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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention II in the reply filed on 01/14/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the invention is directed to a system to incorporate lane level road congestion to enhance vehicle navigation and includes two elements: determining that there is lane level road congestion (the assessment portion 18, divided into three evaluations at paras. [0037]-[0049]) and using the determination of lane level road congestion to enhance navigation (components A-D at paras. [0050]-[0067]). This is not found persuasive because the inventions were related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination and there would have been serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required. The requirement was deemed proper. However, Applicant’s remarks and present claim amendments are acknowledged that, in order to more particularly claim the invention, claims 1 and 10 are cancelled, and claims 2-8 and 18 are amended to depend on claim 17. The present pending claims, drawn to a single invention, include independent claim 11 and dependent claims 2-9, 12-20. Accordingly, the previous requirement for restriction/election filed 12/02/2025 is withdrawn in light of the present claim amendments.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 8, Fig. 9, and Fig. 10 would be better understood with descriptive text labels for diagrams and flowcharts that require text for understanding. For instance, Fig. 1 appears to include text labeling. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: a first or component A to issue…; a second or component B to perform…; a third or component C to perform…; a fourth or component D directed to maintaining…; component A further includes: providing…; component D further includes: identifying…; component D further includes: operating…initiating…; component D further includes: modifying…; component C further includes: performing…; component C further includes: applying… in claims 2-8, 17-20.
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. Specification Fig. 1 (32) and (56), [0043]: Following generation and collection of data by the first system section 12, additional analyses are performed by a second system section 32 which is located in the host vehicle 14. The first system section 12 communicates data with the second system section 32, [0045]: second system section 32 is a vehicle navigation system 56 in communication with map 24.
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.
Claim(s) 2-9, 14, 17-20 is/are 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.
Regarding Claim 9, claim 9 recites the limitation “performing a trade-off analysis between a shortest travel time having multiple vehicle lane changes to accomplish to minimize an impact of one or more road congestion locations ahead of the host vehicle, and a customer comfort maximized by minimizing a quantity of the vehicle lane changes and by a trade-off through a utility function combing the travel time or the estimated time of arrival and the customer comfort together”. It is unclear to whether “a trade-off analysis” is the same or different trade-off analysis previously introduced in claim 11. The metes and bounds of the term “combing” are unclear. Accordingly, the term “combing” is interpreted as “combining”. Specification paras. [0012], [0054] also appear to recite “combing”.
Regarding Claim 14, the term “sooner” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sooner” is not defined by the claim but for sooner in time, the specification ([0018], [0057]) does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding Claims 2-8, 17-20, claim limitations” a first or component A to issue…; a second or component B to perform…; a third or component C to perform…; a fourth or component D directed to maintaining…; component A further includes: providing…; component D further includes: identifying…; component D further includes: operating…initiating…; component D further includes: modifying…; component C further includes: performing…; component C further includes: applying…” in claims 2-8, 17-20 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification and drawings indicate that components A-D are of the vehicle navigation system (56) within second system section (32). The specification recites a computer (22) within a first system section (12); however, the first system section (12) appears separate from the second system section (32). The specification does not appear to disclose the structure such as a processor to perform the claimed functions of components A-D (see at least Fig. 1 (32) and (56), [0042]: computer 22 is a non-generalized, electronic control device having a preprogrammed digital controller or processor, [0043]: Following generation and collection of data by the first system section 12, additional analyses are performed by a second system section 32 which is located in the host vehicle 14. The first system section 12 communicates data with the second system section 32, [0045]: second system section 32 is a vehicle navigation system 56 in communication with map 24). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 2, 9, 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See 2019 PEG.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will 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 judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See 2019 PEG.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 11 is directed to a method and is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim(s) 11 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 11 recites:
conducting an analysis of current distribution of multiple vehicles in front of or proximate to a host vehicle traveling on a road having multiple vehicle lanes;
assessing a vehicle clustering of at least one of the multiple vehicle lanes forward of the host vehicle;
comparing results of the analysis and the vehicle clustering to a non-congested vehicle lane profile to distinguish a lane level distribution of the multiple vehicles in front of or proximate to the host vehicle;
generating a prediction of at least one congested lane ahead of the host vehicle using the lane level distribution; and
carrying out a trade-off analysis providing an estimated travel time (TT) of the host vehicle to a predetermined destination including predicting a total quantity of lane change maneuvers required by the host vehicle to minimize interaction with the at least one congested lane until reaching the predetermined destination.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the limitation(s) in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing traffic among multiple lanes and identifying vehicles proximate to a host vehicle, observing a grouping of vehicles, comparing traffic among the multiple lanes, determining if a lane has a traffic jam, determining an optimal path and estimating a travel time based on a predicted number of maneuvers to avoid the congested lane.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitation” while the bolded portions continue to represent the abstract idea):
Claim 11 recites:
conducting an analysis of a current distribution of multiple vehicles in front of or proximate to a host vehicle traveling on a road having multiple vehicle lanes;
assessing a vehicle clustering of at least one of the multiple vehicle lanes forward of the host vehicle;
comparing results of the analysis and the vehicle clustering to a non-congested vehicle lane profile to distinguish a lane level distribution of the multiple vehicles in front of or proximate to the host vehicle;
generating a prediction of at least one congested lane ahead of the host vehicle using the lane level distribution; and
carrying out a trade-off analysis providing an estimated travel time (TT) of the host vehicle to a predetermined destination including predicting a total quantity of lane change maneuvers required by the host vehicle to minimize interaction with the at least one congested lane until reaching the predetermined destination.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 11 does not appear to recite additional elements. However, analysis and generating performed by a computer and sensors to collect the vehicle clustering data would be interpreted as additional elements that provide no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, use a conventional computer to perform the process, and perform mere data gathering. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. The additional limitation steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data to assess the data, transmitting signals, outputting), and amounts to mere data gathering, storing, transmitting, and outputting that do not add a meaningful limitation to the process (MPEP 2106.05(g) v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754), which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activities. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations merely describe how to generally apply the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle environment. The additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. Accordingly additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Claim 11 does not appear to recite additional elements. However, a computer conducting an analysis and generating and sensors to collect the vehicle clustering data would be interpreted as additional elements that merely use a computer to perform the process and perform mere data gathering would not amount to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that sensors collecting data and displaying are insignificant extra-solution activities in Step 2A are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, INC., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network, receiving or transmitting data over a network, and storing and retrieving information in memory are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBGLLC, 921 F.3d1084,1093(Fed. Cir.2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 9, 12-17 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional limitations amounting to mere data gathering and displaying are recited at a high level of generality and are forms of insignificant extra-solution activities; mere data gathering and displaying are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the specification does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than a conventional computer components and the court cases cited below. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, INC., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Further, mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, dependent claims 2, 9, 12-17 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claim.
For purposes of compact prosecution and by example only, amending the claim to incorporate claim language similar to dependent claim 3 regarding wherein component D includes: operating sensors of the host vehicle to detect a lead actor vehicle; and initiating a deceleration of the host vehicle upon initial detection of the lead actor vehicle would appear to overcome the instant 35 USC 101 rejection.
Therefore, claim(s) 2, 9, 11-17 is/are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-9, 11-20 would be allowable if the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is overcome and if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
US 20200035092 (Rajab ‘092) discloses a method to incorporate road congestion for enhanced vehicle navigation, comprising:
conducting an analysis of a current distribution of multiple vehicles in front of or proximate to a host vehicle traveling on a road having multiple vehicle lanes (see at least Rajab ‘092 [0041]: crowd-sourcing vehicle data from and/or about remote vehicles, [0059]: data receiving module 224 can receive vehicle data about one or more of the remote vehicles travelling along the road segment 102 (e.g., the host vehicle 114, the remote vehicle 116a, the remote vehicle 116b, the remote vehicle 116c, the remote vehicle 116d, the remote vehicle 116e, the remote vehicle 116f, and the remote vehicle 116g), Fig. 1: lanes j1-j4, [0061]: at block 306, the method 300 includes data integration of vehicle data into the plurality of lanes and inter-lane zones partitioned at block 302);
assessing a vehicle clustering of at least one of the multiple vehicle lanes forward of the host vehicle (see at least Rajab ‘092 [0062]: at block 308, the method 300 includes calculating a flow factor for each lane in a next inter-lane zone. For example, suppose the host vehicle 114 is in the buffer zone 104 such that the next zone is the implementation zone 106. A flow factor may be calculated for each of the lanes j.sub.1, j.sub.2, j.sub.3, and j.sub.4 in the implementation zone 106. The flow factor indicates how traffic is flowing in the associated lane);
comparing results of the analysis and the vehicle clustering to a non-congested vehicle lane profile to distinguish a lane level distribution of the multiple vehicles in front of or proximate to the host vehicle (see at least Rajab ‘092 [0062]: at block 308, the method 300 includes calculating a flow factor for each lane in a next inter-lane zone. For example, suppose the host vehicle 114 is in the buffer zone 104 such that the next zone is the implementation zone 106. A flow factor may be calculated for each of the lanes j.sub.1, j.sub.2, j.sub.3, and j.sub.4 in the implementation zone 106. The flow factor indicates how traffic is flowing in the associated lane…flow factor may also be the downstream lane-level density, [0063]: lane selection module 228 may compare the calculated flow factors for each of the lanes to a desired kinematic factor such as the desired speed of the host vehicle, [0064]: flow factor approximates the desired kinematic factor when the desired kinematic factor falls within the range of the flow factor);
determining at least one congested lane ahead of the host vehicle using the lane level distribution (see at least Rajab ‘092 claim 10: a flow factor of the current lane indicates that traffic flow in the current lane is slower downstream than a desired speed of the host vehicle).
Rajab ‘092 discloses enabling cooperative smart lane selection to achieve accurate measurements which leads to higher prediction accuracy and shorter reaction time and determining that traffic flow in a current lane is slower than a desired speed of the host vehicle (claim 10: a flow factor of the current lane indicates that traffic flow in the current lane is slower downstream than a desired speed of the host vehicle), but Rajab ‘092 does not explicitly disclose generating a prediction and carrying out a trade-off analysis providing an estimated travel time (TT) of the host vehicle to a predetermined destination including predicting a total quantity of lane change maneuvers required by the host vehicle to minimize interaction with the at least one congested lane until reaching the predetermined destination.
US 20190329770 (Rajab ‘770) discloses a lane hazard prediction including receiving vehicle data from a plurality of vehicles, determining a plurality of lane level cells which include a particular portion of a lane in the plurality of lanes, and determining a probability that a hazard exists with respect to the lane level cell based on vehicle data associated with the lane level cell, an adjacent upstream cell, and an adjacent downstream cell (see at least abstract, [0049]: average speed of the cell, [0050]: identify lane hazard patterns and detect lane hazards by the lane hazard pattern recognition module 228 at block 310…visualizes lane change maneuvers for vehicles, [0051]: detecting a lane hazard, [0053]: probability that a hazard happened in each cell, [0054]: average speed ratio between cell (i, j) and all the lanes at the same longitudinal segment as cell (i, j)), but Rajab ‘770 does not explicitly disclose a non-congested vehicle lane profile and carrying out a trade-off analysis providing an estimated travel time (TT) of the host vehicle to a predetermined destination including predicting a total quantity of lane change maneuvers required by the host vehicle to minimize interaction with the at least one congested lane until reaching the predetermined destination.
US 20250100553 (Cardinal) discloses generating a prediction of at least one congested lane ahead of the host vehicle and discloses determining an estimated time of arrival for the host vehicle to arrive at its destination under current traffic patterns (see at least [0043]: deceleration reduction system may recommend that the vehicle moves into the lane having an average speed which is closest to the speed of the vehicle…minimizes the total number of lane changes by other vehicles which can lead to deceleration events on the road segment causing a traffic jam, [0097]: generated set of features may then be used as training data to train a machine learning model(s) to estimate the expected traffic slowdown for a cluster of vehicles on a road segment (block 808), [0099]: deceleration reduction engine 68 may then obtain a set of features using current vehicle data for a cluster of vehicles currently on the road segment, where the slowdown time is unknown, [0100]: machine learning model(s) may then provide an expected slowdown time for the vehicles in the cluster if the vehicles proceed in the current manner, for example with a confidence score. The deceleration reduction engine 68 may use the expected slowdown time to determine a first ETA for the vehicle 12 to arrive at its destination under the current traffic patterns), but Cardinal does not explicitly disclose generating a prediction of at least one congested lane ahead of the host vehicle using the lane level distribution based on comparing results of the analysis and the vehicle clustering to a non-congested vehicle lane profile to distinguish a lane level distribution.
US 9672734 (Ratnasingam) discloses generating a prediction of at least one congested lane ahead of the host vehicle and discloses determining lane information for a first vehicle to inform a driver of the first vehicle whether a change of lane is required and a lane to avoid driving in a current road segment to minimize travel time (see at least Ratnasingam column 42 lines 29-39: future traffic condition may be obtained by predicting the traffic flow of vehicles based on the current and past speed, trajectory of vehicles in the neighboring road segments…apply an appropriate machine learning or pattern recognition algorithm…to predict the traffic in the next road segment or any future road segment of a vehicle's route based at least on the navigation data of vehicles, column 43 lines 49-53: determines lane information for the first vehicle such that to inform the driver of the first vehicle at least one of (a) whether a change of lane is required and (b) a lane to avoid driving in the current road segment to minimize travel time), but Ratnasingam does not explicitly disclose generating a prediction of at least one congested lane ahead of the host vehicle using the lane level distribution based on comparing results of the analysis and the vehicle clustering to a non-congested vehicle lane profile to distinguish a lane level distribution.
US 20240067227 (Goto) discloses a vehicle control device including a processor configured to calculate an average speed of a vehicle traveling in a traffic lane and discloses a non-congested vehicle lane defined by a traffic lane average speed ([0080] If the traffic lane average speed is not at or below the reference speed value set for each traffic lane (step S301—No), on the other hand, the state estimating unit 231 determines that the traffic lane is not congested (step S303)), but Goto is directed to deciding to drive the vehicle by automatic control when a traveling road as a whole is congested and Goto does not explicitly disclose generating a prediction and carrying out a trade-off analysis providing an estimated travel time (TT) of the host vehicle to a predetermined destination including predicting a total quantity of lane change maneuvers required by the host vehicle to minimize interaction with the at least one congested lane until reaching the predetermined destination.
US 20130275033 (Bastiaensen) discloses using historical lane speed information to determine the timing for a lane selection instruction, for example, when to move to an exit lane, as congestion patterns may be generally predictable and to use real time information in providing lane guidance to negotiate incidents (abstract: lane speed profiles are determined using real-time vehicle probe data, [0061] road section is a road section along which traffic flow speed has been found to regularly be less than a given threshold value of a maximum theoretical speed for the road section at least for a time period when the lane guidance is provided, [0063] using lane speed information in the form of lane speed profiles relating to two different lanes of the plurality of lanes, [0075] system may take into account lane speeds i.e. traffic flow rates in the road ahead to determine a timing for providing a lane selection instruction, [0077]: determined timing for the lane selection instruction may then be a timing which is determined to result in the quickest travel through the road section. For example, the instruction may prompt the user to move to a lane which has a higher lane speed through the section, or to stay in a current lane for longer. An instruction to maintain a current lane may be provided at the earliest opportunity to avoid unnecessary or excessive lane changes by the user, [0089] While the use of real-time lane speed information is preferable in embodiments of the invention, it will be appreciated that traffic levels in lanes may follow similar patterns each day. Thus historical lane speed information may be used to determine the timing for a lane selection instruction, e.g. when to move to an exit lane, as congestion patterns may be generally predictable. The use of real time information is useful in providing lane guidance to negotiate incidents.), but Bastiaensen does not explicitly disclose generating a prediction of at least one congested lane ahead of the host vehicle using the lane level distribution based on comparing results of the analysis and the vehicle clustering to a non-congested vehicle lane profile to distinguish a lane level distribution.
US 20070050133 (Yoshikawa) discloses a current road link with two or more lanes in each direction and detecting a congestion degree of lanes available for vehicles to travel (see at least Fig. 1, [0042]: detect the congestion degree of lanes available for vehicles to travel in the direction in which the user's vehicle is traveling) and discloses calculating a number of lane changes needed to make a left or right turn (see at least [0048]: number of lane changes, [0052]: step 114), but Yoshikawa does not explicitly disclose generating a prediction of at least one congested lane ahead of the host vehicle using the lane level distribution.
US 20260009653 (Liu) discloses determining a lane-level topology of a road between a current location and a target location and discloses determining a lane change cost based on a quantity of lane changes, where the lane change cost indicates impact of a lane change on traveling safety and comfort (see at least [0026]: lane-level topology, [0027]: lane change cost, [0085]: where the lane change cost indicates impact of the lane change on traveling safety and comfort), but Liu does not explicitly disclose generating a prediction of at least one congested lane ahead of the host vehicle using the lane level distribution based on comparing results of the analysis and the vehicle clustering to a non-congested vehicle lane profile to distinguish a lane level distribution.
The prior art taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to disclose, suggest, teach, or render obvious the invention as a whole: A method to incorporate road congestion for enhanced vehicle navigation, comprising:
conducting an analysis of a current distribution of multiple vehicles in front of or proximate to a host vehicle traveling on a road having multiple vehicle lanes;
assessing a vehicle clustering of at least one of the multiple vehicle lanes forward of the host vehicle;
comparing results of the analysis and the vehicle clustering to a non-congested vehicle lane profile to distinguish a lane level distribution of the multiple vehicles in front of or proximate to the host vehicle;
generating a prediction of at least one congested lane ahead of the host vehicle using the lane level distribution; and
carrying out a trade-off analysis providing an estimated travel time (TT) of the host vehicle to a predetermined destination including predicting a total quantity of lane change maneuvers required by the host vehicle to minimize interaction with the at least one congested lane until reaching the predetermined destination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELINA M SHUDY whose telephone number is (571)272-6757. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10am - 6pm.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/Angelina M Shudy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights