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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This is a Non-Final Action for Request for Continued Examination (RCE) application Serial No. 18/036,858.
Claim(s) 2, and 6-7 has been canceled without prejudice.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-9, and 11-12 have been amended.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 8-12 have been examined and fully considered and are pending in Instant Application.
Response to Arguments/Rejections
Applicant’s amendments and associated arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC § 101 have been considered and are addressed below.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues that claim 1 is amended to integrate any alleged exception into a practical application by positively reciting a technical solution to a technical problem of detecting traffic events correctly and addressing (among other problems) the problem that it is time-consuming to detect traffic events (especially for searching in and out timestamps) from a huge dataset. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Making a specific improvement to a process for detecting traffic events represents an improvement to the abstract idea rather than an improvement to the technology utilized for implementing said abstract idea, when the implementation of the abstract idea utilizes well-understood, routine and conventional functions. The Federal Circuit has also indicated that mere automation of manual processes or increasing the speed of a process where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Examiner notes that the step directed to step “control a display to display the trajectory of the moving object” is determined to be an additional element, which merely
amounts to post-solution activity (i.e., information display), which does not represent an integration of said abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, Examiner maintains the 35 USC § 101 rejection of record.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding claims under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and persuasive. The claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 8-12 under 35 USC § 103 has been withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 8-12 are directed to an traffic event detection apparatus, a system (machine or manufacture), a method (process), method performed by a computer, and a computer programmable product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium (CRM) (manufacture), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations, including those bolded below:
A traffic event detection apparatus comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
estimate a trajectory of a moving object based on an oscillation signal by using a deep neural network, the oscillation signal is being induced by traffic of the moving object;
estimate a mask matrix representing the trajectory of the moving object;
extract, using the mask matrix, in and out timestamps of the moving object based on the trajectory of the moving object, the in and out timestamps denoting a beginning and an end of a traffic event of the moving object;
select a part of the area of the oscillation signal, which is indicated by the in and out timestamps of the moving object, to extract from a dataset, the part of the area of the oscillation signal being less than the area of the oscillation signal;
extract the part of the area of the oscillation signal;
generate a time-distance graph using the extracted part of the area of the oscillation signal;
estimate the trajectory of the moving object present in the time-distance graph by using the deep neural network; and
control a display to display the trajectory of the moving object.
Claim(s) 8 and 11-12 recite abstract limitations analogous to those identified above with
respect to claim 1.
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations by to be calculated by computer means and in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mathematical concepts and mental processes. More specifically, claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 8-12 recite(s) a “mathematical concepts” (e.g., mask matrix, extracting part of oscillation signals using area of the oscillation signal, generating a graph) and “mental processes” that includes observation, evaluation/judgement and opinion (e.g., estimating, selecting, generating, etc.) .
The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mathematical concepts grouping. Furthermore, The human mind is capable of carry out these “mental processes”. More specifically, other than reciting that the step is performed by a processor, nothing in the claim limitation precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One , the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
A traffic event detection apparatus comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
estimate a trajectory of a moving object based on an oscillation signal by using a deep neural network, the oscillation signal is being induced by traffic of the moving object;
estimate a mask matrix representing the trajectory of the moving object;
extract, using the mask matrix, in and out timestamps of the moving object based on the trajectory of the moving object, the in and out timestamps denoting a beginning and an end of a traffic event of the moving object;
select a part of the area of the oscillation signal, which is indicated by the in and out timestamps of the moving object, to extract from a dataset, the part of the area of the oscillation signal being less than the area of the oscillation signal;
extract the part of the area of the oscillation signal;
generate a time-distance graph using the extracted part of the area of the oscillation signal;
estimate the trajectory of the moving object present in the time-distance graph by using the deep neural network; and
control a display to display the trajectory of the moving object.
Claim(s) 8 and 11-12 recite additional elements analogous to those identified above with
respect to claim 1.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “A traffic event detection apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions …”, “A traffic event detection system comprising: a sensor; and a traffic event detection apparatus; wherein the traffic event detection apparatus includes; at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions…”, “A traffic event detection method performed by a computer” and “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute…”; “deep neural network” and “display” the claimed components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the mathematical concepts and abstract idea. In addition, each of these additional limitations indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding the “controlling the display…” functions is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the result from the evaluating step), and amounts to mere post solution displaying. The examiner submits that these limitations of the “display” are considered as insignificant extra-solution (i.e. post-solution) activity that merely use a computer to perform the process.
Regarding the receiving steps of claim of 8, examiner submits that these limitations represent extra-solution data-gathering activities. The receiving steps from a sensor is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the abstract limitations), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
(MPEP § 2106.05).
Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, memory, processor, a traffic event detection apparatus, a computer, neural network, sensor and a display, amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., estimate, extract, or detect) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As discussed above, these elements also amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding the sensor detection, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a). See, for example, [0009], [0013], etc. In addition, the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
The additional limitation of “displaying…,” is a well-understood, routine, and
conventional activity because 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. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
The various metrics/limitations of claims 3-5 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations and introduce additional abstract limitations that are directed to mental processes and mathematical concepts. For the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As for claims 9 and 10, an optical fiber cable, as recited, also represent a field of use. The receipt of information via optical cable of the limitation also further characterizes the aforementioned extra-solution activity [see MPEP, 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity [R-10.2019], (3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering)]. In addition, Wu et al. (20180357542) discloses that it is common to utilize optical cables for monitoring city roads (see [0074]).
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 8-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Prior Art, Wu et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0275788), teaches an online traffic volume monitoring system based on a phase-sensitive optical time domain reflectometry and a method thereof, for providing helpful information about real-time traffic condition to transportation administrations and drivers, so as to avoid traffic congestion in time.
Prior Art, Jian Weixu (CN106408937A; the NPL citations are based on the provided English Translation) hereinafter, referred to as “Jian” teaches a kind of distributed road condition detection system and road conditions detection method, at least to solve to utilize Single unit vehicle detector detects to traffic route situation, the technical problem that the error leading to is big, recognition accuracy is low.
Prior Art, Wu et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0357542), teaches steps of: segmenting time sequences of distributed optical fiber sensing acoustic and vibration signals acquired at all spatial points, and building a typical event signal dataset; constructing a 1D-CNN model, conducting iterative update training of the network through typical event signals in a training dataset to obtain optimal network parameters, and learning and extracting 1D-CNN distinguishable features of different types of events through an optimal network to obtain typical event signal feature sets; and after training different types of classifiers through the typical event signal feature sets, screening out an optimal classifier.
While the aforementioned references disclose each of the elements of the invention, the combination of references does not fully capture the structure and interplay of the elements as recited in the claims. Therefore, upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious all the features of applicant’s invention as the features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Salemi et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0401784), which discloses controlling a display to display the trajectory of the moving object (see, Paragraph [0049]: “A waterfall trace is advantageously used to display the seismic energy detected by sensing system. It presents the environmental vibration intensity received by back scattering signals along different times (vertical axis) and locations (horizontal axis). FIG. 4(C) shows waterfall traces of selected sections of different routes in 2-minutes duration and 3-km distance for route 1, 2 and 5. It displays the traffic condition along the route. Driving directions, driving speed and vehicle weight can be ascertained. By employing digital signal processing systems and methods (DSP), information is extracted to show traffic patterns. In that FIG. 4(C)—frame 1, vehicle acceleration/deceleration and light rail trajectories are observed. Quiet areas appear in FIG. 4(C)—frame 2 for local roads inside residential areas while crossing patterns of intersections are shown in FIG. 4(C)—frame 5.”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAKARI UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-8462. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 TO 4:30.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached (571) 272-9855. 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.
/B.U./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights