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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to the applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks pages 8-9, the applicant has amended the independent claims 1 and 14 to include the limitation “determining an earliest possible time to deploy the plurality of road barriers in order to maximize a length of time that the roadway has the at least one dedicated lane;… and; deploying the plurality of road barriers at the earliest possible time during the period of time to provide the second configuration”. The applicant argues that prior art of record Gupta does not teach “an earliest possible time to deploy the plurality of road barriers”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Gupta teaches determining “a first pre-defined time” before a “defined vehicle arrives” at the location in the road, where the first pre-defined time is at the beginning of “a defined time interval” when the assets, or road barriers, are deployed, such that it is the earliest possible time during the defined time interval, where the assets are deployed for at least “a period” of time “for the emergency vehicle to pass through”, such that Gupta maximizes the amount of time the dedicated lane is deployed for the emergency vehicle (Gupta, Para. 0015, 0076, 0092).
Additionally, Schwietering teaches “simulating “traffic flow and congestion” to determine “appropriate time frames to switch the direction of travel for the “dynamic” lane”, where the deployment of a “barrier transfer machine” occurs during a determined time frame, see page 275, where the start of the determined time frame is an earliest possible time to deploy the barrier transfer machine, or road barrier. Furthermore, Schwietering teaches planning and deploying at least one dedicated lane, via dynamic lanes, after morning peak hour traffic and before noon peak hour traffic, such that the length of time the dedicated lane is deployed is maximized, for example figure 2 illustrates adjusting the maximum traffic demand towards the city Munich to be increased in the hour after morning peak traffic towards Nuremburg has ended and several hours before the afternoon traffic demand peaks in the direction towards Munich (pages 277-280 and figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
637
997
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schwietering, Figure 2
The examiner suggests further defining the limitations of claims 1 and 14. For example, based on the specification and the applicant’s remarks, it appears that the deployment of the road barriers does not take the full length of the determined “period of time to deploy the plurality of road barriers” (see specification para. 0051, 0057-0059), however this is unclear in the current pending claims. Furthermore, the examiner suggests either specifying the length of time that the roadway has the at least one dedicated lane, or specifying that the dedicated lane is intended for use during a “peak time when there is heavy traffic on the road” (see specification para. 0048), to clarify the intended use of the dedicated lane.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments directed towards independent claim 13 and its dependent claims, see applicant’s remarks pages 10-11, the applicant argues that prior art Lepp does not teach "sending data indicating the virtual barriers to vehicles on the roadway ... without deploying any physical road barriers," as taught by amended claim 13. The applicant cites Lepp para. 0082-0084, teaching a “blocked lane” due to “a disabled vehicle or accident” as teaching against the pending limitations. However, the cited portion is “one use case” for the reconfigurable lanes taught by Lepp. Further examples within Lepp include dynamic switching of lanes without physical road barriers. For example, previously cited para. 0064 teaches a case where a vehicle may request for reconfiguration of a lane, and “through V2X communications”, it may be communicated that “the road segment has a set direction for a particular time period” to prevent “other vehicles from using that particular lane or road segment for travelling in the opposite direction relative to the vehicle”. Lepp further teaches cases where lanes may be reconfigured based on “current road demand, i.e. volume of vehicles travelling in each direction” without use of physical barriers to avoid “expensive” costs of deployment and operation (Lepp, Para. 0048-0055, 0095-0100).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 8-15, 17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta, et al., hereinafter Gupta (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2019/0352869) in view of Lepp, et al., hereinafter Lepp (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2022/0148419), and further in view of Schwietering, et al., hereinafter Schwietering ("Improving Traffic Flow at Long-term Roadworks", 2016, Transportation Research Procedia, Vol. 15, Pages 267–282).
Regarding Claim 1, Gupta teaches: A computer-implemented method for selectively deploying barriers to adjust configurations of roadways (Gupta, Para. 0001, 0027, and 0063 – a method, utilizing a computing device, for “temporary creation of a dedicated lane on a road” using “a traffic cone marker, a barricade, a box, or any other object that can be used for creating a barrier or temporary closure on a road”), the method comprising:
obtaining sensor data captured by one or more sensors (Gupta, Para. 0077, 0092, and 0122 – “an array of sensors, such as cameras, microphones, or laser scanners” to detect an emergency vehicle on the roadway and where the vehicle is in relation to apparatuses, i.e. cones/barriers) that generate data representative of characteristics of a roadway;
determining a state of the roadway by processing the sensor data, the state at least partially comprising a first configuration of the roadway (Gupta, Fig. 3A and Para. 0061, 0081, 0092, 0100, and 0122 – using the sensor data, which detect a state where an emergency vehicle is on a roadway, to trigger “a first state that actuates the switching means to deploy the proposed apparatus or a group of apparatuses” based on where the vehicle is in relation to the apparatuses; where Fig. 3A shows a “normal position”, or first configuration, of cones/barriers);
Fig. 3B illustrates a “deployed position”, or second configuration, of the cones/barriers which create a “dedicated lane” on a side of the road);
determining that a configuration change is to occur (Gupta, Fig. 3A and Para. 0061, 0081, 0092, 0100, and 0122 – using the sensor data, which detect a state where an emergency vehicle is on a roadway, to trigger “a first state that actuates the switching means to deploy the proposed apparatus or a group of apparatuses” based on where the vehicle is in relation to the apparatuses)
in response to determining that the configuration change is to occur, determining, at least partially based on the state, a period of time to deploy a plurality of road barriers on the roadway to create the deployment of the apparatuses, or cones/barriers, for a “defined time interval”, based on a state where the emergency vehicle is within a specific distance to the apparatuses on the roadway), comprising:
determining an earliest possible time to deploy the plurality of road barriers in order to maximize a length of time that the roadway has the at least one dedicated lane (Gupta, Para. 0015, 0076 – “a first pre-defined time” before a “defined vehicle arrives” at the location in the road, where the first pre-defined time is at the beginning of “a defined time interval” when the assets, or road barriers, are deployed, such the first pre-defined time is the earliest possible time during the “defined time interval”, where the assets are deployed for at least “a period” of time “for the emergency vehicle to pass through”, such that the amount of time the dedicated lane is deployed for the emergency vehicle is maximized to encompass “before” and “after”),
deploying the plurality of road barriers at the earliest possible time during the period of time to provide the second configuration comprising at least one dedicated lane (Gupta, Fig. 3B and Para. 0015, 0076, 0081, 0092 and 0101-0102 – where the apparatuses deploy assets, i.e. cones/barriers, for a “defined time interval”, in a “deployed position”, starting from the “first pre-defined time” or earliest time; where Fig. 3B shows the “deployed position” of the cones/barriers which create a “dedicated lane” on a side of the road).
PNG
media_image2.png
377
581
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
387
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Gupta, Figs. 3A and 3B
While Gupta teaches obtaining sensor data captured by one or more sensors, Gupta does not teach obtaining sensor data by one or more sensors that generate data representative of characteristics of a roadway. Additionally, while Gupta teaches a second configuration of the roadway comprising at least one dedicated lane, Gupta does not teach determining a predicted state of the roadway for a future period of time, the predicted state at least partially comprising a second configuration of the roadway, determining that a configuration change is to occur based on comparing the first configuration of the roadway to the second configuration of the roadway, and wherein the period of time to deploy the plurality of road barriers has a rate of traffic that is less than a threshold to reduce an impact of deploying the plurality of road barriers to the traffic.
However, Lepp teaches obtaining sensor data by one or more sensors that generate data representative of characteristics of a roadway (Lepp, Para. 0095, 0107, and 0114 – “sensors on a road may count traffic at various locations on the road segments” and may “be used to verify the road segment” for reconfiguration of “reconfigurable lanes and intersections”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Gupta to include obtaining sensor data by one or more sensors that generate data representative of characteristics of a roadway, as taught by Lepp, in order to apply the configuration of the dedicated lanes using barriers to roadway states beyond emergency vehicle presence, such as traffic situations and traffic congestion.
Gupta in view of Lepp does not teach determining a predicted state of the roadway for a future period of time, the predicted state at least partially comprising a second configuration of the roadway, determining that a configuration change is to occur based on comparing the first configuration of the roadway to the second configuration of the roadway, and wherein the period of time to deploy the plurality of road barriers has a rate of traffic that is less than a threshold to reduce an impact of deploying the plurality of road barriers to the traffic.
However, Schwietering teaches determining a predicted state of the roadway for a future period of time, the predicted state at least partially comprising a second configuration of the roadway (Schwietering, Fig. 1 and Page 268-270 and 277-280 – determining a state for a roadway based on “predicted demand patterns”, for example, Fig. 1, shows configurations state 1 and state 2, where the states are changed based on “traffic demand”; for example Section 6 describes “hourly traffic demand curves” which are created based on “data from continuous data acquisition systems” on a road to estimate a traffic capacity for different states and determine a best state for the “traffic demand”), determining that a configuration change is to occur based on comparing the first configuration of the roadway to the second configuration of the roadway (Schwietering, Page 275 and 277-280 – simulating “traffic flow and congestion” to determine “appropriate time frames to switch the direction of travel for the “dynamic” lane” to accommodate a “traffic demand” based on “hourly traffic demand curves” which are created based on “data from continuous data acquisition systems” to determine a best state, or configuration), and wherein the period of time to deploy the plurality of road barriers has a rate of traffic that is less than a threshold to reduce an impact of deploying the plurality of road barriers to the traffic, and deploying the plurality of road barriers during the period of time (Schwietering, Page 275 – “simulating “traffic flow and congestion” to determine “appropriate time frames to switch the direction of travel for the “dynamic” lane”, based on “given thresholds” applied as “parameters” during simulation, in order to “switch the dynamic lane so that the existing demand can be met with less congestion”; where during switching, the “dynamic lane” is in a “closed” state).
PNG
media_image4.png
463
1023
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Schwietering, Fig. 1
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method including the above limitations of Gupta in view of Lepp to include determining a predicted state of the roadway for a future period of time, the predicted state at least partially comprising a second configuration of the roadway, determining that a configuration change is to occur based on comparing the first configuration of the roadway to the second configuration of the roadway, and wherein the period of time to deploy the plurality of road barriers has a rate of traffic that is less than a threshold to reduce an impact of deploying the plurality of road barriers to the traffic, deploying the plurality of road barriers during the period of time, as taught by Schwietering, in order to deploy the plurality of road barriers without worsening traffic conditions.
In regards to Claim 2, Gupta in view of Lepp and Schwietering teaches the method of Claim 1, and Gupta further teaches wherein determining, at least partially based on the state, the period of time to deploy the plurality of road barriers on the roadway comprises determining the period of time to deploy the plurality of road barriers on the roadway using a predetermined rule (Gupta, Para. 0076 and 0092-0094 – where based on a state where the emergency vehicle is on the roadway, the apparatus deploys assets, or barriers, for a “defined time interval”; where the assets are deployed, for example, “when the emergency vehicle 206 reaches at a distance of 500 meters from the apparatus”, which acts as a predetermined rule).
In regards to Claim 4, Gupta in view of Lepp and Schwietering teaches the method of Claim 1, and Gupta further teaches wherein the state is at least partially generated from the sensor data captured by the one or more sensors at a first time point, wherein determining the period of time to deploy the plurality of road barriers on the roadway comprises: determining, based on the state at the first time point, a second time point to deploy the plurality of road barriers, wherein the second time point is at a later time point than the first time point (Gupta, Para. 0077 and 0092-0094 – where a state where the emergency vehicle is on the roadway is detected by sensors, and where at a first time, a “first asset”, or barrier, “is deployed”, and “after a predetermined time”, such that it is at a second time, a “a second asset 210 of a second apparatus 208 can be deployed”, such that they are deployed in series).
In regards to Claim 8, Gupta in view of Lepp and Schwietering teaches the method of Claim 1, and Gupta further teaches wherein the first roadway configuration is absent any dedicated lanes (Gupta, Fig. 3A and Para. 0100 – where, as shown in Fig. 3A, a first configuration of the apparatuses has the apparatuses in a “normal position of the apparatuses”, such that there is no dedicated lane).
PNG
media_image2.png
377
581
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Gupta, Fig. 3A
In regards to Claim 9, Gupta in view of Lepp and Schwietering teaches the method of Claim 1, and Gupta in view of Lepp further teaches wherein the plurality of road barriers comprises virtual barriers (Lepp, Para. 0064, 0084, and 0102 – where instead of physical barriers, a “road infrastructure” communicates a “V2X message [which] may signal the reconfigured lanes to the vehicle from the road segment traffic service”, where a V2X message acts as a virtual barrier for vehicle travelling in the opposite direction) and deploying the plurality of road barriers at least partially comprises: sending data indicating the virtual barriers to vehicles on the roadway for period of time (Lepp, Para. 0063-0064, 0084, and 0102 – where the infrastructure, through V2X communications, communicates to vehicles and prevents vehicles “from using that particular lane or road segment for travelling” for “a time period” in a certain direction), wherein after receiving the data indicating the virtual barriers, the vehicles are instructed to not cross the virtual barriers (Lepp, Para. 0063-0064, 0082-0084, and 0102 – where vehicles are prevented from “using that particular lane or road segment for travelling” for “a time period” in a certain direction; and additionally, communication may be used to “reroute traffic around the blocked lane”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method including the above limitations of Gupta in view of Lepp and Schwietering to further include wherein the plurality of road barriers comprises virtual barriers and deploying the plurality of road barriers at least partially comprises: sending data indicating the virtual barriers to vehicles on the roadway for period of time, wherein after receiving the data indicating the virtual barriers, the vehicles are instructed to not cross the virtual barriers, as taught by Lepp, in order to reduce expenses spent on deploying physical barriers by utilizing virtual barriers.
In regards to Claim 10, Gupta in view of Lepp and Schwietering teaches the method of Claim 1, and Gupta further teaches further comprising: determining, based on the state, a period of time to remove the plurality of road barriers on the roadway (Gupta, Para. 0092-0094 – where, based on a state of where an emergency vehicle is on a roadway, returning an “asset”, or cone/barrier, “back to the first/normal position at a second pre-defined time after passing by of the emergency vehicle”, for example “after a period of say 30 seconds when the emergency vehicle crosses the asset”); and removing the plurality of road barriers for the period of time to remove the plurality of road barriers on the roadway to provide a third configuration (Gupta, Fig. 5A-5B and Para. 0066, 0092-0094 and 0112-0115 – where the assets are returned to a normal position after a pre-defined time while other assets are still in a deployed position along the roadway; where the “normal position” is a configuration where the “asset 102 hangs vertically” above the road, such that it is removed).
PNG
media_image5.png
361
695
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
340
669
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Gupta, Annotated Figs. 5A-5B
In regards to Claim 11, Gupta in view of Lepp and Schwietering teaches the method of Claim 10, and Gupta further teaches wherein the second roadway configuration includes the at least one dedicated lane having a first length and the third configuration includes the at least one dedicated lane having a second length that is different from the first length (Gupta, Fig. 5C and Para. 0112-0116 – where apparatuses on different lengths of roads are deployed, as shown annotated in Fig. 5C below; where for example the length C through F has a second configuration of a first length and the length G through D is a third configuration of a second length that is shorter than the first length; where the configurations are deployed as an emergency vehicle passes by).
PNG
media_image7.png
489
904
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Gupta, Annotated Fig. 5C
In regards to Claim 12, Gupta in view of Lepp and Schwietering teaches the method of Claim 10, and Gupta further teaches wherein the second roadway configuration includes the at least one dedicated lane having a first location and the third configuration includes the at least one dedicated lane having a second location that is different from the first location (Gupta, Fig. 5A-5C and Para. 0112-0116 – where the apparatuses lower the assets, or barriers, at different locations, as shown in the figures; where for example, points C through F are a different dedicated lane location than points G through D as shown on Fig. 5C below).
PNG
media_image8.png
489
905
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Gupta, Annotated Fig. 5C
Regarding Claim 13, Gupta teaches: A system (Gupta, Para. 0001 – a “system”) comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices storing instructions that when executed by the one or more computers (Gupta, Para. 0038-0039 – “a computer” and “media/machine-readable medium suitable for storing electronic instructions”, where the instructions are code executable by the computer hardware) cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:
obtaining sensor data captured by one or more sensors (Gupta, Para. 0077, 0092, and 0122 – “an array of sensors, such as cameras, microphones, or laser scanners” to detect an emergency vehicle on the roadway and where the vehicle is in relation to apparatuses, i.e. cones/barriers) that generate data representative of characteristics of a roadway;
determining a state of the roadway by processing the sensor data, the state at least partially comprising a first configuration of the roadway (Gupta, Fig. 3A and Para. 0061, 0081, 0092, 0100, and 0122 – using the sensor data, which detect a state where an emergency vehicle is on a roadway, to trigger “a first state that actuates the switching means to deploy the proposed apparatus or a group of apparatuses” based on where the vehicle is in relation to the apparatuses; where Fig. 3A shows a “normal position”, or first configuration, of cones/barriers);
Fig. 3B illustrates a “deployed position”, or second configuration, of the cones/barriers which create a “dedicated lane” on a side of the road);
determining that a configuration change is to occur (Gupta, Fig. 3A and Para. 0061, 0081, 0092, 0100, and 0122 – using the sensor data, which detect a state where an emergency vehicle is on a roadway, to trigger “a first state that actuates the switching means to deploy the proposed apparatus or a group of apparatuses” based on where the vehicle is in relation to the apparatuses)
in response to determining that the configuration change is to occur, determining, at least partially based on the state, a period of time to deploy a plurality of road barriers on the roadway to create the deployment of the apparatuses, or cones/barriers, for a “defined time interval”, based on a state where the emergency vehicle is within a specific distance to the apparatuses on the roadway),
deploying the plurality of road barriers where the apparatuses deploy assets, i.e. cones/barriers, for a “defined time interval”, in a “deployed position”; where Fig. 3B shows the “deployed position” of the cones/barriers which create a “dedicated lane” on a side of the road)
PNG
media_image2.png
377
581
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
387
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Gupta, Figs. 3A and 3B
While Gupta teaches obtaining sensor data captured by one or more sensors, Gupta does not teach obtaining sensor data by one or more sensors that generate data representative of characteristics of a roadway. Gupta teaches a second configuration of the roadway comprising at least one dedicated lane, but Gupta does not teach determining a predicted state of the roadway for a future period of time, the predicted state at least partially comprising a second configuration of the roadway, determining that a configuration change is to occur based on comparing the first configuration of the roadway to the second configuration of the roadway, and wherein the period of time has a rate of traffic that is less than a threshold to reduce an impact of deploying the plurality of road barriers to the traffic, and deploying the plurality of road barriers during the period of time. Furthermore, Gupta does not teach wherein the plurality of road barriers comprises virtual barriers in a data space representative of the roadway, and deploying the plurality of road barriers at least partially comprises: sending data indicating the virtual barriers to vehicles on the roadway during the period of time without deploying any physical road barriers, wherein after receiving the data indicating the virtual barriers, the vehicles are instructed to not cross the virtual barriers as if the virtual barriers are physical road barriers that the vehicles are not allowed to cross.
However, Lepp teaches obtaining sensor data by one or more sensors that generate data representative of characteristics of a roadway (Lepp, Para. 0095, 0107, and 0114 – “sensors on a road may count traffic at various locations on the road segments” and may “be used to verify the road segment” for reconfiguration of “reconfigurable lanes and intersections”), wherein the plurality of road barriers comprises virtual barriers in a data space representative of the roadway (Lepp, Para. 0064-0072, 0084, and 0102 – where instead of physical barriers, a “road infrastructure” communicates a “V2X message [which] may signal the reconfigured lanes to the vehicle from the road segment traffic service”, where the infrastructure” may be “a central traffic controller” which controls “road segments” within a “road network”; wherein the V2X message acts as a virtual barrier, for example, for a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction), and deploying the plurality of road barriers at least partially comprises: sending data indicating the virtual barriers to vehicles on the roadway during the period of time without deploying any physical road barriers (Lepp, Para. 0045-0055, 0063-0064, 0084, and 0102 – where the infrastructure, through V2X communications, communicates to vehicles and prevents vehicles “from using that particular lane or road segment for travelling” for “a time period” in a certain direction by “V2X message”; where Lepp utilizes “V2X messages”, or virtual barriers, over “physical barrier[s]” and “lighting systems” as those methods are “expensive to deploy and expensive to operate”), wherein after receiving the data indicating the virtual barriers, the vehicles are instructed to not cross the virtual barriers as if the virtual barriers are physical road barriers that the vehicles are not allowed to cross (Lepp, Para. 0063-0064, 0082-0084, 0095-0102 – where vehicles are prevented from “using that particular lane or road segment for travelling” for “a time period” in a certain direction after “the road infrastructure communicates to vehicles the road configuration”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Gupta to include obtaining sensor data by one or more sensors that generate data representative of characteristics of a roadway and wherein the plurality of road barriers comprises virtual barriers in a data space representative of the roadway, and deploying the plurality of road barriers at least partially comprises: sending data indicating the virtual barriers to vehicles on the roadway during the period of time without deploying any physical road barriers, wherein after receiving the data indicating the virtual barriers, the vehicles are instructed to not cross the virtual barriers as if the virtual barriers are physical road barriers that the vehicles are not allowed to cross, as taught by Lepp, in order to utilize the dedicated lanes in roadway conditions such as traffic situations and traffic congestion, and reduce expenses by utilizing virtual barriers, as physical barriers are “expensive to deploy and expensive to operate” (Lepp, Para. 0047).
Gupta in view of Lepp does not teach determining a predicted state of the roadway for a future period of time, the predicted state at least partially comprising a second configuration of the roadway, determining that a configuration change is to occur based on comparing the first configuration of the roadway to the second configuration of the roadway, and wherein the period of time has a rate of traffic that is less than a threshold to reduce an impact of deploying the plurality of road barriers to the traffic.
However, Schwietering teaches determining a predicted state of the roadway for a future period of time, the predicted state at least partially comprising a second configuration of the roadway (Schwietering, Fig. 1 and Page 268-270 and 277-280 – determining a state for a roadway based on “predicted demand patterns”, for example, Fig. 1, shows configurations state 1 and state 2, where the states are changed based on “traffic demand”; for example Section 6 describes “hourly traffic demand curves” which are created based on “data from continuous data acquisition systems” on a road to estimate a traffic capacity for different states and determine a best state for the “traffic demand”), determining that a configuration change is to occur based on comparing the first configuration of the roadway to the second configuration of the roadway (Schwietering, Page 275 and 277-280 – simulating “traffic flow and congestion” to determine “appropriate time frames to switch the direction of travel for the “dynamic” lane” to accommodate a “traffic demand” based on “hourly traffic demand curves” which are created based on “data from continuous data acquisition systems” to determine a best state, or configuration), and wherein the period of time has a rate of traffic that is less than a threshold to reduce an impact of deploying the plurality of road barriers to the traffic, and deploying the plurality of road barriers during the period of time (Schwietering, Page 275 – “simulating “traffic flow and congestion” to determine “appropriate time frames to switch the direction of travel for the “dynamic” lane”, based on “given thresholds” applied as “parameters” during simulation, in order to “switch the dynamic lane so that the existing demand can be met with less congestion”; where during switching, the “dynamic lane” is in a “closed” state).
PNG
media_image4.png
463
1023
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Schwietering, Fig. 1
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system including the above limitations of Gupta in view of Lepp to include determining a predicted state of the roadway for a future period of time, the predicted state at least partially comprising a second configuration of the roadway, determining that a configuration change is to occur based on comparing the first configuration of the roadway to the second configuration of the roadway, and wherein the period of time has a rate of traffic that is less than a threshold to reduce an impact of deploying the plurality of road barriers to the traffic, deploying the plurality of road barriers during the period of time, as taught by Schwietering, in order to deploy the plurality of road barriers without worsening traffic conditions.
Regarding Claim 14, Gupta teaches: One or more computer storage media storing instructions that when executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform operations (Gupta, Para. 0038-0039 – “a computer” and “media/machine-readable medium suitable for storing electronic instructions”, where the instructions are code executable by the computer hardware) comprising:
obtaining sensor data captured by one or more sensors (Gupta, Para. 0077, 0092, and 0122 – “an array of sensors, such as cameras, microphones, or laser scanners” to detect an emergency vehicle on the roadway and where the vehicle is in relation to apparatuses, i.e. cones/barriers) that generate data representative of characteristics of a roadway;
determining a state of the roadway by processing the sensor data, the state at least partially comprising a first configuration of the roadway (Gupta, Fig. 3A and Para. 0061, 0081, 0092, 0100, and 0122 – using the sensor data, which detect a state where an emergency vehicle is on a roadway, to trigger “a first state that actuates the switching means to deploy the proposed apparatus or a group of apparatuses” based on where the vehicle is in relation to the apparatuses; where Fig. 3A shows a “normal position”, or first configuration, of cones/barriers),
Fig. 3B illustrates a “deployed position”, or second configuration, of the cones/barriers which create a “dedicated lane” on a side of the road);
determining that a configuration change is to occur (Gupta, Fig. 3A and Para. 0061, 0081, 0092, 0100, and 0122 – using the sensor data, which detect a state where an emergency vehicle is on a roadway, to trigger “a first state that actuates the switching means to deploy the proposed apparatus or a group of apparatuses” based on where the vehicle is in relation to the apparatuses)
in response to determining that the configuration change is to occur, determining, at least partially based on the state, a period of time to deploy a plurality of road barriers on the roadway to create the deployment of the apparatuses, or cones/barriers, for a “defined time interval”, based on a state where the emergency vehicle is within a specific distance to the apparatuses on the roadway), comprising:
determining an earliest possible time to deploy the plurality of road barriers in order to maximize a length of time that the roadway has the at least one dedicated lane (Gupta, Para. 0015, 0076 – “a first pre-defined time” before a “defined vehicle arrives” at the location in the road, where the first pre-defined time is at the beginning of “a defined time interval” when the assets, or road barriers, are deployed, such the first pre-defined time is the earliest possible time during the “defined time interval”, where the assets are deployed for at least “a period” of time “for the emergency vehicle to pass through”, such that the amount of time the dedicated lane is deployed for the emergency vehicle is maximized to encompass “before” and “after”),
deploying the plurality of road barriers at the earliest possible time during the period of time to provide the second configuration comprising at least one dedicated lane (Gupta, Fig. 3B and Para. 0015, 0076, 0081, 0092 and 0101-0102 – where the apparatuses deploy assets, i.e. cones/barriers, for a “defined time interval”, in a “deployed position”, starting from the “first pre-defined time” or earliest time; where Fig. 3B shows the “deployed position” of the cones/barriers which create a “dedicated lane” on a side of the road).
PNG
media_image2.png
377
581
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
387
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Gupta, Figs. 3A and 3B
While Gupta teaches obtaining sensor data captured by one or more sensors, Gupta does not teach obtaining sensor data by one or more sensors that generate data representative of characteristics of a roadway. Additionally, while Gupta teaches a second configuration of the roadway comprising at least one dedicated lane, Gupta does not teach determining a predicted state of the roadway for a future period of time, the predicted state at least partially comprising a second configuration of the roadway, determining that a configuration change is to occur based on comparing the first configuration of the roadway to the second configuration of the roadway, and wherein the period of time to deploy the plurality of road barriers has a rate of traffic that is less than a threshold to reduce an impact of deploying the plurality of road barriers to the traffic.
However, Lepp teaches obtaining sensor data by one or more sensors that generate data representative of characteristics of a roadway (Lepp, Para. 0095, 0107, and 0114 – “sensors on a road may count traffic at various locations on the road segments” and may “be used to verify the road segment” for reconfiguration of “reconfigurable lanes and intersections”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the one or more computer storage media of Gupta to include obtaining sensor data by one or more sensors that generate data representative of characteristics of a roadway, as taught by Lepp, in order to apply the configuration of the dedicated lanes using barriers to roadway states beyond emergency vehicle presence, such as traffic situations and traffic congestion.
Gupta in view of Lepp does not teach determining a predicted state of the roadway for a future period of time, the predicted state at least partially comprising a second configuration of the roadway, determining that a configuration change is to occur based on comparing the first configuration of the roadway to the second configuration of the roadway, and wherein the period of time to deploy the plurality of road barriers has a rate of traffic that is less than a threshold to reduce an impact of deploying the plurality of road barriers to the traffic.
However, Schwietering teaches determining a predicted state of the roadway for a future period of time, the predicted state at least partially comprising a second configuration of the roadway (Schwietering, Fig. 1 and Page 268-270 and 277-280 – determining a state for a roadway based on “predicted demand patterns”, for example, Fig. 1, shows configurations state 1 and state 2, where the states are changed based on “traffic demand”; for example Section 6 describes “hourly traffic demand curves” which are created based on “data from continuous data acquisition systems” on a road to estimate a traffic capacity for different states and determine a best state for the “traffic demand”), determining that a configuration change is to occur based on comparing the first configuration of the roadway to the second configuration of the roadway (Schwietering, Page 275 and 277-280 – simulating “traffic flow and congestion” to determine “appropriate time frames to switch the direction of travel for the “dynamic” lane” to accommodate a “traffic demand” based on “hourly traffic demand curves” which are created based on “data from continuous data acquisition systems” to determine a best state, or configuration), and wherein the period of time to deploy the plurality of road barriers has a rate of traffic that is less than a threshold to reduce an impact of deploying the plurality of road barriers to the traffic, and deploying the plurality of road barriers during the period of time (Schwietering, Page 275 – “simulating “traffic flow and congestion” to determine “appropriate time frames to switch the direction of travel for the “dynamic” lane”, based on “given thresholds” applied as “parameters” during simulation, in order to “switch the dynamic lane so that the existing demand can be met with less congestion”; where during switching, the “dynamic lane” is in a “closed” state).
PNG
media_image4.png
463
1023
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Schwietering, Fig. 1
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the one or more computer storage media including the above limitations of Gupta in view of Lepp to include determining a predicted state of the roadway for a future period of time, the predicted state at least partially comprising a second configuration of the roadway, determining that a configuration change is to occur based on comparing the first configuration of the roadway to the second configuration of the roadway, and wherein the period of time to deploy the plurality of road barriers has a rate of traffic that is less than a threshold to reduce an impact of deploying the plurality of road barriers to the traffic, deploying the plurality of road barriers during the period of time, as taught by Schwietering, in order to deploy the plurality of road barriers without worsening traffic conditions.
In regards to Claim 15, Gupta in view of Lepp and Schwietering teaches the system of Claim 13, and Gupta further teaches wherein determining, at least partially based on the state, the period of time to deploy the plurality of road barriers on the roadway comprises determining the period of time to deploy the plurality of road barriers on the roadway using a predetermined rule (Gupta, Para. 0076 and 0092-0094 – where based on a state where the emergency vehicle is on the roadway, the apparatus deploys assets, or barriers, for a “defined time interval”; where the assets are deployed, for example, “when the emergency vehicle 206 reaches at a distance of 500 meters from the apparatus”, which acts as a predetermined rule).
In regards to Claim 17, Gupta in view of Lepp and Schwietering teaches the system of Claim 13, and Gupta further teaches wherein the state is at least partially generated from the sensor data captured by the one or more sensors at a first time point, wherein determining the period of time to deploy the plurality of road barriers on the roadway comprises: determining, based on the state at the first time point, a second time point to deploy the plurality of road barriers, wherein the second time point is at a later time point than the first time point (Gupta, Para. 0077 and 0092-0094 – where a state where the emergency vehicle is on the roadway is detected by sensors, and where at a first time, a “first asset”, or barrier, “is deployed”, and “after a predetermined time”, such that it is at a second time, a “a second asset 210 of a second apparatus 208 can be deployed”, such that they are deployed in series).
In regards to Claim 19, Gupta in view of Lepp and Schwietering teaches the system of Claim 13, and Gupta further teaches wherein determining, at least partially based on the state, the period of time to deploy the plurality of road barriers on the roadway comprises maximizing a period of time that the roadway has the at least one dedicated lane (Gupta, Para. 0015 – where an asset, or barrier, is “deployed at a first trigger event or at a first pre-defined time before said defined vehicle arrives at the asset, and can be returned back to the first position at a second trigger event or at a second pre-defined time after passing by of the vehicle”, such that the time is maximized for the vehicle using the lane by ensuring the dedicated lane is configured before and after the vehicle arrives and leaves).
In regards to Claim 21, Gupta in view of Lepp and Schwietering teaches the system of Claim 13, and Gupta further teaches wherein the first roadway configuration is absent any dedicated lanes (Gupta, Fig. 3A and Para. 0100 – where, as shown in Fig. 3A, a first configuration of the apparatuses has the apparatuses in a “normal position of the apparatuses”, such that there is no dedicated lane).
PNG
media_image2.png
377
581
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Gupta, Fig. 3A
Claim 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta in view of Lepp and Schwietering, and further in view of Skokan (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2019/0381997).
In regards to Claim 3, Gupta in view of Lepp and Schwietering teaches the method of Claim 1, and Gupta in view of Lepp teaches wherein determining, at least partially based on the state, the period of time to deploy the plurality of road barriers on the roadway (Gupta, Para. 0076 and 0091-0092 – deployment of the apparatuses, or cones/barriers, for a “defined time interval”, based on a state where the emergency vehicle is within a specific distance to the apparatuses on the roadway; Lepp, Para. 0049 – “there are times when the middle lane may be changed from one direction to another in order to handle the typical inflow and outflow of vehicles during the morning and afternoon rush hours”) but neither Gupta nor Lepp and Schwietering teaches predicting the period of time to deploy the plurality of road barriers on the roadway using a machine learning model.
However, Skokan teaches predicting the period of time to deploy the plurality of road barriers on the roadway using a machine learning model (Skokan, Para. 0030 and 0035-0036 – an “intelligence module”, including data and statistical analysis, which “enables the system to predict accurate travel time” and manages “the traffic and reducing congestion”, where a “traffic control module” obtains information regarding “road design” and lane allocation based off the intelligence module prediction; for example, using the prediction to “increase number of lanes so more commuters/riders are accommodated”; where a “dedicated lane” is “separated by a barrier”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method including the above limitations of Gupta in view of Lepp and Schwietering to include predicting the period of time to deploy the plurality of road barriers on the roadway using a machine learning model, as taught by, Skokan, in order to adjust deployment of road barriers to create dedicated lanes to when they are necessary, so that they do not impede when the road state is in a normal state.
In regards to Claim 16, Gupta in view of Lepp and Schwietering teaches the system of Claim 13, and Gupta in view of Lepp teaches wherein determining, at least partially based on the state, the period of time to deploy the plurality of road barriers on the roadway (Gupta, Para. 0076 and 0091-0092 – deployment of the apparatuses, or cones/barriers, for a “defined time interval”, based on a state where the emergency vehicle is within a specific distance to the apparatuses on the roadway; Lepp, Para. 0049 – “there are times when the middle lane may be changed from one direction to another in order to handle the typical inflow and outflow of vehicles during the morning and afternoon rush hours”) but neither Gupta nor Lepp and Schwietering teaches predicting the period of time to deploy the plurality of road barriers on the roadway using a machine learning model.
However, Skokan teaches predicting the period of time to deploy the plurality of road barriers on the roadway using a machine learning model (Skokan, Para. 0030 and 0035-0036 – an “intelligence module”, including data and statistical analysis, which “enables the system to predict accurate travel time” and manages “the traffic and reducing congestion”, where a “traffic control module” obtains information regarding “road design” and lane allocation based off the intelligence module prediction; for example, using the prediction to “increase number of lanes so more commuters/riders are accommodated”; where a “dedicated lane” is “separated by a barrier”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system including the above limitations of Gupta in view of Lepp and Schwietering to include predicting the period of time to deploy the plurality of road barriers on the roadway using a machine learning model, as taught by, Skokan, in order to adjust deployment of road barriers to create dedicated lanes to when they are necessary, so that they do not impede when the road state is in a normal state.
Claim 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta in view of Lepp and Schwietering, and further in view of Provaznik (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2021/0404130).
In regards to Claim 5, Gupta in view of Lepp and Schwietering teaches the method of Claim 1, and Gupta further teaches the method further comprises: sending a signal a computing device/server which sends generated “switching signals for deployment of the asset”, or barrier, to an apparatus; where the assets are deployed in a “time slot” by a plurality of apparatuses); and deploying, where a plurality of apparatuses deploy assets, or barriers, during a “time slot” when controlled by “switching signals” generated by a computing device/server), but Gupta does not teach wherein deploying the plurality of road barriers is performed by a vehicle that travels on the roadway, and the method further comprises: sending a signal to the vehicle; and deploying, by the vehicle, the plurality of road barriers based on at least the signal.
However, Provaznik teaches wherein deploying the plurality of road barriers is performed by a vehicle that travels on the roadway (Provaznik, Para. 0033 – “barrier transfer machine 10 is configured for picking up and repositioning a span 12 of interconnected road barriers to provide more lanes in directions of peak traffic”), and the method further comprises: sending a signal to the vehicle (Provaznik, Para. 0011 – “the processing system may generate an alert signal” so that “an operator may reposition the barriers or take other corrective action”); and deploying, by the vehicle, the plurality of road barriers based on at least the signal (Provaznik, Para. 0011 and 0033 – alerting an operator to adjust barriers by an “alert signal”, where the operator operates a “barrier transfer machine” for “picking up and repositioning a span 12 of interconnected road barriers”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method including the above limitations of Gupta in view of Lepp and Schwietering to include wherein deploying the plurality of road barriers is performed by a vehicle that travels on the roadway, and the method further comprises: sending a signal to the vehicle; and deploying, by the vehicle, the plurality of road barriers based on at least the signal, as taught by Provaznik, in order to utilize barrier transfer vehicles to deploy movable barrier to reduce the costs of barrier deployment by using existing vehicles rather than installing new infrastructure for deployment.
In regards to Claim 18, Gupta in view of Lepp and Schwietering teaches the system of Claim 13, and Gupta further teaches the method further comprises: sending a signal a computing device/server which sends generated “switching signals for deployment of the asset”, or barrier, to an apparatus; where the assets are deployed in a “time slot” by a plurality of apparatuses); and deploying, where a plurality of apparatuses deploy assets, or barriers, during a “time slot” when controlled by “switching signals” generated by a computing device/server), but Gupta does not teach wherein deploying the plurality of road barriers is performed by a vehicle that travels on the roadway, and the method further comprises: sending a signal to the vehicle; and deploying, by the vehicle, the plurality of road barriers based on at least the signal.
However, Provaznik teaches wherein deploying the plurality of road barriers is performed by a vehicle that travels on the roadway (Provaznik, Para. 0033 – “barrier transfer machine 10 is configured for picking up and repositioning a span 12 of interconnected road barriers to provide more lanes in directions of peak traffic”), and the method further comprises: sending a signal to the vehicle (Provaznik, Para. 0011 – “the processing system may generate an alert signal” so that “an operator may reposition the barriers or take other corrective action”); and deploying, by the vehicle, the plurality of road barriers based on at least the signal (Provaznik, Para. 0011 and 0033 – alerting an operator to adjust barriers by an “alert signal”, where the operator operates a “barrier transfer machine” for “picking up and repositioning a span 12 of interconnected road barriers”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system including the above limitations of Gupta in view of Lepp and Schwietering to include wherein deploying the plurality of road barriers is performed by a vehicle that travels on the roadway, and the method further comprises: sending a signal to the vehicle; and deploying, by the vehicle, the plurality of road barriers based on at least the signal, as taught by Provaznik, in order to utilize barrier transfer vehicles to deploy movable barrier to reduce the costs of barrier deployment by using existing vehicles rather than installing new infrastructure for deployment.
Claim 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta in view of Lepp and Schwietering, and further in view of Agarwal, et al., hereinafter Agarwal (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2019/0236949).
In regards to Claim 7, Gupta in view of Lepp and Schwietering teaches the method of Claim 1, but neither Gupta nor Lepp and Schwietering teaches wherein the at least one dedicated lane is for one or more autonomous vehicles and semi-autonomous vehicles.
However, Agarwal teaches wherein the at least one dedicated lane is for one or more autonomous vehicles and semi-autonomous vehicles (Agarwal, Para. 0011-0014 – a “restricted-lane” of the roadway, such as an “autonomous-vehicle lane”, that is “restricted to use only by the host-vehicle 12, or may include other-vehicles 36 along with the host-vehicle 12”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method including the above limitations of Gupta in view of Lepp and Schwietering to include wherein the at least one dedicated lane is for one or more autonomous vehicles and semi-autonomous vehicles, as taught by Agarwal, in order to improve traffic flow and infrastructure/vehicle to vehicle communication for autonomous vehicles in dedicated lanes and reduce traffic in non-dedicated lanes for general traffic.
In regards to Claim 20, Gupta in view of Lepp and Schwietering teaches the system of Claim 13, but neither Gupta nor Lepp and Schwietering teaches wherein the at least one dedicated lane is for one or more autonomous vehicles and semi-autonomous vehicles.
However, Agarwal teaches wherein the at least one dedicated lane is for one or more autonomous vehicles and semi-autonomous vehicles (Agarwal, Para. 0011-0014 – a “restricted-lane” of the roadway, such as an “autonomous-vehicle lane”, that is “restricted to use only by the host-vehicle 12, or may include other-vehicles 36 along with the host-vehicle 12”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system including the above limitations of Gupta in view of Lepp and Schwietering to include wherein the at least one dedicated lane is for one or more autonomous vehicles and semi-autonomous vehicles, as taught by Agarwal, in order to improve traffic flow and infrastructure/vehicle to vehicle communication for autonomous vehicles in dedicated lanes and reduce traffic in non-dedicated lanes for general traffic.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Soltesz, et al., hereinafter Soltesz (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2022/0028259) teaches a system and method for providing increased traffic carrying capacity of a road, such as a highway, by modifying an existing roadway from, for example, four lanes to five lanes, to create an additional travel lane by dynamically changing the width of travel lanes using, for example, embedded pavement lights, or other lighting arrangements, in lieu of traditional painted lane lines.
Cohen (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2020/0152059) teaches systems and methods are provided for operating a vehicle based on at least one updated road rule, where road rules may include change direction of reversible traffic lanes at specified times of the day, when traffic volumes exceed certain limits, or when certain temporal events take place.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN LI whose telephone number is (703)756-4719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9am to 5pm eastern.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665