DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 9, 19 and 21 filed on 10/10/2025 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 112a &112b rejections have been fully considered and are unpersuasive specially the claim language “wherein execution by the vehicle of the lane- specific recommendation results in reducing the one or more particular exits and/or the on-ramps that are encountered by the vehicle, where the reducing is due to the lane change by the vehicle in accordance with the lane-specific recommendation” the specification is silent on how does it reduce the one or more particular exits and/ or the on-ramp encounter in a current lane and also the specification only mentioned “For example, for a particular section of a particular roadway, perhaps more vehicles experience hard braking in the right lane than the left lane (e.g., due to the particular exits and/or on-ramps in the particular section of the particular roadway)” which is not same as reducing, in addition to claim 21 the specification is silent on how the fleets have first vehicle and a second vehicle and also the specification is silent on the first and second current location, thus the claims under 112a&b rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been fully considered and is unpersuasive.
With respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1, The limitations of claim 1 do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Applicant claims include “…“wherein the set of sensors includes one or more image sensors”, “a user interface carried by the vehicle, wherein the user interface includes a display”, "a set of sensors carried by the vehicle, wherein the set of sensors is configured to generate output signals conveying information pertaining to the vehicle,"(ii) "at the vehicle, determine, based on the information conveyed by the output signals, a current location of the vehicle," (iii) "obtain, through electronic communication with a remote server, lane- specific information for the multiple traffic lanes", and/or (iv) "at the vehicle, determine consistencies of vehicle speeds for the multiple traffic lanes, based on the information conveyed by the output signals", and/or (v) "at the vehicle, ... for increased consistency of a vehicle speed of the vehicle navigating through the multiple traffic lanes,"…” The concept is still directed to “choosing/recommending the best lane to drive the vehicle into it to reach to the destination while also considering the best lane with the high vehicle speed consistency” which does not make it less abstract which they are not controlling the vehicle to output something or to perform anything accordingly. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas in the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea and in addition to the sensors and outputting on display are additional elements as they amount to necessary mere data gathering or a tool to receive the data being gathered to perform the abstract idea, which is an insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception.
The same updated analysis based on the new 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) applies to the newly added claimed limitations as discussed in the previous office action.
As a result, Step 2A Prong 1 determines if a claim is directed to those grouping and subgroupings along with an explanation of why it is directed to such.
“First, the rejection should identify the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG, laws of nature, or a natural phenomenon) by referring to what is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explaining why it is considered to be an exception (Step 2A Prong One). There is no requirement for the examiner to provide further support, such as publications or an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2), for the conclusion that a claim recites a judicial exception.”
“For abstract ideas, the rejection should explain why a specific limitation(s) recited in the claim falls within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, mental processes, or certain methods of organizing human activity) or provide a justification for why a specific limitation(s) recited in the claim is being treated as an abstract idea if it does not fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in accordance with the “tentative abstract idea” procedure in the 2019 PEG.”
In the Non-Final mailed 12/31/2024 examiner performs the analysis and clarifies that “the abstract idea noted in the independent claims…are directed to a “Mental Processes.” Hence, examiner has indicated that these identified limitations are directed to “wherein the set of sensors includes one or more image sensors”, “a user interface carried by the vehicle, wherein the user interface includes a display”, "a set of sensors carried by the vehicle, wherein the set of sensors is configured to generate output signals conveying information pertaining to the vehicle,"(ii) "at the vehicle, determine, based on the information conveyed by the output signals, a current location of the vehicle," (iii) "obtain, through electronic communication with a remote server, lane- specific information for the multiple traffic lanes", and/or (iv) "at the vehicle, determine consistencies of vehicle speeds for the multiple traffic lanes, based on the information conveyed by the output signals", and/or (v) "at the vehicle, ... for increased consistency of a vehicle speed of the vehicle navigating through the multiple traffic lanes” and has provided a justification for why these limitations fall within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas (i.e. concepts performed in the human mind). This is sufficient under the guidelines of the 2019 PEG and October 2019 Update as cited above. Also, the claims do not provide any control step to control the vehicle to change lanes and in addition to the claim limitations only provide a lane recommendation which can be done mentally. Accordingly, it seems reasonable for the examiner to group the abstract idea under “Mental processes.” as enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG.
Prong Two:
With respect to Step 2A, prong two, Integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.-see MPEP 2106.05(f). Claiming improved displaying results efficiency inherent with applying any improvement to the judicial exception itself on a computer does not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The courts found that “… if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . . a computer,’ that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2358. The claimed invention does not indicate that specialized computer hardware is necessary to implement the claimed systems, similar to the claims at issue in Alice Corp. See Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2360 (determining that the hardware recited in the claims was “purely functional and generic,” and did not “offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers”). The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. Also, limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment’ does not confer patent eligibility as this cannot be considered an improvement to computer or technology and so cannot be “significantly more.” Examiner notes Applicant’s citing to Enfish, LLC v Microsoft corp, 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Like the improved systems claimed in Enfish, these claims recite a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved determination of the priority evacuation area and controlling the vehicle to perform the evacuation plan” The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. Also, limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment’ does not confer patent eligibility as this cannot be considered an improvement to computer or technology and so cannot be “significantly more.” Therefore, Enfish does not apply here. The Court gave examples, which included an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvement to the function of the computer itself; or some other meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Such as in Diamond v. Diehr, the claims were found statutory in which the Arrhenius equation is used to improve a process of controlling the operation of a mold in curing rubber parts. Examiner submits that under the current 35 U.S.C. 101 examining practice, the existence of such novel features would still not cure the deficiencies with respect to the abstract idea. See for example: Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 112 USPQ2d 1750, U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit, No. 2010-1544, Decided November 14, 2014, 2014 BL 320546, 772 F.3d 709, Page 1754 last two ¶: “We do not agree with Ultramercial that the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea necessarily turns an abstraction into something concrete.” The instant claims are different, the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. Lastly, dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a processor, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic processor to merely carry out the abstract idea itself.
For these reasons the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter set forth in this office action is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1 and 11 filed on 10/10/2025 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered and are unpersuasive.
With respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1 and 11 Applicant argue the cited art of record, Sumizawa. (US 2017/0082452 A1) in further view of Rubin et al (US 8,520,695 B1) (hereinafter Rubin), fails to explicitly disclose all of the recited features of claims 1 and 11 (see response pages 15-19), specifically “at the vehicle, determine consistencies of vehicle speeds for the multiple traffic lanes, based on the information conveyed by the output signals; at the vehicle, determine a lane-specific recommendation for increased consistency of a vehicle speed of the vehicle navigating through the multiple traffic lanes".
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As in response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
As Rubin teaches “at the vehicle, determine consistencies of vehicle speeds for the multiple traffic lanes, based on the information conveyed by the output signals; at the vehicle, determine a lane-specific recommendation for a lane change of the vehicle that will result in increased consistency of a vehicle speed of the vehicle navigating through the multiple traffic lanes”, as understood in at least (see Rubin col 65; lines 57-67 thru col 66; lines 1-9) regarding determining based on speed information of multiple lanes the speed of each lane and whether the lane to left or right has a large variation in speeds and then send through V2V the lanes data in order to suggest the best lane for the driver based on the driver’s goal (e.g. such as to conserve gas) in order to perform a lane change to the lane with the most consistent speed and to provide lane recommendation that has the most consistent speed in order to help with minimizing unnecessary accelerations or stops contributing to a smoother traffic flow and decrease the risk of collisions or sudden braking and also to increase fuel efficiency “As part of constructing the locations of lanes, maintaining average speed and speed distribution provides significant value. For example, this information allows a V2V transceiver to determine if a vehicle is travelling outside of a typical speed in a lane… Such information also is assists the V2V system in making lane recommendations. Some portions of some lanes may have a higher average speed, or generally more consistent speeds. For example, on some roads, the left lane may have to stop for vehicles waiting to make an unprotected left turn. On other roads, the right lane may slow frequently for vehicles to make right turns, such as into driveways. A large variation in speeds suggests increased vehicle spacing and increased vigilance. An example V2V recommendation is an audio recommendation to a driver to move into a faster lane; another example is a visual recommendation to a driver to move out of a slower lane. It the driver's goal, at the moment, is to conserve gas, an appropriate recommendation would be to move into the lane with the most consistent speed, on average”).
Examiner notes that “obtain one or more goals for the lane-recommendations” did not specify if the lane recommendation should be given from the own vehicle decision or from another vehicle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9, 19 and 21 are 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.
Regarding claim 9, the claimed wherein execution by the vehicle of the lane- specific recommendation results in reducing the one or more particular exits and/or the on-ramps that are encountered by the vehicle, where the reducing is due to the lane change by the vehicle in accordance with the lane-specific recommendation. Examiner is unable to identify how the lane-specific recommendation effectuates reducing the one or more particular exits and/or the on-ramps a current lane? Furthermore, it has been noted that applicants filed specification contains only one instances of “For example, for a particular section of a particular roadway, perhaps more vehicles experience hard braking in the right lane than the left lane (e.g., due to the particular exits and/or on-ramps in the particular section of the particular roadway))” as shown in paragraph “0022” of the specification. Applicant has not provided any more specifics as how the lane-specific recommendation effectuates reducing the one or more particular exits and/or the on-ramps a current lane and how does it affect the lane-specific recommendation? Appropriate correction is required.
Same rejection applies to claim 19.
Regarding claim 21, the claimed a second set of sensors and a second user interface carried by the second vehicle, wherein the second set of sensors is configured to generate second output signals conveying second information pertaining to the second vehicle and to surroundings of the second vehicle… at the second vehicle, determine a second current location of the second vehicle on a second roadway, wherein the second roadway includes multiple traffic lanes, and wherein the first current location is different from the second current location… at the second vehicle, determine a second lane-specific recommendation for a second lane change of the second vehicle, based on the consistencies of the vehicle speeds for the vehicles in the multiple traffic lanes of the second roadway… provide, through the second user interface, the second lane-specific recommendation to a second human vehicle operator. Examiner is unable to identify how the second user interface provides a second lane-specific recommendation to a second human vehicle operator? Furthermore, it has been noted that applicants filed specification contains only one instances of “System 100 and/or components thereof may be carried and/or otherwise supported by one or more vehicles (e.g., a first vehicle, a second vehicle, a third vehicle, and so forth) as shown in paragraph “0011” of the specification. Applicant has not provided any more specifics as how the lane-specific recommendation determines a second lane-specific recommendation for a second lane change of the second vehicle, based on the consistencies of the vehicle speeds for the vehicles in the multiple traffic lanes of the second roadway? Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the claimed wherein execution by the vehicle of the lane- specific recommendation results in reducing the one or more particular exits and/or the on-ramps that are encountered by the vehicle, where the reducing is due to the lane change by the vehicle in accordance with the lane-specific recommendation. It is not clear how the lane-specific recommendation effectuates reducing the one or more particular exits and/or the on-ramps a current lane? Appropriate correction is required.
Same rejection applies to claim 19.
Regarding claim 21, the claimed a second set of sensors and a second user interface carried by the second vehicle, wherein the second set of sensors is configured to generate second output signals conveying second information pertaining to the second vehicle and to surroundings of the second vehicle… at the second vehicle, determine a second current location of the second vehicle on a second roadway, wherein the second roadway includes multiple traffic lanes, and wherein the first current location is different from the second current location… at the second vehicle, determine a second lane-specific recommendation for a second lane change of the second vehicle, based on the consistencies of the vehicle speeds for the vehicles in the multiple traffic lanes of the second roadway… provide, through the second user interface, the second lane-specific recommendation to a second human vehicle operator. It is not clear how the second user interface provides a second lane-specific recommendation to a second human vehicle operator? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-17, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Re Claim 1:
Claim 1 recites:
A system configured for providing lane-specific recommendations to a human vehicle operator of a vehicle operating on roadways, the system comprising:
a set of sensors carried by the vehicle, wherein the set of sensors is configured to generate output signals conveying information pertaining to the vehicle;
and to surroundings of the vehicle, wherein the set of sensors includes one or more image sensors; a user interface carried by the vehicle, wherein the user interface includes a display;
and one or more hardware processors carried by the vehicle, wherein the one of more hardware processors are configured by machine-readable instructions to:
obtain at the vehicle, determine, based on the information conveyed by the output signals, a current location of the vehicle, wherein the current location corresponds to a particular roadway, and wherein the particular roadway includes multiple traffic lanes in a current direction of travel;
obtain, through electronic communication with a remote server, lane- specific information for the multiple traffic lanes, wherein the lane-specific information includes information pertaining to exits and/or on-ramps for the multiple traffic lanes. at the vehicle, determine consistencies of vehicle speeds for the multiple traffic lanes, based on the information conveyed by the output signals;
at the vehicle, determine a lane-specific recommendation for a lane change of the vehicle that will result in increased consistency of a vehicle speed of the vehicle navigating through the multiple traffic lanes
wherein the determination of the lane-specific recommendation is based on the lane-specific information for the multiple traffic lanes as obtained and the consistencies of the vehicle speeds for the multiple traffic lanes as determined and provide, through a user interface carried by the vehicle, the lane-specific recommendation to the human vehicle operator.
Under Step 1 Claim 1 is a system claim same as claims 2-7 and 9.
Under Step 2A -Prong 1:
The identified claim limitations that recite an abstract idea fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in Section 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019. These fall under mental process.
Claim 1 recites “A system configured for providing lane-specific recommendations to a human vehicle operator of a vehicle operating on roadways, the system comprising:
Under Step 2A - Prong 2; the additional elements are “a set of sensors carried by the vehicle, wherein the set of sensors is configured to generate output signals conveying information pertaining to the vehicle”, “wherein the set of sensors includes one or more image sensors”, “a user interface carried by the vehicle, wherein the user interface includes a display”, “one or more hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions”, “obtain a current location of the vehicle”, “obtain lane-specific information for the multiple traffic lanes”, “obtain one or more goals for the lane-specific recommendations” and “and provide, through a user interface carried by the vehicle, the lane-specific recommendation to the human vehicle operator” steps. It is noted that the “one or more hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions” limitation is a generic computer component and e.g., looking at the claim as a whole and considering any additional elements/limitations individually and in combination, no (additional) particular machine, transformation, improvement to the functioning of a computer or an existing technological process or technical field, or meaningful application of the idea, beyond generally linking the idea to a technological environment (e.g., "implementation via computers", Alice) or adding insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., as part of a preventative action), is recited in or encompassed by the claim. Moreover, additional elements “a set of sensors carried by the vehicle, wherein the set of sensors is configured to generate output signals conveying information pertaining to the vehicle”, “wherein the set of sensors includes one or more image sensors”, “a user interface carried by the vehicle, wherein the user interface includes a display”, “at the vehicle, determine, based on the information conveyed by the output signals a current location of the vehicle”, “obtain lane-specific information for the multiple traffic lanes” and “obtain one or more goals for the lane-specific recommendations” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it amounts to necessary mere data gathering or a tool to receive the data being gathered to perform the abstract idea, which is an insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the limitation “and provide, through a user interface carried by the vehicle, the lane-specific recommendation to the human vehicle operator” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually or in combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than generically recited computer elements “one or more hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions” (e.g., computing devices that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because their use would be routine (and conventional) in any computer implementation of the idea. Moreover, the additional elements obtaining information does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it amounts to necessary mere data gathering or a tool to receive the data being gathered to perform the abstract idea, which is an insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and moreover, adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception (e.g., and provide, through a user interface carried by the vehicle, the lane-specific recommendation to the human vehicle operator), or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The independent method claim 11 recites similar limitations performed by the system of claim 1. Therefore, the system claim 21 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 outlined above.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9, 12-17 and 19 these claims are also found to be ineligible under 101 as they do not further limit the abstract idea which was presented in the independent claim from which they depend from. The dependent claims ae all directed to mere abstract ideas of determining the lane-specific recommendation based on current traffic conditions, a current time of day and the type of vehicle. The claims recite the steps of determining the following distances for the multiple traffic lanes of the particular roadway at the current location in the current direction of travel, wherein a particular lane of the particular roadway includes one or more particular exits and/or on-ramps in a particular section of the particular roadway, and wherein execution of the lane-specific recommendation results in reducing the one or more particular exits and/or the on-ramps encountered in a current lane of the particular roadway due to a lane change by the vehicle which is an act of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind. Thus, this step is an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping. The claims therefore as a whole and individually are patent ineligible under 101.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 14, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Sumizawa (US 2017/0082452 A1) in view of Rubin et al (US 8,520,695 B1) (hereinafter Rubin) in further view of Bastianensen et al (US 2013/0282264 A1) (hereinafter Bastianensen).
Regarding claim 1, Sumizawa discloses a system configured for providing lane-specific recommendations to a vehicle operator of a vehicle (see Sumizawa paragraph “0182”) operating on roadways (see Sumizawa figure 4 and paragraphs “0005-0008” “to provide a lane selecting device, a vehicle control system, and a lane selecting method that execute processing taking into account the fact that a plurality of lanes are provided in a road”),
operating on roadways, the system comprising: a set of sensors carried by the vehicle, wherein the set of sensors is configured to generate output signals conveying information pertaining to the vehicle and to surroundings of the vehicle, wherein the set of sensors includes one or more image sensors; a user interface carried by the vehicle, wherein the user interface includes a display and one or more hardware processors carried by the vehicle, wherein the one of more hardware processors are configured by machine-readable instructions to (see Sumizawa at least paragraphs “0041”, “0043”, “0047-0050”, “0065” and “0182” “even when the own vehicle 10 is traveling according to manual operation by the driver, it is also possible to calculate a recommendation degree of each of the lanes to select a recommended lane and display the selected recommended lane on the display panel 564.”),
at the vehicle, determine, based on the information conveyed by the output signals a current location of the vehicle, wherein the current location corresponds to a particular roadway, and wherein the particular roadway includes multiple traffic lanes in a current direction of travel (see Sumizawa paragraphs “0005”, “0007”, “0043”, “0050-0051” and “0133” “a vehicle control system, and a lane selecting method that execute processing taking into account the fact that a plurality of lanes are provided in a road” and “The vehicle information includes information such as identification information for identifying the own vehicle 10 and the peripheral vehicle, position information of the own vehicle 10 and the peripheral vehicle, vehicle speeds of the own vehicle 10 and the peripheral vehicle, and advancing directions of the own vehicle 10 and the peripheral vehicle”),
determine a lane-specific recommendation for the vehicle regarding the multiple traffic lanes (see Sumizawa paragraphs “0005” and “0070” “a vehicle control system, and a lane selecting method that execute processing taking into account the fact that a plurality of lanes are provided in a road.”),
obtain lane-specific information for the multiple traffic lanes (see Sumizawa paragraphs “0005” and “0070” “a vehicle control system, and a lane selecting method that execute processing taking into account the fact that a plurality of lanes are provided in a road.”),
and provide, through the user interface carried by the vehicle, the lane-specific recommendation to the human vehicle operator (see Sumizawa paragraphs “0049”, “0065” and “0182” “even when the own vehicle 10 is traveling according to manual operation by the driver, it is also possible to calculate a recommendation degree of each of the lanes to select a recommended lane and display the selected recommended lane on the display panel 564.”),
But Sumizawa fails to explicitly teach obtain, through electronic communication with a remote server, lane- specific information for the multiple traffic lanes, wherein the lane-specific information includes information pertaining to exits and/or on-ramps for the multiple traffic lanes.
However, Bastianensen teaches obtain, through electronic communication with a remote server, lane- specific information for the multiple traffic lanes, wherein the lane-specific information includes information pertaining to exits and/or on-ramps for the multiple traffic lanes (see Bastianensen paragraphs “0070” and “0161” “In these embodiments in which the historical lane speed profiles are used to determine a timing for providing a lane selection instruction to the user of the navigation apparatus, it may be determined, for example, that although the user needs to move to a right hand lane in order to be able to continue straight ahead after an interchange, it is better not to do this immediately a direction indication suggests that a lane change will be needed, but instead to wait until after traffic in the right hand lane has left the road at an exit which results in a relatively lower lane speed for the right hand lane up to the exit.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the Lane selecting device, vehicle control system and lane selecting method of modified Sumizawa to provide a recommended lane selection to a driver as taught in (Bastianensen paragraph “0070”) in order to select the middle lane in the region before the left-hand exit to avoid being stuck in slow moving traffic as trucks take the left exit.
But modified Sumizawa fails to explicitly disclose at the vehicle, determine consistencies of vehicle speeds for the multiple traffic lanes, based on the information conveyed by the output signals; at the vehicle, determine a lane-specific recommendation for a lane change of the vehicle that will result in increased consistency of a vehicle speed of the vehicle navigating through the multiple traffic lanes, wherein the determination of the lane-specific recommendation is based on the lane-specific information for the multiple traffic lanes as obtained and the consistencies of the vehicle speeds for the multiple traffic lanes as determined.
However, Rubin teaches at the vehicle, determine consistencies of vehicle speeds for the multiple traffic lanes, based on the information conveyed by the output signals; at the vehicle, determine a lane-specific recommendation for a lane change of the vehicle that will result in increased consistency of a vehicle speed of the vehicle navigating through the multiple traffic lanes, wherein the determination of the lane-specific recommendation is based on the lane-specific information for the multiple traffic lanes as obtained and the consistencies of the vehicle speeds for the multiple traffic lanes as determined (see Rubin col 65; lines 57-67 thru col 66; lines 1-9 “As part of constructing the locations of lanes, maintaining average speed and speed distribution provides significant value. For example, this information allows a V2V transceiver to determine if a vehicle is travelling outside of a typical speed in a lane… Such information also is assists the V2V system in making lane recommendations. Some portions of some lanes may have a higher average speed, or generally more consistent speeds. For example, on some roads, the left lane may have to stop for vehicles waiting to make an unprotected left turn. On other roads, the right lane may slow frequently for vehicles to make right turns, such as into driveways. A large variation in speeds suggests increased vehicle spacing and increased vigilance. An example V2V recommendation is an audio recommendation to a driver to move into a faster lane; another example is a visual recommendation to a driver to move out of a slower lane. It the driver's goal, at the moment, is to conserve gas, an appropriate recommendation would be to move into the lane with the most consistent speed, on average” regarding determining based on speed information of multiple lanes the speed of each lane and whether the lane to left or right has a large variation in speeds and then send through V2V the lanes data in order to suggest the best lane for the driver based on the driver’s goal (e.g. such as to conserve gas) in order to perform a lane change to the lane with the most consistent speed.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the Lane selecting device, vehicle control system and lane selecting method of Sumizawa to provide lane recommendation that has the most consistent speed in order to help with minimizing unnecessary accelerations or stops contributing to a smoother traffic flow and decrease the risk of collisions or sudden braking and also to increase fuel efficiency (Rubin col 65; lines 57-67 thru col 66; lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 2, Sumizawa fails to explicitly teach wherein execution of the lane- specific recommendation results in the increased consistency of the vehicle speed of the vehicle navigating through the multiple traffic lanes.
However, Rubin teaches wherein execution of the lane- specific recommendation results in the increased consistency of the vehicle speed of the vehicle navigating through the multiple traffic lanes (see Rubin col 65; lines 57-67 thru col 66; lines 1-9 “As part of constructing the locations of lanes, maintaining average speed and speed distribution provides significant value. For example, this information allows a V2V transceiver to determine if a vehicle is travelling outside of a typical speed in a lane… Such information also is assists the V2V system in making lane recommendations. Some portions of some lanes may have a higher average speed, or generally more consistent speeds. For example, on some roads, the left lane may have to stop for vehicles waiting to make an unprotected left turn. On other roads, the right lane may slow frequently for vehicles to make right turns, such as into driveways. A large variation in speeds suggests increased vehicle spacing and increased vigilance. An example V2V recommendation is an audio recommendation to a driver to move into a faster lane; another example is a visual recommendation to a driver to move out of a slower lane. It the driver's goal, at the moment, is to conserve gas, an appropriate recommendation would be to move into the lane with the most consistent speed, on average” regarding determining based on speed information of multiple lanes the speed of each lane and whether the lane to left or right has a large variation in speeds and then send through V2V the lanes data in order to suggest the best lane for the driver based on the driver’s goal (e.g. such as to conserve gas) in order to perform a lane change to the lane with the most consistent speed.).
Regarding claim 4, Sumizawa discloses wherein the determination of the lane-specific recommendation is further based on current traffic conditions (see Sumizawa paragraphs “0067” and “0079” “The automatic-driving control section 172 acquires presence or absence of a traffic jam, states of traffic lights, presence or absence of pedestrians, and the like on the basis of the traffic information input from the road-to-vehicle communication device 320 and adjusts the target traveling pattern and the target speed pattern…” and “When the lane change to the recommended lane is possible (YES in step S4), the recommended-lane selecting section 171 instructs the automatic-driving control section 172 to change a lane to the recommended lane (step S7) and returns the processing procedure to step S1. The automatic-driving control section 172, which receives the instruction for the lane change, adjusts the target traveling pattern and the target speed pattern reflecting the lane change to the recommended lane on the patterns, generates automatic driving control information on the basis of the adjusted patterns, and outputs the automatic driving control information to the vehicle control ECU 200.”).
Regarding claim 6, Sumizawa discloses wherein the vehicle operator is an autonomous driving algorithm (see Sumizawa paragraphs “0027-0030” and “0067” “The automatic-driving control section 172 acquires information concerning an environment of the own vehicle 10 on the basis of the image data input from the camera device 340 and adjusts the target traveling pattern and the target speed pattern to correspond to the environment of the own vehicle 10. The automatic-driving control section 172 generates automatic driving control information on the basis of the target traveling pattern and the target speed pattern after the adjustment”).
Regarding claim 7, Sumizawa discloses wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to: determine following distances for the multiple traffic lanes of the particular roadway at the current location in the current direction of travel, wherein the determination of the lane-specific recommendation is further based on the following distances (see Sumizawa paragraphs “0047”, “0100” and “0178-0181” “The own vehicle 10 is mounted with the radar device 330 that measures an inter-vehicle distance to a vehicle located ahead of the own vehicle 10. The recommended-lane selecting section 171 calculates recommendation degrees of the lanes on the basis of the inter-vehicle distance measured by the radar device 330. Therefore, it is possible to calculate the recommendation degrees of the lanes on the basis of inter-vehicle distances in the lanes. It is possible to select an optimum traveling lane corresponding to a road situation” and “When a lane in which an inter-vehicle distance to a vehicle located ahead is determined as being equal to or larger than a distance set in advance is detected, the recommended-lane selecting section 171 instructs the radar device 330 not to measure inter-vehicle distances in the other lanes”).
Regarding claim 9, modified Sumizawa fails to explicitly teach wherein a particular lane of the particular roadway includes one or more particular exits and/or on-ramps in a particular section of the particular roadway, and wherein execution by the vehicle of the lane- specific recommendation results in reducing the one or more particular exits and/or the on-ramps that are encountered by the vehicle, where the reducing is due to the lane change by the vehicle in accordance with the lane-specific recommendation.
However, Bastianensen teaches wherein a particular lane of the particular roadway includes one or more particular exits and/or on-ramps in a particular section of the particular roadway, and wherein execution by the vehicle of the lane- specific recommendation results in reducing the one or more particular exits and/or the on-ramps that are encountered by the vehicle, where the reducing is due to the lane change by the vehicle in accordance with the lane-specific recommendation (see Bastianensen paragraphs “0070” and “0161” “In these embodiments in which the historical lane speed profiles are used to determine a timing for providing a lane selection instruction to the user of the navigation apparatus, it may be determined, for example, that although the user needs to move to a right hand lane in order to be able to continue straight ahead after an interchange, it is better not to do this immediately a direction indication suggests that a lane change will be needed, but instead to wait until after traffic in the right hand lane has left the road at an exit which results in a relatively lower lane speed for the right hand lane up to the exit.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the Lane selecting device, vehicle control system and lane selecting method of modified Sumizawa to provide a recommended lane selection to a driver as taught in (Bastianensen paragraph “0070”) in order to select the middle lane in the region before the left-hand exit to avoid being stuck in slow moving traffic as trucks take the left exit.
Regarding claim 11, Sumizawa discloses a method for providing lane-specific recommendations to a vehicle operator of a vehicle (see Sumizawa paragraph “0182”), operating on roadways, the method comprising: carryinq, by the vehicle, a user interface that includes a display, generating, by a set of sensors carried by the vehicle, output signals conveying information pertaining to the vehicle and to surroundings of the vehicle, wherein the set of sensors includes one or more image sensors (see Sumizawa figure 4 and paragraphs “0041”, “0043”, “0047-0050”, “0065” and “0182” “even when the own vehicle 10 is traveling according to manual operation by the driver, it is also possible to calculate a recommendation degree of each of the lanes to select a recommended lane and display the selected recommended lane on the display panel 564.” And “to provide a lane selecting device, a vehicle control system, and a lane selecting method that execute processing taking into account the fact that a plurality of lanes are provided in a road”),
at the vehicle, determining a current location of the vehicle, wherein the current location corresponds to a particular roadway, and wherein the particular roadway includes multiple traffic lanes in a current direction of travel (see Sumizawa paragraphs “0007” and “0133” “Subsequently, the recommended-lane selecting section 171 determines on the basis of the inter-vehicle distance measured in step S36 whether the rear vehicle is present within the second lane change prohibited distance (step S37).”),
Sum