.)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the recited additional elements are generically recited computer components, which additionally perform functions which amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. These computer components and the additionally recited functions are all well-understood, routine and conventional in the art. Therefore claim 1 (and the similarly abstract claims 15 and 29, which recite the same limitations) is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 16, 20, and 21 further define the abstract idea, and are thus abstract for the same reasons. Therefore, claims 2, 6, 7, 16, 20, and 21 are not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites addition of data to a preexisting data set. This is merely the insignificant post-solution activity of data transmission, and therefore claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Claims 13 and 27 recite processing data to generate visual information for communicating a turn restriction to a user. However, this amounts to nothing more than the insignificant post-solution activity of data processing, rather than a positive recitation of a practical application. Therefore, claims 13 and 27 are not patent eligible.
Claims 14 and 28 recite processing data indicative of a digital map for displaying the map. However, this amounts to nothing more than the insignificant post-solution activity of data processing, rather than a positive recitation of a practical application. Therefore, claims 14 and 28 are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 6, 7, 11, 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1, 15, and 29: The closest available art, Tamai et al. (US 5902350, previously cited) and Kohno et al. (US 20100179755, previously cited) fails to teach identifying the candidate edge as a bypass edge when a reflex angle between the outgoing edge and the candidate edge is greater than a predetermined threshold, or determining a turn restriction based on the presence of the bypass edge.
Tamai et al. teaches determining a type of turn (e.g., a simple turn) to indicate based on an angle between an entry road segment and an exit road segment when a turn lane has not been collapsed into the intersection (Tamai – Col. 8, line 66-Col. 9, line 8), but does not teach determining that a candidate edge is a bypass edge when the angle between the outgoing edge and the candidate edge is greater than a predetermined threshold. Similarly, while Kohno et al. teaches “in a case in which the angle with which the vehicle enters the existing road from the new road while turning to the right is acute, prohibit right turn and grant only left turn when the vehicle enters the existing road from the new road” (Kohno – [0079]), Kohno et al. fails to teach determining a turn restriction based on the presence of the bypass edge.
Regarding claims 6, 7, 14, 20, 21, and 28: The claims are dependent on claims 1 or 15, and would thus be allowable at least by virtue of said dependence.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights