Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/02/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/02/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification (MPEP 608.01, ¶6.31).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: in claim 11
Communication unit
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 3-9 and 11-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “around the particular intersection”. The claim and disclosure do not render the actual scope of what is “around” the intersection, rendering it unclear as to what is actually be covered. This is required for the function of the claim, as it changes the set of what speeds are averaged to generate the traffic information [for example, does it include vehicles crossing the intersection, neighboring intersections, nearby highways etc.], and thus the interpretation of what qualifies as “around” would result in potentially different functionality/results and allow one to arbitrarily define any speed as the average speed based on what is considered “around”. The examiner is currently interpreting this to indicate the average speed of vehicles within a geofenced area.
As dependent claims 3-9 and 12 depend on indefinite material without rectifying it, they are also considered indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s amendments sufficiently integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by actively controlling a vehicle, and thus claims 1, 3-9, and 11 are considered eligible.
However, Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a computer readable recording medium amounts to software per se, and does not include structure to integrate it. Software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 8-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulligan (US11069234B1) in view of Takla (US20210176590A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mulligan teaches;
A method of processing signal operation information of an intersection (taught as an alert decision process, Fig 4), the method comprising:
transmitting, to an external device, a driving status information message regarding an autonomous vehicle (taught as transmitting information by the automobiles mobile computing device to the cloud-based server, indicating location, speed and direction of the automobiles, column 16 lines 59-57);
setting, for each of a plurality of intersections, a geofencing area having a particular shape and a particular size based on a road map (taught as the cloud-based server receiving intersection geometries corresponding to traffic intersections as MAP messages, column 16 lines 31-35, which includes coordinates corresponding to a physical layout of an intersection including lanes, stop light position, lines in the pavement etc., column 12 lines 16-20, wherein intersections are labeled/identified, column 17 lines 28-34);
determining, among the geofencing areas set for the plurality of intersections, a particular geofencing area corresponding to a current location and heading of the vehicle (taught as the cloud-based server determining, based on the received information, which devices to transmit information, column 17 lines 5-12); and
determining a particular intersection, based on whether the vehicle has passed through the [[particular geofencing area]] (indicated in that multiple traffic controllers may be in close proximity to the automobile, column 17 lines 5-8, and determining which devices to transmit SPAT [Signal phase and timing] information, column 17 lines 12-14);
receiving, from the external device, a signal operation information message regarding the particular intersection (taught as transmitting intersection geometry, including an identifier indicating which intersection traffic controller the message was transmitted from, from the could-based server to the mobile computing device, column 17 lines 28-34). And
autonomously controlling a body control module of the autonomous vehicle to control a movement of the autonomous vehicle based on the signal operation information message (taught as presenting the user with alerts based on the particular SPAT message, including notifications and visual alerts to, for example, ‘get ready for green’, column 18 lines 39-57; and applied to promote autonomous driving vehicles in a hands-off ecosystem, column 8 lines 24-31), wherein a size of [[the particular geofencing area]] is determined based on traffic information corresponding to the particular intersection (taught as defining an intersection geometry, column 16 lines 31-36, including an identifier, column 17 lines 28-34).
While Mulligan does not explicitly teach; “by using a geofencing [interpreted to be a virtually defined area of an actual location, based on paragraph 0063 of the specification] area” or “the particular geofencing area”, Mulligan does teach the labeling of areas/zones of intersections, which influences the action/alerts of a vehicle/driver in the zone (column 19 lines 35-45). This, in combination with the discernment/discrimination between which intersection to associate relevant/appropriate SPAT messages for the vehicle (column 18 lines 16-20, 25-31), would effectively create the recited geofencing behavior, albeit without the explicit language of geofencing. To reiterate, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill int eh art to reference/associate the ideas presented in Mulligan with geofencing to enhance connectivity and communications associated with intersection to vehicle collaboration.
However, Mulligan does not explicitly teach; and the traffic information comprises an average speed of vehicles passing around the particular intersection.
Takla teaches; and the traffic information comprises an average speed of vehicles passing around the particular intersection (taught as modifying the size of geofence areas based on speeds of vehicles traveling in the geofence areas, paragraph 0015).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a geofence region size based on speeds of vehicles as taught by Takla in the system taught by Mulligan in order to improve messaging. As taught by Takla, modifying the size of the geofence based on speeds helps ensure that vehicles remain within the defined geofence for a desired amount of time (paragraph 0019). Additionally, automating the sharing of data in such a fashion helps with speed and efficiency of the process, as suggested by Takla (paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 8, Mulligan as modified by Takla teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Mulligan further teaches; wherein the driving status information message comprises at least one of location information, speed information, and heading information of the autonomous vehicle (taught as transmitting information by the automobiles mobile computing device to the cloud-based server, indicating location, speed and direction of the automobiles, column 16 lines 49-57).
Regarding claim 9, Mulligan as modified by Takla teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Mulligan further teaches; wherein the signal operation information message comprises at least one of intersection name information, signal type information, pedestrian signal information, and remaining signal time information (taught as transmitting SPAT messages, column 17 lines 3-5, which indicate signal, phase and timing data and traffic light states, column 3 lines 42-46).
Regarding claim 11, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Mulligan as modified by Takla teaches;
A computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for executing, on a computer (taught as implementing the processes on computer systems/code, column 19 line 64- column 20 line 9), the method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection).
Claim(s) 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulligan (US11069234B1) as modified by Takla (US20210176590A1) and further in view of Jernigan (US9215560B1).
Regarding claim 3, Mulligan as modified by Takla teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Mulligan further teaches; wherein the determining of the particular intersection further comprises:
determining, as the particular intersection, an intersection closest to the fixed location, from among the plurality of intersections (indicated in that multiple traffic controllers may be in close proximity to the automobile, column 17 lines 5-8, and determining which devices to transmit SPAT [Signal phase and timing] information, column 17 lines 12-14, determining that only certain SPAT messages to be relevant to the mobile device based on the position of the car compared to coordinates of the intersection geometry, column 18 lines 25-31).
However, Mulligan does not explicitly teach; while the autonomous vehicle is passing through the particular geofencing area, fixing the current location of the autonomous vehicle to a location at which the autonomous vehicle is able to receive the signal operation information message regarding the particular intersection.
Jernigan teaches; while the autonomous vehicle is passing through the particular geofencing area, fixing the current location of the autonomous vehicle to a location at which the autonomous vehicle is able to receive the signal operation information message regarding the particular intersection (taught as detecting the edge of the device [vehicle] to the geofence area to determine the actual location, column 19 lines 24-26, and when entered, matching the location inside the geofence, column 19 lines 39-42).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a device/vehicle location in a geofenced area as taught by Jernigan in the system taught by Mulligan in order to improve accuracy. As taught by Jernigan, such a method helps account for the accuracy of the sensor of the device/vehicle, and allows for better prediction (column 19 lines 26-32).
Regarding claim 4, Mulligan as modified by Takla and Jernigan teaches;
The method of claim 3 (see claim 3 rejection). However, Mulligan does not explicitly teach; wherein the fixing comprises fixing the current location of the autonomous vehicle to an entry point of the particular geofencing area.
Jernigan teaches; wherein the fixing comprises fixing the current location of the autonomous vehicle to an entry point of the particular geofencing area (taught as detecting the edge of the device [vehicle] to the geofence area to determine the actual location, column 19 lines 24-26, and when entered, matching the location inside the geofence, column 19 lines 39-42).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a device/vehicle location in a geofenced area as taught by Jernigan in the system taught by Mulligan in order to improve accuracy. As taught by Jernigan, such a method helps account for the accuracy of the sensor of the device/vehicle, and allows for better prediction (column 19 lines 26-32, and column 16 lines 8-19).
Regarding claim 5, Mulligan as modified by Takla and Jernigan teaches;
The method of claim 3 (see claim 3 rejection). Mulligan further teaches; wherein the determining of the particular intersection further comprises, after the autonomous vehicle passes through the particular geofencing area, determining, as the particular intersection, an intersection corresponding to a road closest to the current location of the vehicle, from among the plurality of intersections (indicated in determining that only certain SPAT messages to be relevant to the mobile device based on the position of the car compared to coordinates of the intersection geometry, column 18 lines 25-31, such information includes using geographical information of the mobile device to determine if the location is classified as a special zone [such as a school zone], column 19 lines 35-40).
While Mulligan does not explicitly teach; “a particular geofencing area”, Mulligan does teach the labeling of areas/zones, which influences the action/alerts of a vehicle/driver in the zone (column 19 lines 35-45). This, in combination with the discernment/discrimination between which intersection to associate relevant/appropriate SPAT messages for the vehicle (column 18 lines 16-20, 25-31), would effectively create the recited geofencing behavior.
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulligan (US11069234B1) as modified by Takla (US20210176590A1) and further in view of Lewis (US20210350698A1).
Regarding claim 6, Mulligan as modified by Takla teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Mulligan does not explicitly teach; wherein the setting of the geofencing areas comprises setting areas having a certain radius with respect to centers of the plurality of intersections, as the geofencing areas for the plurality of intersections, respectively.
Lewis teaches; wherein the setting of the geofencing areas comprises setting areas having a certain radius with respect to centers of the plurality of intersections, as the geofencing areas for the plurality of intersections, respectively (taught as determining a zone [geofence] area based on a reference area, having a circular shape with a radius defined relative to the reference point of the vehicle way [road], paragraph 0292, shown in Fig 10a).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define a geofence area as a circle as suggested by Lewis in the system taught by Mulligan as a matter of design choice. As suggested by Lewis, a circle with a radius of 25m from the reference point encompasses most intersections whilst avoiding extraneous areas (paragraph 0293), as a dimension that is too large should be avoided to help reduce processing/computing resources (paragraph 0278).
Regarding claim 7, Mulligan as modified by Takla teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Mulligan does not explicitly teach; wherein the setting of the geofencing areas comprises setting the geofencing areas for the plurality of intersections to have boundaries based on stop lines included in the plurality of intersections, respectively.
Lewis teaches; wherein the setting of the geofencing areas comprises setting the geofencing areas for the plurality of intersections to have boundaries based on stop lines included [interpreted to mean consideration of elements of the intersection, including stop lines and other traffic markers, rather than defining the boundaries to be AT the stop line, as the figures in the disclosure do not appear to even include the stop line inside/defining the boundary of the geofence, such as Fig 7] in the plurality of intersections, respectively (taught as defining zone [geofence] dimensions according to the shape and size of an associated vehicle way [road], such that elements of each associated vehicle way are encompassed, paragraph 0281, while including markers such as traffic control equipment, paragraph 0531).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define a geofence area as a circle as suggested by Lewis in the system taught by Mulligan as a matter of design choice. As suggested by Lewis, the consideration of traffic control equipment/markers assists in data analytics and data transmission, such as to improve locating and obtaining coordinates (paragraph 0533).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 6-10 of the remarks that the invention sufficiently integrating into a practical application and are eligible under 101.
The examiner agrees that claims 1, 3-9, and 11 are eligible, and withdraws the related rejection.
However, claim 12 falls under software per se, and is a non-statutory category. Software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). Thus, claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant argues that on page 11-13 of the remarks that the recited prior art does not address determining the size of a geofence area based on the average speed of vehicles passing the intersection.
The examiner agrees, and withdraws the previous rejection. However, a new rejection in light of Takla has been made to address the deficiencies regarding adjusting the size of a geofence based on vehicle speed.
Applicant argues on page 14 of the remarks that, based on depending on allowable material, dependent claims 3-9 and 12 are also allowable.
In light of the above rejections and arguments, this argument is rendered moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For further geofencing for location determination; US20160116274A1
For further geofencing for vehicle/accessory control and shape of geofencing; US20130332007A1
For further traffic control with geofencing; US10410516B1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571)270-3969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GABRIEL ANFINRUD/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662