DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 01/25/2024.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/25/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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:
“detection device” in claims 1-5.
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 § 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) are directed to a system and a method and recite(s) judicial exceptions as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Independent claims 1, 9, and 10:
Claim 1:
A method for determining a speed of traffic in a route section, the method comprising: determining, by a detection device of a detector vehicle, a foreign driving speed of a foreign vehicle in the route section according to a predetermined speed determination method; and, sending, by the detection device of the detector vehicle, traffic data including the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section to a central computer external to the detector vehicle.
Claim 9:
A detection device comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing program computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the detection device to: determine a foreign driving speed of a foreign vehicle in a route section according to a predetermined speed determination method; and, send traffic data including the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section to a central computer external to a detector vehicle.
Claim 10:
A central computer comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the central computer to: receive traffic data; and assign a speed profile to a route section based on the traffic data.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 1 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. Claim 9 recites a device, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. Claim 10 recites a computer, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes.
The focus of claim 1 (i.e., “determining, by a detection device of a detector vehicle, a foreign driving speed of a foreign vehicle in the route section according to a predetermined speed determination method”) is on observing and evaluating data. These observations or evaluations are simply mental processes (thinking) that can be performed in the human mind. When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, it is simply observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions.
The focus of claim 9 (i.e., “determine a foreign driving speed of a foreign vehicle in a route section according to a predetermined speed determination method”) is on observing and evaluating data. These observations or evaluations are simply mental processes (thinking) that can be performed in the human mind. When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, it is simply observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions.
The focus of claim 10 (i.e., “assign a speed profile to a route section based on the traffic data”) is on observing and evaluating data. These observations or evaluations are simply mental processes (thinking) that can be performed in the human mind. When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, it is simply observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions.
Thus, claims 1, 9, and 10 recites an abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding claim 1, the additional limitation(s) of “sending, by the detection device of the detector vehicle, traffic data including the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section to a central computer external to the detector vehicle” are recited at a high level of generality. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. The further limitation(s) are considered insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. The limitation(s) of “determining, by a detection device of a detector vehicle” represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on generic devices, and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment. It represents no more than mere attempt to recite a field in which the method is intended to be applied. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Regarding claim 9, the additional limitation(s) of “at least one processor; and at least one memory storing program computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the detection device to:” are recited at a high level of generality. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. The further limitation(s) are considered insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. The limitation(s) of “send traffic data including the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section to a central computer external to a detector vehicle” represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on generic devices, and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment. It represents no more than mere attempt to recite a field in which the method is intended to be applied. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Regarding claim 10, the additional limitation(s) of “at least one processor; and at least one memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor,” are recited at a high level of generality. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. The further limitation(s) are considered insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. The limitation(s) of “causes the central computer to: receive traffic data” represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on generic devices, and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment. It represents no more than mere attempt to recite a field in which the method is intended to be applied. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Accordingly, claims 1, 9, and 10 as a whole do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Step 2 considers whether the claim provides limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental processes of claims 1, 9, and 10.
Regarding claim 1, The additional limitation(s) of “sending, by the detection device of the detector vehicle, traffic data including the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section to a central computer external to the detector vehicle” are recited in a manner that is well understood, generic and conventional. The additional recitation(s) do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation(s) are at a high level of generality, and are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The limitation(s) are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 9, The additional limitation(s) of “at least one processor; and at least one memory storing program computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the detection device to” are recited in a manner that is well understood, generic and conventional. The additional recitation(s) do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation(s) are at a high level of generality, and are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The limitation(s) are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 10, The additional limitation(s) of “at least one processor; and at least one memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor” are recited in a manner that is well understood, generic and conventional. The additional recitation(s) do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation(s) are at a high level of generality, and are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The limitation(s) are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not provide meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process concepts of claims 1, 9, and 10, and does not state an inventive concept. The limitation(s) are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
Applicant’s disclosure does not provide evidence that the additional element(s) recited in claim 1 (i.e., the claim element(s) in addition to the abstract idea) is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Therefore, independent claim(s) 1, 9, and 10 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-8:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claims 2-8 recite a series of steps and therefore, fall under a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 3-8 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same or sufficiently similar defects as those noted for claim 2 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from the abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea and/or represent an attempt to link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 2-8 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Enthaler (DE 102014007452 A1), hereinafter Enthaler.
Regarding claim 1, Enthaler discloses a method for determining a speed of traffic in a route section comprising:
determining, by a detection device of a detector vehicle, a foreign driving speed of a foreign vehicle in the route section according to a predetermined speed determination method (See at least Fig. 1, [0025] “the traffic information in this case contains not only, as is generally known, the position and speed of the transmitting vehicle 2, but also the positions and speeds of the other vehicles 3, 5, 6, and 7 detected by the environmental sensors of the transmitting vehicle 2,”); and,
sending, by the detection device of the detector vehicle, traffic data including the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section to a central computer external to the detector vehicle (See at least Fig. 1, [0025] “In order to obtain current traffic data, the motor vehicle 2 is designed as a transmitting vehicle which, according to arrow 8, can wirelessly transmit traffic information via a mobile network to a central data collection point 9, here a server 10. However, the traffic information in this case contains not only, as is generally known, the position and speed of the transmitting vehicle 2, but also the positions and speeds of the other vehicles 3, 5, 6, and 7 detected by the environmental sensors of the transmitting vehicle 2”).
Regarding claim 3, Enthaler, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Enthaler additionally discloses
the determining the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section according to the predetermined speed determination method includes: detecting, by the detection device of the detector vehicle, an ego driving speed of the detector vehicle at least once (See at least [0020] “transmitting vehicles can transmit additional ego data as traffic information, in addition to their own position and speed”, [0027] “the position of the transmitting vehicle 2 is determined in geodetic coordinates using a GPS sensor and its speed is also determined”).
Regarding claim 5, Enthaler, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3. Enthaler additionally discloses
the determining the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section according to the predetermined speed determination method includes: measuring, by the detection device of the detector vehicle (See at least [0026] “The environmental sensors expediently include radar sensors and imaging sensors, in particular cameras, with the help of which relative positions and relative speeds are determined in the transmitting vehicle 2 as foreign vehicle data of the foreign vehicles 3 , 5 , 6 , 7”), a relative foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section (See at least [0015] “the position of at least one foreign vehicle is determined as a relative position”); and
determining, by the detection device of the detector vehicle, the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section using the relative foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle and the ego driving speed of the detector vehicle (See at least [0016] “knowing the speed of the transmitting vehicle, it is also easily possible and makes sense to convert relative speeds of other vehicles into absolute speeds”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20210295685 A1), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses
A central computer comprising (See at least Fig. 1, Item 200, [0039] “transmit a radar detection result to the traffic management server 200”):
at least one processor (See at least [0018] “a computing device”); and
at least one memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the central computer to (See at least [0018] “According to at least one other example embodiment, a computer program stored in a medium including a sequence of instructions for traffic management that, when executed by a computing device, causes the computing device to:”):
receive traffic data (See at least [0018] “causes the computing device to: receive radar detection results from radars attached to a plurality of vehicles”); and
assign a speed profile to a route section based on the traffic data (See at least [0069] “Moreover, the calculation unit 390 may detect accident information for each lane by comparing the calculated average speed information and the calculated vehicle speed information for each lane.” See also [0069]-[0073] The Examiner notes that Lee discloses accident information as a speed profile.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enthaler, in view of Kutsuzawa (JP 2020194528 A), hereinafter Kutsuzawa.
Regarding claim 2, Enthaler, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Enthaler further discloses
the determining the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section according to the predetermined speed determination method includes: detecting, by the detection device of the detector vehicle (See at least [0026] “The environmental sensors expediently include radar sensors and imaging sensors, in particular cameras, with the help of which relative positions and relative speeds are determined in the transmitting vehicle 2 as foreign vehicle data of the foreign vehicles 3 , 5 , 6 , 7”), at least two absolute positions of the foreign vehicle in the route section (See at least [0015] “when the position of at least one foreign vehicle is determined as a relative position, the relative position is converted into the geodetic coordinate system”, [0018] “through data comparison, assigns repeatedly received positions and speeds of a specific motor vehicle to that specific motor vehicle.”); and,
Enthaler does not explicitly disclose determining, by the detection device of the detector vehicle, the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section from the at least two absolute positions of the foreign vehicle. However, Kutsuzawa, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
determining, by the detection device of the detector vehicle, the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section from the at least two absolute positions of the foreign vehicle (See at least “the analysis unit 102 calculates the vehicle speed of the other vehicle from the change in the absolute position of the other vehicle estimated for each frame of the video data.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the detection device disclosed by Enthaler with the speed calculation system disclosed by Kutsuzawa. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously quickly provide environment analysis (See at least “the accident analyzer 10 analyzes the information indicating the accident situation based on the vehicle data and the video data acquired from the vehicle C. This made it possible to quickly collate the accident situation”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enthaler, in view of Alakarhu (US 20220148320 A1), hereinafter Alakarhu.
Regarding claim 4, Enthaler, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 3. Enthaler further discloses
the determining the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section according to the predetermined speed determination method includes: detecting, by the detection device of the detector vehicle (See at least [0026] “The environmental sensors expediently include radar sensors and imaging sensors, in particular cameras, with the help of which relative positions and relative speeds are determined in the transmitting vehicle 2 as foreign vehicle data of the foreign vehicles 3 , 5 , 6 , 7”), at least two relative positions of the foreign vehicle related to the detector vehicle in the route section (See at least [0015] “when the position of at least one foreign vehicle is determined as a relative position”, [0018] “through data comparison, assigns repeatedly received positions and speeds of a specific motor vehicle to that specific motor vehicle.”); and,
Enthaler does not explicitly disclose determining, by the detection device of the detector vehicle, the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section using the at least two relative positions of the foreign vehicle and the ego driving speed of the detector vehicle. However, Alakarhu, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
determining, by the detection device of the detector vehicle, the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section using the at least two relative positions of the foreign vehicle and the ego driving speed of the detector vehicle (See at least claim 22 “calculate a relative speed of the license plate based on the relative positions of the license plate at the first position and the second position;” See also [0105]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the detection device disclosed by Enthaler with the speed calculation system disclosed by Alakarhu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously more easily compute data (See at least [0105] “At least one advantage is that the latter is easier to compute”).
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enthaler, in view of Lee.
Regarding claim 6, Enthaler, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Enthaler does not explicitly disclose the traffic data including the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle include a lane used by the foreign vehicle. However, Lee, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the traffic data including the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle include a lane used by the foreign vehicle (See at least Fig. 1, [0041] “the locations, speeds and the like of surrounding vehicles detected by the radar based on the lane information estimated by the camera can be transmitted to the traffic management server 200, and the traffic management server 200 can estimate the traffic volume and traffic flow for each lane”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the detection device disclosed by Enthaler with the lane management system disclosed by Lee. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously economically improve the efficiency of road use (See at least [0004] “a new alternative is proposed to economically narrow the gap between traffic demand and road supply by significantly improving the efficiency of road use by using technologies in other fields such as electronics, information, and communication”).
Regarding claim 8, Enthaler, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Enthaler further discloses
receiving, by the central computer external to the detector vehicle, the traffic data (See at least Fig. 1, [0025] “In order to obtain current traffic data, the motor vehicle 2 is designed as a transmitting vehicle which, according to arrow 8, can wirelessly transmit traffic information via a mobile network to a central data collection point 9, here a server 10.); and
Enthaler does not explicitly disclose assigning, by the central computer external to the detector vehicle, a speed profile to the route section based on the traffic data. However, Lee, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
assigning, by the central computer external to the detector vehicle, a speed profile to the route section based on the traffic data (See at least [0069] “Moreover, the calculation unit 390 may detect accident information for each lane by comparing the calculated average speed information and the calculated vehicle speed information for each lane.” See also [0069]-[0073] The Examiner notes that Lee discloses accident information as a speed profile.).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the detection device disclosed by Enthaler with the lane management system disclosed by Lee. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously economically improve the efficiency of road use (See at least [0004] “a new alternative is proposed to economically narrow the gap between traffic demand and road supply by significantly improving the efficiency of road use by using technologies in other fields such as electronics, information, and communication”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enthaler, in view of Qiao (US 20240011785 A1), hereinafter Qiao.
Regarding claim 7, Enthaler, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Enthaler does not explicitly disclose the traffic data comprising including the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle include a current speed limit of the route section. However, Qiao, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the traffic data comprising including the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle include a current speed limit of the route section (See at least Fig. 1, Items 110, 120, 135, [0235] “A collection device reports a displayed speed limit value of a variable speed limit sign to a server”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the detection device disclosed by Enthaler with the speed limit system disclosed by Qiao. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve safety (See at least [0015] “This helps reduce a vehicle speed of the second device in time in a case of poor visibility, thereby improving passing safety.”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enthaler, in view of Zhang (US 20200393261 A1), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 9, Enthaler, as shown below, discloses a detection system comprising the following limitations:
determine a foreign driving speed of a foreign vehicle in a route section according to a predetermined speed determination method (See at least Fig. 1, [0025] “the traffic information in this case contains not only, as is generally known, the position and speed of the transmitting vehicle 2, but also the positions and speeds of the other vehicles 3, 5, 6, and 7 detected by the environmental sensors of the transmitting vehicle 2,”); and,
send traffic data including the foreign driving speed of the foreign vehicle in the route section to a central computer external to a detector vehicle (See at least Fig. 1, [0025] “In order to obtain current traffic data, the motor vehicle 2 is designed as a transmitting vehicle which, according to arrow 8, can wirelessly transmit traffic information via a mobile network to a central data collection point 9, here a server 10. However, the traffic information in this case contains not only, as is generally known, the position and speed of the transmitting vehicle 2, but also the positions and speeds of the other vehicles 3, 5, 6, and 7 detected by the environmental sensors of the transmitting vehicle 2”)
Enthaler does not explicitly disclose at least one processor; and at least one memory storing program computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the detection device to. However, Zhang, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
at least one processor (See at least Fig. 22 [0291] “The example computer system 2200 includes a processor 2202”); and
at least one memory storing program computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the detection device to (See at least [0292] “The storage unit 2216 includes a machine-readable medium 2222 on which is stored instructions 2224 (e.g., software) embodying any one or more of the methodologies or functions described herein.”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the detection device disclosed by Enthaler with the processing system disclosed by Zhang. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously efficiently use existing computing resources (See at least [0119] “In some aspects, it can be beneficial for some or all of the components of the change detection system to be included at the vehicle 150 to take advantage of the computing power of the vehicle computing system 120”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Inoue (US 20220319322 A1) - A drive assist apparatus according to the present disclosure includes: a dynamic information acquisition unit acquiring, as dynamic information, at least one of subject vehicle dynamic information, the other vehicle dynamic information, and obstacle dynamic information from each of a plurality of vehicles; a map data acquisition unit acquiring map data including a shape of a traffic lane; a dynamic information management unit associating the dynamic information and the map data with each other and managing them; an interference prediction unit predicting whether or not the subject vehicle interferes with the other vehicle traveling in front of the subject vehicle along a traffic lane adjacent to a traffic lane along which the subject vehicle travels when the other vehicle avoids the obstacle based on the dynamic information and the map data; and a drive assist information generation unit generating drive assist information based on the predicted result.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, William J. Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648