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 Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/09/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification (MPEP 608.01, ¶6.31).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the active infra-red emitter mounted on the vehicle must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-18, 20-24, and 26-39 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claims 1, 37, and 38 recite an active infra-red emitter mounted on each vehicle. At no point in the specification is an “active infra-red” sensor or emitter recited. Furthermore, at no point is it mentioned or indicated that such a sensor or emitter would be attached to a vehicle. The closest recitation similar to the claim the examiner can identify is “In an example of a possible Interactive Transport Network system, the system described in GB 2585165 A utilises vehicle tracking apparatuses which include an infra-red (IR) sensor to detect IR signals which are either emitted from or reflected by the vehicles in order to track the position of vehicles.” (paragraph 0038, which is in recitation to a prior art system from GB2585165A, and paragraph 0044). These recitations merely indicate that the vehicle tracking apparatuses detect IR emissions emitted from or reflected from vehicles, and do not specify active infra-red sensors specifically mounted on vehicles. In fact, the only recitations of anything being mounted is associated only with vehicle tracking apparatuses, not vehicle. Therefore, the inclusion of active infra-red emitters mounted of vehicles is considered new matter.
Because the dependent claims do not rectify the issue, they are also considered new matter.
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 1-18, 20, 22-24 and 26-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea accomplishable by mental processes without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea of receiving, analyzing and sending data, which is analogous to mental work with the aid of generic computer equipment. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, The claims are directed to a vehicle management system [machine, process].
Step 2A; is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes, claims 1-18, 20, 22-24 and 26-39are directed to the abstract idea of a vehicle management system. Claims 1-18, 20, 22-24 and 26-39 recite an abstract idea of receiving data from sensors, analyzing kinematic parameters, and transmitting data resulting from the analysis.
Prong One; Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes, as understood in their broadest reasonable interpretation, the independent claims are directed to a system and process of receiving data from sensors, analyzing kinematic parameters, and transmitting data resulting from the analysis.
The generation and transmission of instructions to instruct vehicles to enable certain actions is sufficiently broad to include non-controlling actions. For example, a traffic light displaying a red light would, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, generate an instruction signal to enable an action. This indicates that the transmission of instruction signals, as recited, merely amounts to extra solution activity, and is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Other details, such as guiding a vehicle (e.g. claim 12), similarly fall under mere transmission of data/extra solution activity.
Prong Two; Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the elements are generically recited. In particular, elements of a vehicle controller and sensors merely use generically recited features as tools to perform the abstract idea.
Infra-red radiation sensors and active infra-red emitters merely detail the source/kind of data received, as pre solution activity. The specific sensor/structure is generically recited in the disclosure, and does not involve anything beyond what is considered routine and conventional as a way to acquire data.
LAN control apparatus is similarly generically recited, as it merely adds on a local area network requirement to generic computer/communication equipment.
The transmitter merely transmits instructions to a vehicle to enable the implementation of determined instruction signals, and does not actively control the vehicle itself. This serves as a post solution activity that is not actively involved.
Therefore, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims XXX are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claims 1-18, 20, 22-24 and 26-39do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, claims 1-18, 20, 22-24 and 26-39 are ineligible.
Claim 21, on the other hand, does recite specificity in the transmitted instruction signal in that it controls the movement of an autonomous/semi-autonomous vehicle, which is seen to sufficiently integrate the idea into a practical application, and thus is considered eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 13-18, 20-21, and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slavin (US20140278052A1) in view of Johnston (US20200401157A1).
Regarding claim 1, Slavin teaches;
A vehicle management system for controlling movement of a plurality of vehicles along a pathway at a current geographic location of a transport network (taught as a lane-level vehicle routing and navigation apparatus, paragraph 0004), the vehicle management system comprising:
a plurality of vehicle tracking apparatuses provided along a contiguous series of locations about the pathway including at the geographic location (taught as hardware embedded in pavement or traffic cameras that track real-time traffic data, paragraph 0046); and
each vehicle tracking apparatus of the plurality of vehicle tracking apparatuses being communicatively coupled to another vehicle tracking apparatus of the plurality of vehicle tracking apparatuses [[via a local area network (LAN)]] (taught as continuously tracking the traveler’s location in the network, paragraph 0061, where the infrastructure of traffic cameras, magnetic loop detectors, traffic signal controllers, satellites etc. are connected to a computing environment to provide instructions/guidance, paragraph 0046; indicating communicative coupling between various infrastructure elements),
a receiver (taught as data collection from sensors, road cameras, communication/crowd sourcing etc. paragraph 0031; while not explicitly a receiver, the function of obtaining data from outside the computing environment indicates the presence of some kind of receiver to collect the data) configured to:
receive sensed kinematic parameters of the plurality of vehicles at the current geographic location from the plurality of vehicles tracking apparatuses (taught as receiving speed measurements from sensors, detectors and traffic cameras to provide real time traffic data, paragraph 0046, and travel speed, delay, traffic density and gaps between vehicles can be recorded, paragraph 0071); and
receive event data relating to the occurrence of an event concerning the movement of the plurality of vehicles (taught as factoring in accident or road modifications into calculation/simulations, paragraph 0084, which indicates that it at some point receives or determines information signifying accidents or road modification);
a processor (taught as a centralized computing environment, element 203, paragraph 0046; while not explicitly a processor, such a feature is indicated by the use of computers that form the computing environment) configured to:
determine required kinematic parameters of at least one of the plurality of vehicles in order to respond to the event (taught as determining candidate paths for vehicles, paragraph 0057, and determining an optimal lane path for a [each connected individual] traveler, paragraph 0060);
determine, based on the sensed kinematic parameters and the required kinematic parameters, plurality of actions to be taken by the plurality of the plurality of vehicles which enable the required kinematic parameters to be achieved (taught as determining candidate paths for vehicles, paragraph 0057, and determining an optimal lane path for a [each connected individual] traveler, paragraph 0060, while factoring in accident or road modifications into calculation/simulations, paragraph 0084, which indicates that it at some point receives or determines information signifying accidents or road modification); and
generate one or more instruction signals for at least one of the plurality of vehicles to instruct the one or more actions to be taken (taught as transmitting the optimal lane path to the traveler in the form of lane changing and turning movement route guidance instructions, paragraph 0060); and
a transmitter (taught as communication devices, element 205) configured to transmit the one or more instruction signals to the respective at least one of the plurality of vehicles to enable the one or more actions to be implemented (taught as transmitting the optimal lane path to the traveler in the form of lane changing and turning movement route guidance instructions, paragraph 0060).
While specific material components are not explicitly taught, such as a receiver, the existence of such a device is indicated in the description, such as collecting sensor data (paragraph 0031), clearly identify a system that performs the recited functions. Similarly, a processor is not explicitly taught, but computer synthesized traffic information is used with a centralized computing environment (paragraph 0046).
However, Slavin does not explicitly teach; wherein each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles comprises an active infra-red emitter mounted on the vehicle, and wherein the infra-red radiation sensor senses infra-red signals actively transmitted by the active infra-red emitter of each vehicle,
each vehicle tracking apparatus of the plurality of vehicle tracking apparatuses comprising an infra-red radiation sensor to sense infra-red signals which are emitted from the plurality of vehicles to track a position of the vehicle as they traverse along the pathway and each vehicle tracking apparatus of the plurality of vehicle tracking apparatuses being communicatively coupled to another vehicle tracking apparatus of the plurality of vehicle tracking apparatuses via a local area network (LAN); and
a LAN control apparatus, operatively coupled to the LAN, to communicate with the plurality of vehicle tracking apparatuses.
Johnston teaches; wherein each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles comprises an active infra-red emitter mounted on the vehicle (taught as each vehicle providing infra-red emissions that communicate with communications network infrastructure, paragraph 0040; indicating that each vehicle has an infra-red emitter), and
each vehicle tracking apparatus of the plurality of vehicle tracking apparatuses comprising an infra-red radiation sensor to sense infra-red signals which are emitted from the plurality of vehicles (taught as each vehicle providing infra-red emissions that communicate with communications network infrastructure, paragraph 0040; indicating that each communications network infrastructure has a receiver for infra-red communications),
wherein the infra-red radiation sensor senses infra-red signals actively transmitted by the active infra-red emitter of each vehicle to track a position of the vehicle as they traverse along the pathway taught as the vehicle connecting to a communications network infrastructure by infrared emission of the autonomous vehicle, wherein the communications network infrastructure then aids the vehicle in navigation, paragraph 0040, by providing an individualized video stream related to the location the vehicle, paragraph 0049; wherein the location knowledge indicates tracking/position data shared in the communications network infrastructure) and each vehicle tracking apparatus of the plurality of vehicle tracking apparatuses being communicatively coupled to another vehicle tracking apparatus of the plurality of vehicle tracking apparatuses via a local area network (LAN) (taught as the communications network infrastructure, which communicate to a supervisory service to compute/determine video streams to share with the vehicle based on the ‘best’ view and the predicted path, paragraph 0042).
a LAN control apparatus, operatively coupled to the LAN, to communicate with the plurality of vehicle tracking apparatuses (taught as the communications network infrastructure, which communicate to a supervisory service, paragraph 0042, where LAN is an exemplified option for a computer network that connects communication links, paragraph 0013).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use infrared receiver/emitter pairs as taught by Johnston in the system taught by Slavin in order to improve cost. As suggested by Johnston, the use of Li-Fi [infrared or light based communications] allows for more location specific instruction and relevancy; for example, by localizing a video stream from the floor of a parking garage most relevant to the vehicle/device (paragraph 0041). Thus, one would recognize the use of taking the already existing hardware as taught by Slavin in the road structures (paragraph 0046) and combining it with the provided infra-red infrastructure taught by Johnston to allow accurate environment detection and navigation assistance (paragraph 0040).
Regarding claim 2, Slavin as modified by Johnston teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Slavin further teaches; wherein the event data comprises a maneuver request from a vehicle, a threshold for a vehicle movement parameter (for example traffic density), or [‘or’ is interpreted to indicate that only one of the listed features are required] an alert regarding an emergency event (taught as factoring in accident or road modifications into calculation/simulations, paragraph 0078 and 0084, and positions of traffic buildups/backups, such as off an exit ramp, paragraph 0056, which indicates that it at some point receives or determines information signifying accidents or road modification, which is used in determining the route information sent to a traveler, e.g . paragraph 0060).
Regarding claim 3, Slavin as modified by Johnston teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 2 (see claim 2 rejection). Slavin further teaches; wherein the processor is configured to determine a current position of an event-related vehicle (taught as determining the current positions of vehicles, paragraph 0057, with dynamic route recommendations to account for accidents and work zones, paragraph 0078).
Regarding claim 13, Slavin as modified by Johnston teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Slavin further teaches; wherein the receiver is configured to: receive incident data from a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles, the incident data relating to a geographic location of an incident sensed by the vehicle (taught as records of historical data, being stored in the navigation engine, element 700, paragraph 0058); and
the processor is configured to store the geographic location of the incident in a data store (taught as the navigation engine storing data to populate a geographic database with historical data including speeds and incident reports, paragraph 0058).
Regarding claim 14, Slavin as modified by Johnston teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 13 (see claim 13 rejection). Slavin further teaches; wherein the transmitter is configured to transmit the incident data to an infrastructure monitoring system (taught as the navigation engine feeding current information to a [region wide] network, paragraph 0058).
Regarding claim 15, Slavin as modified by Johnston teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 13 (see claim 13 rejection). Slavin further teaches; wherein the incident data relates to a physical condition of the pathway sensed by the vehicle at a plurality of specific geographical locations (taught as detecting lane level context, paragraph 0054, including road modifications due to road construction or maintenance, paragraph 0084).
Regarding claim 16, Slavin as modified by Johnston teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Slavin further teaches; wherein the receiver is configured to receive further sensed parameters from another system communicatively coupled to the vehicle management system (taught as receiving crowd sourced, phone, aerial imagery and other sensor data, paragraph 0031) and the processor is configured to determine the required parameters from the further sensed parameters (taught as dynamically determining recommended routes based on the traffic conditions, time and location of vehicles, accounting for accidents and work zones, paragraph 0078, and other real time conditions, paragraph 0079).
Regarding claim 17, Slavin as modified by Johnston teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 16 (see claim 16 rejection). Slavin further teaches; wherein the further sensed parameters relate to an event occurring at a location towards which the plurality of vehicles is travelling, downstream of the current geographic location (taught as determining incidents such as accidents and work zones to be taken into account in dynamically determining the recommended route of the vehicle, paragraph 0078; while not explicitly downstream, this indicates that relevant, i.e. in the path/route of the vehicle, incidents, accidents and works zones are accounted for, in order to identify the best trajectory for a trip given an origin and time, paragraph 0084).
Regarding claim 18, Slavin as modified by Johnston teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 16 (see claim 16 rejection). Slavin further teaches; wherein the further sensed parameters relate to a desired traffic density or flow rate event (taught as detecting vehicle locations, occupancies in a lane/lane densities, paragraph 0036, such as an example with a backup at an exit ramp, paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 20, Slavin as modified by Johnston teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Slavin further teaches; wherein the transmitter is configured to transmit the one or more instruction signals to the at least one of the plurality of vehicles via the plurality of vehicle tracking apparatuses provided about the pathway (taught as transmitting guidance [such as optimal trajectories] to vehicles using communication devices [terrestrial wireless communication devices, for example], element 205, paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 21, Slavin as modified by Johnston teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Slavin further teaches; wherein one of the plurality of vehicles comprises an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle (taught as the methods described being implemented effectively in autonomous vehicle systems, paragraph 0010) and the one or more instruction signal comprises a control signal configured to control the movement of the autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle (taught as assisting self-driving automated vehicles to make appropriate lane-change decisions, paragraph 0091).
Regarding claims 37-38, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claim 1. Therefore, claims 37-38 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 39, Slavin as modified by Johnston teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Slavin further teaches; wherein the plurality of vehicle tracking apparatuses is configured to:
Receive (taught as the hardware sensing real-time traffic data, paragraph 0046, which indicates receiving data about detected vehicles), from each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles, data comprising at least one of the group of:
an exit option, a health status, a battery charge status, and the sensed kinematic parameters (taught as the hardware detecting real-time traffic data, such as vehicle locations and trajectories from observations, paragraph 0036); and
store, for each vehicle, the data received from that vehicle together with the sensed kinematic parameters of that vehicle (taught as storing historical traffic data, paragraph 0046, which indicates the kinematic data such as speed being stored for later use [i.e. current conditions being used for a future determination]);
wherein, the system is configured to distinguish the data of each vehicle from that of other vehicles. (indicated in the subscribed drivers having personalization, such as preferences, to determine alternate routes based on the current conditions, paragraph 0095, and the driving habits of the specific user, paragraph 0097; this indicates specific knowledge of the driver that is distinguished from other drivers/vehicles)
Claim(s) 4-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slavin (US20140278052A1) as modified by Johnston (US20200401157A1), and further in view of Maass (US20150194055A1).
Regarding claim 4, Slavin as modified by Johnston teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 3 (see claim 3 rejection). Slavin further teaches; wherein the processor is configured to generate actions to increase a speed of a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles which is downstream of the current position of the event-related vehicle (taught as guidance involving expected operation speeds [recommending a speed to travel at], paragraph 0047, including maneuvers to gain speed to improve the driving experience, paragraph 0073, accounting for downstream portions for guidance, paragraph 0081). However, Slavin does not explicitly teach; to create a gap between adjacent vehicles of the plurality of vehicles.
Maass teaches; to create a gap between adjacent vehicles of the plurality of vehicles (taught as an optimization strategy to rapidly progress in traffic, by achieving a higher average speed, for skillful gap utilization, paragraph 0025, and implementing the optimization strategy for controlling the host vehicle to, for example, make space [gap] for other vehicles, paragraph 0036).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust gaps between vehicles as taught by Maass in the system taught by Slavin in order to improve lane changing and navigation. Such a system, as suggested by Maass, allows for the prioritization of certain users while trying to satisfy the as many as possible (paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 5, Slavin as modified by Johnston teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 3 (see claim 3 rejection). Slavin further teaches; wherein the processor is configured to generate actions to decrease a speed of a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles which is upstream of the current position of the event-related vehicle (taught as guidance involving expected operation speeds [recommending a speed to travel at], paragraph 0047, including maneuvers to gain speed to improve the driving experience, paragraph 0073, accounting for downstream portions for guidance, paragraph 0081). However, Slavin does not explicitly teach; to create a gap between adjacent vehicles of the plurality of vehicles.
Maass teaches; to create a gap between adjacent vehicles of the plurality of vehicles (taught as an optimization strategy to rapidly progress in traffic, by achieving a higher average speed, for skillful gap utilization, paragraph 0025, and implementing the optimization strategy for controlling the host vehicle to, for example, make space [gap] for other vehicles, paragraph 0036).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust gaps between vehicles as taught by Maass in the system taught by Slavin in order to improve lane changing and navigation. Such a system, as suggested by Maass, allows for the prioritization of certain users while trying to satisfy the as many as possible (paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 6, Slavin as modified by Johnston and Maass teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 4 (see claim 4 rejection). However, Slavin does not explicitly teach; wherein the processor is configured to generate an action to move the event-related vehicle into the gap.
Maass teaches; wherein the processor is configured to generate an action to move the event-related vehicle into the gap (taught as recognizing a gap in traffic, paragraph 0017, for skillful gap utilization [lane changes to speed up progress in traffic], paragraph 0025, and implementing the optimization strategy for controlling the host vehicle to, for example, make space [gap] for other vehicles, paragraph 0036).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust gaps between vehicles as taught by Maass in the system taught by Slavin in order to improve lane changing and navigation. Such a system, as suggested by Maass, allows for the prioritization of certain users while trying to satisfy the as many as possible (paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 8, Slavin as modified by Johnston teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 2 (see claim 2 rejection). Slavin further teaches; wherein the pathway comprises a plurality of lanes (shown in, for example, Figs 2 and 4). However, Slavin does not explicitly teach; and the processor is configured to generate actions to:
create a gap in an adjacent lane to a current lane of an event-related vehicle or hazard by decreasing the speed of a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles which is upstream of the current position of the event-related vehicle or hazard and/or increasing a speed of a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles which is downstream of the current position of the event-related vehicle or hazard; and
move a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles, upstream of and in the same lane as the event- related vehicle or hazard, into the gap.
Maass teaches; create a gap in an adjacent lane to a current lane of an event-related vehicle or hazard by decreasing the speed of a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles which is upstream of the current position of the event-related vehicle or hazard and/or increasing a speed of a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles which is downstream of the current position of the event-related vehicle or hazard (taught as recognizing a gap in traffic, paragraph 0017, for skillful gap utilization [lane changes to speed up progress in traffic], paragraph 0025, and implementing the optimization strategy for controlling the host vehicle to, for example, make space [gap] for other vehicles, paragraph 0036),
move a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles, upstream of and in a same lane as the event- related vehicle or hazard, into the gap (taught as recognizing a gap in traffic, paragraph 0017, for skillful gap utilization [lane changes to speed up progress in traffic], paragraph 0025, and implementing the optimization strategy for controlling the host vehicle to, for example, make space [gap] for other vehicles, paragraph 0036).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust gaps between vehicles as taught by Maass in the system taught by Slavin in order to improve lane changing and navigation. Such a system, as suggested by Maass, allows for the prioritization of certain users while trying to satisfy the as many as possible (paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 9, Slavin as modified by Johnston and Maass teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 8 (see claim 8 rejection). Slavin further teaches; wherein the processor is configured to generate actions to:
move a vehicle downstream of and in an adjacent lane as the event-related vehicle or hazard into the same lane as the event-related vehicle or hazard (taught as, in an example scenario, directing vehicles to alternate routes based on, for example, a backup off an exit ramp, paragraph 0056) .
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slavin (US20140278052A1) as modified by Johnston (US20200401157A1) and Maass (US20150194055A1), and further in view of Fredkin (US20120068858A1).
Regarding claim 7, Slavin as modified by Johnston and Maass teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 6 (see claim 6 rejection). However, Slavin does not explicitly teach; wherein the processor is configured to generate plurality of actions to regularize separations between adjacent vehicles of the plurality of vehicles following movement of the event-related vehicle into the gap.
Fredkin teaches; wherein the processor is configured to generate plurality of actions to regularize separations between adjacent vehicles of the plurality of vehicles following movement of the event-related vehicle into the gap (taught as advising maintaining a selected gap between vehicles, based on the current traffic situation, paragraph 0013, including advice regarding events and suggesting appropriate action, paragraph 0063).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to standardize the separation to the selected gap as taught by Fredkin in the system taught by Slavin as modified by Maass in order to improve traffic efficiency. Such a system allows selected inter-vehicle gaps to be maintained, and according to Fredkin, allows drivers to form packs [like platoons] for shared communication and more accurate distance management (paragraph 0013).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slavin (US20140278052A1)as modified by Johnston (US20200401157A1) and further in view of Ran (US20190244521A1).
Regarding claim 10, Slavin as modified by Johnston teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 2 (see claim 2 rejection). However, Slavin does not explicitly teach; wherein the processor is configured to generate actions to alter a speed of a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles to minimize a distance between adjacent vehicles to a predetermined minimum thereby increasing a traffic density parameter.
Ran teaches; wherein the processor is configured to generate actions to alter a speed of a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles to minimize a distance between adjacent vehicles to a predetermined minimum thereby increasing a traffic density parameter (taught as speed and headway keeping to keep the minimal headway [gap] and maximal speed in the lane to achieve max possible traffic capacity, paragraph 0061).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a gap distance as taught by Ran in the system taught by Slavin in order to improve traffic. As taught by Ran, such behaviors can achieve the maximum possible traffic capacity (paragraph 0061).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slavin (US20140278052A1) as modified by Johnston (US20200401157A1) and further in view of Ramasamy (US20170276492A1).
Regarding claim 11, Slavin as modified by Johnston teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Slavin does not explicitly teach; wherein the processor is configured to generate actions to move a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles to a location within the pathway aligned with inductive or conductive charging apparatus and to maintain the alignment of the vehicle with the inductive or conductive charging apparatus for a period of time to enable inductive or conductive charging of the vehicle to be carried out whilst the vehicle is moving along the pathway.
Ramasamy teaches; wherein the processor is configured to generate actions to move a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles to a location within the pathway aligned with inductive or conductive charging apparatus and to maintain the alignment of the vehicle with the inductive or conductive charging apparatus for a period of time to enable inductive or conductive charging of the vehicle to be carried out whilst the vehicle is moving along the pathway (taught as assigning/directing electric vehicles capable of inductive charging to a lane on a road having electric charging capabilities, paragraph 0029, 0055).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider prioritization of charging vehicles in traffic flow as taught by Ramaswamy in the system taught by Slavin in order to improve overall traffic flow. Having an electric vehicle run out of charge would cause a traffic incident/event, and preventing an incident/event generally improves overall traffic. As taught by Ramasamy, there are many scenarios where vehicles need to be treated with different priorities in traffic (paragraph 0001).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slavin (US20140278052A1) as modified by Johnston (US20200401157A1) and Maglaras (Dynamic Wireless Charging of Electric Vehicles on the Move with Mobile Energy Disseminators, 2015, from IDS).
Regarding claim 12, Slavin as modified by Johnston teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Slavin does not explicitly teach; wherein the processor is configured to generate actions to:
maintain a docking vehicle of the plurality of vehicles at a constant speed and a constant location relative to the pathway; and
guide another vehicle to dock with the docking vehicle whilst the docking vehicle is moving along the pathway.
Maglaras teaches; wherein the processor is configured to generate actions to:
maintain a docking vehicle of the plurality of vehicles at a constant speed and a constant location relative to the pathway; and
guide another vehicle to dock with the docking vehicle whilst the docking vehicle is moving along the pathway.
maintain a docking vehicle of the plurality of vehicles at a constant speed and a constant location relative to the pathway (Taught as mobile energy disseminators, where busses/trucks can act as energy sources to EVs in need of charging, where control is synchronized to create a cluster or platoon, page241 column 1); and
guide another vehicle to dock with the docking vehicle whilst the docking vehicle is moving along the pathway (Taught as and couple the vehicles charging coils together, page 241 column 2).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a traffic management system include considerations/commands for docking charging vehicles as taught by Maglaras in the system taught by Slavin in order to improve traffic and vehicle routing. Having an electric vehicle run out of charge would cause a traffic incident/event, and preventing an incident/event generally improves overall traffic. As suggested by Maglaras, using mobile energy disseminators allows for a higher quality of service (page 240, section III).
Claim(s) 22-24 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slavin (US20140278052A1)as modified by Johnston (US20200401157A1), and further in view of Rosa (Coordinating High-Resolution Traffic Cameras 2015) and Ran (US20190244521A1).
Regarding claim 22, Slavin as modified by Johnston teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Slavin further teaches; further comprising at least one of the plurality of vehicle tracking apparatuses provided about the pathway at the geographical location (taught as tracking traveler’s location in the network, paragraph 0061, such as hardware embedded in pavement or traffic cameras, paragraph 0046). However, Slavin does not explicitly teach; the vehicle tracking apparatus having a positional measurement accuracy to within 10 cm with a dynamic latency of less than 20 milliseconds.
Rosa teaches; the vehicle tracking apparatus having a positional measurement accuracy to within 10 cm (taught as achieving accuracy of 5cm with coordinating traffic cameras, page 2 improving accuracy).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to achieve such accuracy as taught by Rosa in the system taught by Slavin in order to improve foresight in directing traffic. As taught by Rosa, such accuracy allows for the detection of a vehicle many kilometers away (page 2 improving accuracy), and thus allows a system to react much earlier/have more time to plan.
However, Rosa does not explicitly teach; with a dynamic latency of less than 20 milliseconds.
Ran teaches; with a dynamic latency of less than 20 milliseconds (taught as the performance capability at microscopic levels of 1-10 ms, paragraphs 0114-0115).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to achieve latency/temporal resolutions of less than 20ms as suggested by Ran in the system taught by Slavin as modified by Rosa in order to keep direction timing reasonable. Ran teaches that 1-10ms capabilities allow for vehicle control instruction computation (paragraph 0115), which is important for directing vehicles in traffic flow, as traffic speeds can easily exceed 60mph [which would result in significant distance traveled, even at such computation speeds; 60mph travels about .25m in 10ms]. In addition, such specification of required latencies and resolution is merely a matter of routine experimentation/design optimization, well within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 23, Slavin as modified by Johnston, Rosa, and Ran teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 22 (see claim 22 rejection). Slavin further teaches; wherein the at least one or more of the plurality of vehicle tracking apparatuses has a field of view directed to the pathway (shown in Fig 2, where infrastructure is directed to viewing a road) and is configured to sense the position of each of the plurality of vehicles and determine the sensed kinematic data from the sensed positions over a time period (taught as detecting the locations and trajectories of vehicles, paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 24, Slavin as modified by Johnston, Rosa, and Ran teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 22 (see claim 22 rejection). Slavin further teaches; wherein the at least one of the plurality of vehicle tracking apparatus comprises a plurality of vehicle tracking apparatuses communicatively connected together in a local area network configuration (taught as forming a local network to communicate between traffic systems and vehicles, paragraph 0046, such as with a network graph, paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 26, Slavin as modified by Johnston, Rosa, and Ran teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 22 (see claim 22 rejection). However, Slavin does not explicitly teach; wherein the at least one of the plurality of vehicle tracking apparatus comprises an infra-red radiation emitter.
Johnston teaches; wherein the at least one of the plurality of vehicle tracking apparatus comprises an infra-red radiation emitter (taught as each vehicle providing infra-red emissions that communicate with communications network infrastructure, paragraph 0040; indicating that each communications network infrastructure has a receiver for infra-red communications).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use infrared receiver/emitter pairs as taught by Johnston in the system taught by Slavin in order to improve cost. As suggested by Johnston, the use of infrared allows for low price, simple installation and distribution to allow accurate road condition detection (paragraph 0012).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use infrared receiver/emitter pairs as taught by Johnston in the system taught by Slavin in order to improve cost. As suggested by Johnston, the use of Li-Fi [infrared or light based communications] allows for more location specific instruction and relevancy; for example, by localizing a video stream from the floor of a parking garage most relevant to the vehicle/device (paragraph 0041). Thus, one would recognize the use of taking the already existing hardware as taught by Slavin in the road structures (paragraph 0046) and combining it with the provided infra-red infrastructure taught by Johnston to allow accurate environment detection and navigation assistance (paragraph 0040).
Regarding claim 27, Slavin as modified by Johnston, Rosa, and Ran teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 22 (see claim 22 rejection). Slavin further teaches; wherein the at least one of the plurality of vehicle tracking apparatus is configured to provide the one or more instruction signals to the one or more of the plurality of vehicles (taught as transmitting the optimal lane path to the traveler in the form of lane changing and turning movement route guidance instructions, paragraph 0060).
Regarding claim 28, Slavin as modified by Johnston, Rosa, and Ran teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 22 (see claim 22 rejection). Slavin further teaches; wherein the one or more of the plurality of vehicle tracking apparatus is configured to track the movement of one or more airborne, waterborne or land vehicles (taught as checking the location post transmission of the route guidance to see whether the traveler is following the advised path, paragraph 0061, in the system that tracks the locations and trajectories of vehicles, paragraph 0036).
Claim(s) 29 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slavin (US20140278052A1) as modified by Johnston (US20200401157A1) and further in view of Modi (US20180122231A1).
Regarding claim 29, Slavin as modified by Johnston teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Slavin further teaches; wherein the processor includes one or more event response processing engines for determining the one or more actions to be taken (taught as determining candidate paths for vehicles, paragraph 0057, and determining an optimal lane path for a [each connected individual] traveler, paragraph 0060, while factoring in accident or road modifications into calculation/simulations, paragraph 0084).
However, Slavin does not explicitly teach; wherein the processor includes an event recognition engine for determining a type of event which the event data relates to.
Modi teaches; wherein the processor includes an event recognition engine for determining a type of event which the event data relates to (taught as identifying an event in video data, paragraph 0046, and using an inference engine to label/determine information about the event, examples are listed between paragraphs 0048-0070, which are fed into a traffic state classifier to determine a tragic state, paragraph 0071).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to more specifically recognize/categorize events and incidents as taught by Modi in the system taught by Slavin in order to improve cost. As taught by Modi, using an event detection approach is more efficient and compact than needlessly moving raw video data around a network (paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 34, Slavin as modified by Johnston and Modi teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 29 (see claim 29 rejection). Slavin further teaches; wherein the plurality of event processing engines comprises an obstruction/hazard detection processing engine (taught as a navigation engine, e.g. paragraph 0047) which is configured to identify a location of obstruction/hazard in the pathway (indicated as determining blockages in presented examples 3 and 5, paragraphs 0041 and 0043 respectively); and
the obstruction/hazard detection processing engine comprises an exclusion zone generator (taught as a navigation engine, e.g. paragraph 0047) configured to determine a strategy to enable a vehicle upstream of the location of the obstruction/hazard to avoid the obstruction/hazard and to generate plurality of actions to execute the strategy (taught as anticipatory lane changes, such as exemplified in Fig 6, paragraph 0056).
Claim(s) 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slavin (US20140278052A1) as modified by Johnston (US20200401157A1) and Modi (US20180122231A1), and further in view of Hannah (US20160097648A1) and Maass (US20150194055A1).
Regarding claim 30, Slavin as modified by Johnston and Modi teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 29 (see claim 29 rejection). Slavin further teaches; wherein the one or more event processing engines comprises a lane change request processing engine (taught as a navigation engine, e.g. paragraph 0047) which is configured to generate actions to enable a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles in a current lane of a multi-lane pathway to move into a different, desired lane [examiner is interpreting this to fundamentally be an intended use and requires only the ability to change lanes] of the multi-lane pathway (taught as determining guidance, for recommended lane-level routes, including lane changes, paragraph 0047) the lane change processing engine being configured to:
determine a current position to the desired lane of the multi-lane pathway (taught as determining the current positions of vehicles, paragraph 0057).
However, Slavin does not explicitly teach; to generate actions to enable a requesting vehicle of the plurality of vehicles in a current lane of a multi-lane pathway to move into a different, desired lane of the multi-lane pathway, the lane change processing engine being configured to:
generate actions to increase a speed of a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles in the desired lane which is downstream of the current position of the requesting vehicle and/or decrease the speed of a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles in the desired lane which is upstream of the current position of the requesting vehicle, to enable a gap to be created within the desired lane between adjacent moving vehicles of the plurality of vehicles; and
to generate an action to move the requesting vehicle into the gap.
Hannah teaches; wherein the one or more event processing engines comprises a lane change request processing engine which is configured to generate actions to enable a requesting vehicle of the plurality of vehicles in a current lane of a multi-lane pathway (taught as vehicles sending a travel request to a traffic management system to follow a route, paragraph 0014)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow vehicles to request certain permissions maneuvers as taught by Hannah in the system taught by Slavin in order to improve usability. Such a system allows the system to prioritize vehicle maneuvers based on vehicle parameters and requests and travel delay, and further improving road capacity and minimizing travel times, as suggested by Hannah (paragraph 0013).
However, Hannah does not explicitly teach; generate actions to increase the speed of a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles in the desired lane which is downstream of the current position of the requesting vehicle and/or decrease a speed of a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles in the desired lane which is upstream of the current position of the requesting vehicle, to enable a gap to be created within the desired lane between adjacent moving vehicles of the plurality of vehicles; and
to generate an action to move the requesting vehicle into the gap.
Maass teaches; generate actions to increase a speed of a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles in the desired lane which is downstream of the current position of the requesting vehicle and/or decrease the speed of a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles in the desired lane which is upstream of the current position of the requesting vehicle, to enable a gap to be created within the desired lane between adjacent moving vehicles of the plurality of vehicles (taught as an optimization strategy to rapidly progress in traffic, by achieving a higher average speed, for skillful gap utilization, paragraph 0025; while not explicitly listing the speed changes with the of the current location, such features are generally understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as part of making a gap for a vehicle in traffic), and
to generate an action to move the requesting vehicle into the gap (taught as implementing the optimization strategy for controlling the host vehicle to, for example, make space [gap] for other vehicles, paragraph 0036).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust gaps between vehicles as taught by Maass in the system taught by Slavin in order to improve lane changing and navigation. Such a system, as suggested by Maass, allows for the prioritization of certain users while trying to satisfy the as many as possible (paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 31, Slavin as modified by Johnston and Modi teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 29 (see claim 29 rejection). Slavin further teaches;
determine a current position of the requesting vehicle (taught as determining the current positions of vehicles, paragraph 0057). However, Slavin does not explicitly teach; wherein the plurality of event processing engines comprises an exit/entry request processing engine which is configured to generate actions to enable a requesting vehicle of the plurality of vehicles to move from a current lane of the pathway to an exit lane, the exit/entry request processing engine being configured to:
generate an action to increase a speed of a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles in the exit lane which is downstream of the current position of the requesting vehicle and/or decrease the speed of a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles in the exit lane which is upstream of the current position of the requesting vehicle, to enable a gap to be created within the exit lane between adjacent vehicles of the plurality of vehicles in the exit lane; and
generate an action to move the requesting vehicle into the gap.
Hannah teaches; wherein the one or more event processing engines comprises an exit/entry request processing engine which is configured to generate actions to enable a requesting vehicle of the plurality of vehicles to move from a current lane of the pathway to an exit lane, (taught as vehicles sending a travel request to a traffic management system to follow a route, paragraph 0014, which include entry/exit controls, paragraph 0004, and considering intersecting controlled roads with entry/exit points, paragraph 0043)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow vehicles to request certain permissions maneuvers as taught by Hannah in the system taught by Slavin in order to improve usability. Such a system allows the system to prioritize vehicle maneuvers based on vehicle parameters and requests and travel delay, and further improving road capacity and minimizing travel times, as suggested by Hannah (paragraph 0013).
However, Hannah does not explicitly teach; generate an action to increase the speed of a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles in the exit lane which is downstream of the current position of the requesting vehicle and/or decrease a speed of a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles in the exit lane which is upstream of the current position of the requesting vehicle, to enable a gap to be created within the exit lane between adjacent vehicles of the plurality of vehicles in the exit lane; and
generate an action to move the requesting vehicle into the gap.
Maass teaches; generate an action to increase a speed of a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles in the exit lane which is downstream of the current position of the requesting vehicle and/or decrease the speed of a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles in the exit lane which is upstream of the current position of the requesting vehicle, to enable a gap to be created within the exit lane between adjacent vehicles of the plurality of vehicles in the exit lane (taught as an optimization strategy to rapidly progress in traffic, by achieving a higher average speed, for skillful gap utilization, paragraph 0025; while not explicitly listing the speed changes with the of the current location, such features are generally understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as part of making a gap for a vehicle in traffic), and
generate an action to move the requesting vehicle into the gap (taught as implementing the optimization strategy for controlling the host vehicle to, for example, make space [gap] for other vehicles, paragraph 0036).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust gaps between vehicles as taught by Maass in the system taught by Slavin in order to improve lane changing and navigation. Such a system, as suggested by Maass, allows for the prioritization of certain users while trying to satisfy the as many as possible (paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 32, Slavin as modified by Johnston and Modi teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 29 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Slavin does not explicitly teach; wherein the one or more event processing engines comprises an exit/entry request processing engine which is configured to generate actions to enable a requesting vehicle of the plurality of vehicles to move from an entry lane of the pathway into a desired lane, the exit/entry request processing engine being configured to:
determine a current position of a requesting vehicle requesting a change from an entry lane into the desired lane of a multi-lane pathway;
generate actions to increase a speed of a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles in the desired lane which is downstream of the current position of the requesting vehicle and/or decrease the speed of a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles which is upstream of the current position of the requesting vehicle, to enable a gap to be created within the desired lane between adjacent vehicles of the plurality of vehicles; and
generate an action to move the requesting vehicle into the gap.
Hannah teaches; wherein the one or more event processing engines comprises an exit/entry request processing engine which is configured to generate actions to enable a requesting vehicle of the plurality of vehicles to move from an entry lane of the pathway into a desired lane, (taught as vehicles sending a travel request to a traffic management system to follow a route, paragraph 0014),
determine a current position of a requesting vehicle requesting a change from an entry lane into the desired lane of a multi-lane pathway (taught as checking the location of each vehicle on the controlled roads, paragraph 0044, and managing the traffic based on requests, paragraph 0014);
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow vehicles to request certain permissions maneuvers as taught by Hannah in the system taught by Slavin in order to improve usability. Such a system allows the system to prioritize vehicle maneuvers based on vehicle parameters and requests and travel delay, and further improving road capacity and minimizing travel times, as suggested by Hannah (paragraph 0013).
However, Hannah does not explicitly teach;
generate actions to increase a speed of a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles in the desired lane which is downstream of the current position of the requesting vehicle and/or decrease the speed of a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles which is upstream of the current position of the requesting vehicle, to enable a gap to be created within the desired lane between adjacent vehicles of the plurality of vehicles; and
generate an action to move the requesting vehicle into the gap.
Maass teaches; generate actions to increase a speed of a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles in the desired lane which is downstream of the current position of the requesting vehicle and/or decrease the speed of a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles which is upstream of the current position of the requesting vehicle, to enable a gap to be created within the desired lane between adjacent vehicles of the plurality of vehicles (taught as an optimization strategy to rapidly progress in traffic, by achieving a higher average speed, for skillful gap utilization, paragraph 0025; while not explicitly listing the speed changes with the of the current location, such features are generally understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as part of making a gap for a vehicle in traffic), and
generate an action to move the requesting vehicle into the gap (taught as implementing the optimization strategy for controlling the host vehicle to, for example, make space [gap] for other vehicles, paragraph 0036).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust gaps between vehicles as taught by Maass in the system taught by Slavin in order to improve lane changing and navigation. Such a system, as suggested by Maass, allows for the prioritization of certain users while trying to satisfy the as many as possible (paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 33, Slavin as modified by Johnston, Modi, Hannah, and Maass teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 31 (see claim 31 rejection). Slavin further teaches; wherein the pathway comprises a multi-lane pathway (shown in Figs 2 and 4, for example) and the exit/entry request processing engine (taught as a navigation engine, e.g. paragraph 0047) is configured to generate actions to:
However, Slavin does not explicitly teach;
enable the requesting vehicle of the plurality of vehicles to move across a lane of the multi-lane pathway which is adjacent to the current lane by increasing the speed of a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles in the adjacent lane which is downstream of the current position of the requesting vehicle and/or decrease the speed of a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles which is upstream of the current position of the requesting vehicle, to enable an adjacent lane gap to be created within the adjacent lane between adjacent moving vehicles of the plurality of vehicles; and
move the requesting vehicle into the adjacent lane gap.
Maass teaches; enable the requesting vehicle of the plurality of vehicles to move across a lane of the multi-lane pathway which is adjacent to the current lane by increasing the speed of a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles in the adjacent lane which is downstream of the current position of the requesting vehicle and/or decrease the speed of a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles which is upstream of the current position of the requesting vehicle, to enable an adjacent lane gap to be created within the adjacent lane between adjacent moving vehicles of the plurality of vehicles (taught as an optimization strategy to rapidly progress in traffic, by achieving a higher average speed, for skillful gap utilization, paragraph 0025; while not explicitly listing the speed changes with the of the current location, such features are generally understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as part of making a gap for a vehicle in traffic), and
generate an action to move the requesting vehicle into the gap (taught as implementing the optimization strategy for controlling the host vehicle to, for example, make space [gap] for other vehicles, paragraph 0036).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust gaps between vehicles as taught by Maass in the system taught by Slavin in order to improve lane changing and navigation. Such a system, as suggested by Maass, allows for the prioritization of certain users while trying to satisfy the as many as possible (paragraph 0036).
Claim(s) 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slavin (US20140278052A1) as modified by Johnston (US20200401157A1) and Modi (US20180122231A1), and further in view of Maass (US20150194055A1)
Regarding claim 35, Slavin as modified by Johnston and Modi teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 34 (see claim 34 rejection). However, Slavin does not explicitly teach; wherein the exclusion zone generator is configured to generate actions to:
create a gap in adjacent lane by reducing a speed of a vehicle upstream of the location of the obstruction/hazard; and
move a vehicle in the same lane as the obstruction/hazard into the gap in the adjacent lane thereby [examiner notes that this merely amounts to intended use, and needs to simply be capable of performing actions to create the space around the hazard] creating a virtual island around the obstruction/hazard.
Maass teaches; wherein the exclusion zone generator is configured to generate actions to:
create a gap in adjacent lane by reducing a speed of a vehicle upstream of the location of the obstruction/hazard (taught as an optimization strategy to rapidly progress in traffic, by achieving a higher average speed, for skillful gap utilization, paragraph 0025; while not explicitly listing the speed changes with the of the current location, such features are generally understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as part of making a gap for a vehicle in traffic); and
move a vehicle in the same lane as the obstruction/hazard into the gap in the adjacent lane thereby [examiner notes that this merely amounts to intended use, and needs to simply be capable of performing actions to create the space around the hazard] creating a virtual island around the obstruction/hazard (taught as implementing the optimization strategy for controlling the host vehicle to, for example, make space [gap] for other vehicles, paragraph 0036).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust gaps between vehicles as taught by Maass in the system taught by Slavin in order to improve lane changing and navigation. Such a system, as suggested by Maass, allows for the prioritization of certain users while trying to satisfy the as many as possible (paragraph 0036).
Claim(s) 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slavin (US20140278052A1) as modified by Johnston (US20200401157A1) and Modi (US20180122231A1), and further in view of Ran (US20190244521A1).
Regarding claim 36, Slavin as modified by Johnston and Modi teaches;
The vehicle management system of Claim 29 (see claim 29 rejection). However, Slavin does not explicitly teach; wherein the one or more event processing engines comprises a traffic density/flow rate management engine which is configured to increase a traffic density/flow rate parameter of the plurality of vehicles by generating actions to alter the speed of the at least one vehicle of the plurality of vehicles of the plurality of vehicles to minimize a distance between adjacent vehicles to a predetermined minimum.
Ran teaches; wherein the one or more event processing engines comprises a traffic density/flow rate management engine which is configured to increase a traffic density/flow rate parameter of the plurality of vehicles by generating actions to alter the speed of the at least one of the plurality of vehicles of the plurality of vehicles to minimize a distance between adjacent vehicles to a predetermined minimum (taught as speed and headway keeping to keep the minimal headway [gap] and maximal speed in the lane to achieve max possible traffic capacity, paragraph 0061).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a gap distance as taught by Ran in the system taught by Slavin in order to improve traffic. As taught by Ran, such behaviors can achieve the maximum possible traffic capacity (paragraph 0061).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on pages 18-21 of the remarks that the amended claims are not covered by the prior art. Specifically; the applicant argues that Slavin does not teach the LAN topology or communication between roadside tracking apparatuses themselves.
The examiner acknowledges that Slavin does not explicitly use LAN. However, a new rejection in light of Johnston is made above, which suggests a communication network infrastructure that communicates to an overall supervisor/computation network (e.g. paragraph 0041), including suggesting the use of LAN for computer networks (paragraph 0013).
Additionally, the applicant argues Johnston does not include infrared emitters on/from the plurality of vehicles.
The examiner agrees, and withdraws the previous rejection. However, a new rejection in light of Johnston is made above, which indicates vehicles having infra-red emissions that are received by infrastructure for communicating and tracking to provide navigation guidance (e.g. paragraph 0040).
Applicant argues on pages 21-25 that the claims are eligible under 101.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendments do add in an additional element with a vehicle tracking apparatus that includes an infra-red radiation sensor, and an LAN control apparatus. However, such systems are well known in the art, and the generic recitation does not effectively integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it merely uses generic computer equipment to collect, analyze and transmit data. In other words, the recited element amounts to an extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and analysis, and thus does not integrate into a practical application. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For further traffic management entities; US11527157B2 and US20200312129A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1:00-9:00.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571)270-3969. 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.
/GABRIEL ANFINRUD/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights