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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 17, 2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 17, 2026 was filed before the mailing date of this non-final action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-21 were previously pending and subject to a final rejection dated October 17, 2025. Applicant submitted a Response After Final on December 17, 2025, in which claims 1, 12, and 20 were amended. Applicant then submitted an RCE on March 17, 2026. Therefore, claims 1-21 are currently pending and subject to the below non-final rejection.
Response to Arguments
§ 103:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 20 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 recites, “while operating in the first RUC zone by accessing the data storage and one or more in-vehicle sensors” (emphasis added). It appears that the antecedent basis for this limitation is “a vehicle comprising a processor connected over an in-vehicle network to retrieve in- vehicle data from a vehicle data storage and one or more in-vehicle sensors” (emphasis added). As such, the claim should read, “while operating in the first RUC zone by accessing the vehicle data storage and one or more in-vehicle sensors” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to by virtue of dependency on claim 20.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claims
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 1:
Independent claim 1 recites, transmitting a first message comprising location data indicating the vehicle has entered a first RUC zone;
collecting RUC- related data for the vehicle while operating in the first RUC zone by accessing in-vehicle data;
transmitting a second message comprising the RUC-related data for the vehicle while operating in the first RUC zone; and
receiving a third message comprising a RUC report which lists a first road usage charge for viewing by an operator of the vehicle, where the first road usage charge is based on the RUC-related data for the vehicle while operating in the first RUC zone.
Independent claim 12 recites, receiving a first message from a vehicle with location data indicating the vehicle has entered into a first RUC zone associated with the RMSS;
Receiving one or more second messages from the vehicle with RUC- related data collected by the vehicle while operating in the first RUC zone;
calculating a first road usage charge for the vehicle operating in the first RUC zone based on the RUC-related data contained in the one or more second messages; and
generating a RUC report which lists the first road usage charge for the vehicle operating in the first RUC zone.
Independent claim 20 recites, retrieve in- vehicle data
dynamically adjust road use charges using in-vehicle data,
transmits a first message comprising location data indicating the vehicle has entered into a first RUC zone and also periodically transmits additional messages comprising RUC-related data for the vehicle while operating in the first RUC zone, and
receives a third message comprising a road usage charge for the vehicle to operate in the first RUC zone that is calculated based on the RUC-related data periodically transmitted in the additional messages.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including sales activities or behaviors, or business relations). Specifically, calculating a road usage charge for a vehicle is establishing business relationships and performing sales activities (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations include mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) because they can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Specifically, claims to collect RUC-related data and calculate a road usage charge can all be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 12, and 20 as a whole amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”; or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Independent claims 1, 12, and 20 recite the following additional elements to perform the above recited steps: a vehicle processor (claims 1 and 20), a remote road usage charging (RUC) managed services server (RMSS) (claims 1 and 12), an RUC application program executing on the vehicle processor (claim 1), an in-vehicle data storage device (claims 1 and 12), a vehicle comprising a processor connected over an in-vehicle network (claim 20), a vehicle data storage (claim 20), the vehicle is wirelessly coupled to communicate with a RUC authority computer (claim 20). These additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, and are recited at a high level of generality. As such, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites the additional element of a geofence. This additional element is described at high level of generality such that, when viewed as a whole, the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., identifying proximity to a particular location).
Furthermore, claims 1, 12, and 20 recite the additional element of one or more in- vehicle sensors. This additional element is described at high level of generality such that, when viewed as a whole, the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., collecting vehicle data).
Individually and as a whole, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the claims do not: improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter; amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
Independent claims 1, 12, and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Alone or in combination, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 6, 8-11, 14-19, and 21 recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations without reciting any additional elements. They are therefore, ineligible for the reasons as discussed above with respect to independent claims 1, 12, and 20. The additional elements in claims 2-5, 7, and 13 are discussed below.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
Dependent claims 2, 7, and 13, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea. Claims 2, 7, and 16 also recite the additional elements of transmits the first message wirelessly to the remote RMSS (claim 2), a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) sensor coupled to the vehicle processor (claim 7), and a wireless network connecting the vehicle to the RMSS (claim 13). Each of these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims 3-5 recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea. Claims 3-5 also recite the additional elements of an in-vehicle location sensor to detect if the vehicle is driving in an environmentally sensitive RUC zone (claim 3), an in-vehicle sensor to detect if the vehicle is towing a trailer (claim 4), and an in-vehicle camera sensor or seatbelt sensor (claim 5). These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., collecting vehicle data) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
With respect to claims 2, 7, and 13, as discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., applying the exception using a generic computer component, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of transmits the first message wirelessly to the remote RMSS (claim 2), a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) sensor coupled to the vehicle processor (claim 7), and a wireless network connecting the vehicle to the RMSS (claim 13), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2, 7, and 13 are also ineligible.
With respect to claims 3-5, as discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of an in-vehicle location sensor to detect if the vehicle is driving in an environmentally sensitive RUC zone (claim 3), an in-vehicle sensor to detect if the vehicle is towing a trailer (claim 4), and an in-vehicle camera sensor or seatbelt sensor (claim 5), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 3-5 are also ineligible.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1, 2, 5, 7, 12-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0030882 to Davis, III et al. (Davis, III) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0334920 to London et al. (London).
As to claim 1, Davis, III teaches, transmitting, by a vehicle processor to a remote road (“… Once identified, the driver can be billed for tolls and other road services, based on the location of the smart vehicle …” and “… If the measured GPS coordinates fall within the geo-fence, then the appropriate location is determined and recorded. The location can also be determined by communicating with roadside NFC transceivers positioned in the location, for instance, alongside an HOV lane. The transceiver on the smart vehicle communicates with the NFC transceivers to retrieve the particular location. The smart vehicle then transmits the unique identification and the location to a network or billing server S345 …” [0028 and 0044]);
collecting, by an RUC application program executing on the vehicle processor, (“The smart vehicle also determines a location of vehicle 100, according to this exemplary embodiment of the present invention. This determination may be performed via a GPS unit located in vehicle 100, or via a GPS unit located on a wireless communication device in communication with vehicle 100 …” and “… Once it is determined that the location is a toll location, the smart vehicle determines if there are any passengers in the vehicle S561. This is determined by detecting the presence and identities of the wireless communication devices inside the smart vehicle …” and “Smart vehicle 1100 further includes a weight scale 1116 coupled to driver seat 1110. Weight scale 1116 determines a weight of a driver …” and “… In this embodiment, wire harness 1392 can further provide an interface to various sensors within the vehicle, such as speedometers, external transceivers, biometric/weight sensors embedded in the seats, etc. …” [0038 and 0049 and 0062-0064 and 0067] Examiner notes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, both the vehicle location and number of passengers in the vehicle can be considered “toll-related data”. Examiner further notes that, while Davis, III [0049] describes using the wireless communication devices to determine if there are any passengers inside the smart vehicle while at a toll location (i.e., while operating in the first toll area), Davis, III [0062-0064] teaches the use of secondary sensors and weight scales (i.e., one or more in-vehicle sensors) as an alternative to using wireless communication devices to determine the number of passengers);
transmitting, by the vehicle processor to the remote RMSS, a second message comprising the (“… Alternatively, the smart vehicle can constantly transmit a location to a server on the network, and a determination is made at the network whether or not to bill the driver …” and “… If a passenger count does not meet the minimum requirements of the HOV lane, then a notification may be transmitted to the appropriate authorities, or to a billing server …” and “The smart vehicle can transmit to the billing server several details that can be used to determine the amount for the toll or lane use fee. A location, a passenger count, speed, and distance driven on a lane are used to calculate a total fee …” [0038 and 0053 and 0056]);
and receiving, at the vehicle processor, a third message from the remote RMSS comprising a RUC report which lists a first road usage charge for viewing by an operator of the vehicle, where the first road usage charge is based on the (“… The user is then billed by debiting the account or by sending a bill to the user's address as stored in the user account” and “… If there are passengers in the smart vehicle, then a request is submitted to the passengers, as well as the driver, to pay the toll S562. This may be accomplished by transmitting a request to the wireless communication device of each of the occupants, i.e. via a text message, or by communicating with an application installed on the occupants' cellular telephones. The request can also be displayed on an in-dash display within smart vehicle …” and “… The receipt can be transmitted to a driver's wireless communication device, or to a dashboard display in the smart vehicle” [0039-0041 and 0049 and 0056] Examiner notes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of Applicant’s specification, this limitation is interpreted to mean that the RUC-related data is collected while the vehicle is operating in the first RUC zone, not that the third message must be sent while operating in the first RUC zone).
While Davis, III [0028] teaches billing for tolls and “other road services”, Davis, III does not explicitly teach road usage charging. However, London teaches that road services includes road usage charging (“… As described in greater detail further below, in various embodiments, the communications system 10 provides for dynamic data collection from a built-in system within the vehicle 12 with respect to regulated roadways on which the vehicle 12 travels, such as toll roads, road usage charge (RUC) roads (e.g., in certain states that collect a tax on total miles travelled by a vehicle on public roads, RUC roads would include any public roads in that state), high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, and/or roads with designated parking areas” and “… In certain embodiments in which the regulated roadway comprises a road usage charge (RUC) road, the transmission may include to a distance that the vehicle 12 has travelled throughout one or more RUC roads (e.g., in certain embodiments, throughout any public roads in states charging RUC road fees) …” [0029 and 0066]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the road usage charging of London for the other road services of Davis, III. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of London that doing so would provide improved methods and systems for collecting and utilizing data for vehicles that travel on regulated roadways [0003].
While Davis, III [060] teaches, an in-vehicle data storage device, Davis, III does not teach, collecting, by an RUC application program executing on the vehicle processor, RUC-related data for the vehicle while operating in the first RUC zone by accessing an in-vehicle data storage device. However, London teaches, collecting, by an RUC application program executing on the vehicle processor, RUC-related data for the vehicle while operating in the first RUC zone by accessing an in-vehicle data storage device (“Also in various embodiments, vehicle location data is obtained at 308. In various embodiments, the vehicle location data information as to the geographic location of the vehicle 12 as it travels along a roadway. In various embodiments, the vehicle location data includes geographic coordinates for the vehicle 12 along with map information (e.g., from a computer memory) corresponding to the geographic coordinates, including map information pertaining to regulated roadways (e.g., toll roads, RUC roads, HOV lanes, and roads with designated parking areas) through which the vehicle 12 travels …” and “Data monitoring continues at 316 while the vehicle remains within the geo-fence. Specifically, in various embodiments, the vehicle data of 304 (including the vehicle occupant data of 306 and the vehicle location data of 308 continues to be collected so long as the vehicle 12 is travelling through (or otherwise is remaining within) the regulated roadway, using the GPS system 42 and the occupant sensors 72 of FIG. 1.” [0057-0059 and 0062]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, collecting, by an RUC application program executing on the vehicle processor, RUC-related data for the vehicle while operating in the first RUC zone by accessing an in-vehicle data storage device, as taught by London with the toll calculation of Davis, III. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of London that doing so would provide improved methods and systems for collecting and utilizing data for vehicles that travel on regulated roadways [0003].
As to claim 2, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Davis, III further teaches, wherein the vehicle processor transmits the first message wirelessly to the remote RMSS (“… Transceiver 106 allows vehicle 100 to wirelessly communicate with other devices on a network, for instance a personal area network within vehicle 100, a near-field communication (NFC) transceiver outside vehicle 100, other wireless devices, and so on …” [0036]).
As to claim 5, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Davis, III does not teach, where collecting RUC-related data for the vehicle comprises accessing an in-vehicle camera sensor or seatbelt sensor to detect a number of vehicle passengers. However, London teaches, where collecting RUC-related data for the vehicle comprises accessing an in-vehicle camera sensor or seatbelt sensor to detect a number of vehicle passengers (“In various embodiments, the occupant sensors 76 detect occupants inside the vehicle 12, preferably including data representative of how many occupants are inside the vehicle 12 at any particular point in time. In certain embodiments, the occupant sensors 76 comprise weight sensors configured to assess a weight or load on each of a plurality of passenger seats within the vehicle 12. In certain other embodiments, the occupant sensors 76 may detect occupants via one or more other different sensing techniques, such as, by way of example: detecting occupants via one or more image sensors, detection sensors, and/or light-sensitive sensors (e.g., a camera, radar, lidar, and the like) and/or detecting occupants via engagement of occupant apparatus (e.g., occupant seat belts), and so on” [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, where collecting RUC-related data for the vehicle comprises accessing an in-vehicle camera sensor or seatbelt sensor to detect a number of vehicle passengers, as taught by London with the toll calculation of Davis, III. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of London that doing so would provide improved methods and systems for collecting and utilizing data for vehicles that travel on regulated roadways [0003].
As to claim 7, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Davis, III further teaches, where the vehicle processor identifies the location data by accessing a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) sensor coupled to the vehicle processor (“The smart vehicle also determines a location of vehicle 100, according to this exemplary embodiment of the present invention. This determination may be performed via a GPS unit located in vehicle 100, or via a GPS unit located on a wireless communication device in communication with vehicle 100 …” [0038]).
As to claim 12, Davis, III teaches, receiving, by a road (“… Once identified, the driver can be billed for tolls and other road services, based on the location of the smart vehicle …” and “… If the measured GPS coordinates fall within the geo-fence, then the appropriate location is determined and recorded. The location can also be determined by communicating with roadside NFC transceivers positioned in the location, for instance, alongside an HOV lane. The transceiver on the smart vehicle communicates with the NFC transceivers to retrieve the particular location. The smart vehicle then transmits the unique identification and the location to a network or billing server S345 …” [0028 and 0044]);
receiving, by the RMSS, one or more second messages from the vehicle with RUC- related data collected by the vehicle while operating in the first RUC zone by accessing one or more in-vehicle sensors (“… Alternatively, the smart vehicle can constantly transmit a location to a server on the network, and a determination is made at the network whether or not to bill the driver …” and “… If a passenger count does not meet the minimum requirements of the HOV lane, then a notification may be transmitted to the appropriate authorities, or to a billing server …” and “The smart vehicle can transmit to the billing server several details that can be used to determine the amount for the toll or lane use fee …” [0038 and 0053 and 0056]);
calculating, by the RMSS, a first road usage charge for the vehicle operating in the first RUC zone based on the RUC-related data contained in the one or more second messages (“… The smart vehicle can transmit to the billing server several details that can be used to determine the amount for the toll or lane use fee. A location, a passenger count, speed, and distance driven on a lane are used to calculate a total fee …” [0054-0058]);
and generating, by the RMSS, a RUC report which lists the first road usage charge for the vehicle operating in the first RUC zone (“… The user is then billed by debiting the account or by sending a bill to the user's address as stored in the user account” and “… If there are passengers in the smart vehicle, then a request is submitted to the passengers, as well as the driver, to pay the toll S562. This may be accomplished by transmitting a request to the wireless communication device of each of the occupants, i.e. via a text message, or by communicating with an application installed on the occupants' cellular telephones. The request can also be displayed on an in-dash display within smart vehicle …” and “… The receipt can be transmitted to a driver's wireless communication device, or to a dashboard display in the smart vehicle” [0038-0044 and 0049 and 0056]).
While Davis, III [0028] teaches billing for tolls and “other road services”, Davis, III does not explicitly teach road usage charging. However, London teaches that road services includes road usage charging (“… As described in greater detail further below, in various embodiments, the communications system 10 provides for dynamic data collection from a built-in system within the vehicle 12 with respect to regulated roadways on which the vehicle 12 travels, such as toll roads, road usage charge (RUC) roads (e.g., in certain states that collect a tax on total miles travelled by a vehicle on public roads, RUC roads would include any public roads in that state), high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, and/or roads with designated parking areas” and “… In certain embodiments in which the regulated roadway comprises a road usage charge (RUC) road, the transmission may include to a distance that the vehicle 12 has travelled throughout one or more RUC roads (e.g., in certain embodiments, throughout any public roads in states charging RUC road fees) …” [0029 and 0066]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the road usage charging of London for the other road services of Davis, III. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of London that doing so would provide improved methods and systems for collecting and utilizing data for vehicles that travel on regulated roadways [0003].
While Davis, III [060] teaches, an in-vehicle data storage device, Davis, III does not teach, receiving, by the RMSS, one or more second messages from the vehicle with RUC- related data collected by the vehicle while operating in the first RUC zone by accessing an in-vehicle data storage device. However, London teaches, receiving, by the RMSS, one or more second messages from the vehicle with RUC- related data collected by the vehicle while operating in the first RUC zone by accessing an in-vehicle data storage device (“Also in various embodiments, vehicle location data is obtained at 308. In various embodiments, the vehicle location data information as to the geographic location of the vehicle 12 as it travels along a roadway. In various embodiments, the vehicle location data includes geographic coordinates for the vehicle 12 along with map information (e.g., from a computer memory) corresponding to the geographic coordinates, including map information pertaining to regulated roadways (e.g., toll roads, RUC roads, HOV lanes, and roads with designated parking areas) through which the vehicle 12 travels …” and “Data monitoring continues at 316 while the vehicle remains within the geo-fence. Specifically, in various embodiments, the vehicle data of 304 (including the vehicle occupant data of 306 and the vehicle location data of 308 continues to be collected so long as the vehicle 12 is travelling through (or otherwise is remaining within) the regulated roadway, using the GPS system 42 and the occupant sensors 72 of FIG. 1.” [0057-0059 and 0062]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, receiving, by the RMSS, one or more second messages from the vehicle with RUC- related data collected by the vehicle while operating in the first RUC zone by accessing an in-vehicle data storage device, as taught by London with the toll calculation of Davis, III. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of London that doing so would provide improved methods and systems for collecting and utilizing data for vehicles that travel on regulated roadways [0003].
As to claim 13, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. Davis, III further teaches, wherein the RMSS receives the first message and the one or more second messages over a wireless network connecting the vehicle to the RMSS (“… Transceiver 106 allows vehicle 100 to wirelessly communicate with other devices on a network, for instance a personal area network within vehicle 100, a near-field communication (NFC) transceiver outside vehicle 100, other wireless devices, and so on …” [0036-0039]).
As to claim 14, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. Davis, III further teaches, where the RUC-related data collected by the vehicle indicates if the vehicle is driving in an environmentally sensitive RUC zone, or if the vehicle is driving in a high occupancy vehicle lane, or if the vehicle is towing a trailer, or if a number of vehicle passengers exceeds a predetermined number of passengers, or if the vehicle exceeds a weight limit or axel count limit, or if the vehicle is a low- emission vehicle (“A "location", as used herein and throughout this disclosure, is any physical location on an identifiable route or path (such as a road or waterway) that is specially designated for a purpose. An HOV lane can be a location …” and “As mentioned above, the present invention also allows billing a driver or passenger for using an HOV lane. Geo-fencing can be used to define the boundaries of the HOV lane …” [0034 and 0051-0053])
As to claim 20, Davis, III teaches, a vehicle comprising a processor connected over an in-vehicle network to retrieve in- vehicle data from (“FIG. 1 shows a smart vehicle, according to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention. In this embodiment, the smart vehicle is a vehicle 100, including a central processing unit (CPU) 102, a memory 104 storing a client logic 105, a transceiver 106, an antenna 108, a driver seat 110, and passenger seats 112 …” and “FIG. 8 shows a method for billing a driver of a smart vehicle on an HOV lane, according to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention …” and “… However, in the case that an identity of a driver cannot be ascertained, smart vehicle 1100 includes a plurality of secondary sensors …” [0036 and 0054-0058 and 0060-0064]),
wherein the vehicle processor transmits a first message to the RUC authority computer comprising location data accessed by an in-vehicle location sensor indicating the vehicle has entered into a first RUC zone associated with the RUC authority computer (“… If the measured GPS coordinates fall within the geo-fence, then the appropriate location is determined and recorded. The location can also be determined by communicating with roadside NFC transceivers positioned in the location, for instance, alongside an HOV lane. The transceiver on the smart vehicle communicates with the NFC transceivers to retrieve the particular location. The smart vehicle then transmits the unique identification and the location to a network or billing server S345 …” [0044])
and also periodically transmits additional messages to the RUC authority computer comprising RUC-related data for the vehicle while operating in the first RUC zone by accessing (“… Alternatively, the smart vehicle can constantly transmit a location to a server on the network, and a determination is made at the network whether or not to bill the driver …” and “… If a passenger count does not meet the minimum requirements of the HOV lane, then a notification may be transmitted to the appropriate authorities, or to a billing server …” and “The smart vehicle can transmit to the billing server several details that can be used to determine the amount for the toll or lane use fee …” [0038 and 0053 and 0056]),
and wherein the vehicle processor receives, from the RUC authority computer, a third message comprising a road usage charge for the vehicle to operate in the first RUC zone that is calculated based on the RUC-related data periodically transmitted in the additional messages by the vehicle processor (“… The user is then billed by debiting the account or by sending a bill to the user's address as stored in the user account” and “… If there are passengers in the smart vehicle, then a request is submitted to the passengers, as well as the driver, to pay the toll S562. This may be accomplished by transmitting a request to the wireless communication device of each of the occupants, i.e. via a text message, or by communicating with an application installed on the occupants' cellular telephones. The request can also be displayed on an in-dash display within smart vehicle …” and “… The receipt can be transmitted to a driver's wireless communication device, or to a dashboard display in the smart vehicle” [0039-0041 and 0049 and 0056]).
While Davis, III [0028] teaches billing for tolls and “other road services”, Davis, III does not explicitly teach road usage charging. However, London teaches that road services includes road usage charging (“… As described in greater detail further below, in various embodiments, the communications system 10 provides for dynamic data collection from a built-in system within the vehicle 12 with respect to regulated roadways on which the vehicle 12 travels, such as toll roads, road usage charge (RUC) roads (e.g., in certain states that collect a tax on total miles travelled by a vehicle on public roads, RUC roads would include any public roads in that state), high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, and/or roads with designated parking areas” and “… In certain embodiments in which the regulated roadway comprises a road usage charge (RUC) road, the transmission may include to a distance that the vehicle 12 has travelled throughout one or more RUC roads (e.g., in certain embodiments, throughout any public roads in states charging RUC road fees) …” [0029 and 0066]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the road usage charging of London for the other road services of Davis, III. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of London that doing so would provide improved methods and systems for collecting and utilizing data for vehicles that travel on regulated roadways [0003].
While Davis, III [060] teaches, an in-vehicle data storage device, Davis, III does not teach, retrieve in- vehicle data from a vehicle data storage. However, London teaches, retrieve in- vehicle data from a vehicle data storage (“Also in various embodiments, vehicle location data is obtained at 308. In various embodiments, the vehicle location data information as to the geographic location of the vehicle 12 as it travels along a roadway. In various embodiments, the vehicle location data includes geographic coordinates for the vehicle 12 along with map information (e.g., from a computer memory) corresponding to the geographic coordinates, including map information pertaining to regulated roadways (e.g., toll roads, RUC roads, HOV lanes, and roads with designated parking areas) through which the vehicle 12 travels …” and “Data monitoring continues at 316 while the vehicle remains within the geo-fence. Specifically, in various embodiments, the vehicle data of 304 (including the vehicle occupant data of 306 and the vehicle location data of 308 continues to be collected so long as the vehicle 12 is travelling through (or otherwise is remaining within) the regulated roadway, using the GPS system 42 and the occupant sensors 72 of FIG. 1.” [0057-0059 and 0062]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, retrieve in- vehicle data from a vehicle data storage, as taught by London with the toll calculation of Davis, III. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of London that doing so would provide improved methods and systems for collecting and utilizing data for vehicles that travel on regulated roadways [0003].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0030882 to Davis, III et al. (Davis, III) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0334920 to London et al. (London), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0116302 to Wilmes et al. (Wilmes).
As to claim 3, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Davis, III in view of London does not teach, where collecting RUC-related data for the vehicle comprises accessing an in-vehicle location sensor to detect if the vehicle is driving in an environmentally sensitive RUC zone. However, Wilmes teaches, where collecting RUC-related data for the vehicle comprises accessing an in-vehicle location sensor to detect if the vehicle is driving in an environmentally sensitive RUC zone (“The location(s) may be determined (step 204) by providing location data to the tax information system …” and “Usage taxes or highway fees could be charged based on the location where a vehicle is used by including a GPS or other tracking device on a vehicle … Another example involves taxes relating to sources of pollution based on location in environmentally sensitive areas …” [0046 and 0095-0096]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, where collecting RUC-related data for the vehicle comprises accessing an in-vehicle location sensor to detect if the vehicle is driving in an environmentally sensitive RUC zone, as taught by Wilmes with the RUC calculation of Davis, III in view of London. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Wilmes that doing so would facilitate determination of a tax rate [0011].
Claims 4, 11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0030882 to Davis, III et al. (Davis, III) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0334920 to London et al. (London), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,595,139 to Breed et al. (Breed).
As to claim 4, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Davis, III in view of London does not teach, where collecting RUC-related data for the vehicle comprises accessing an in-vehicle sensor to detect if the vehicle is towing a trailer. However, Breed teaches, where collecting RUC-related data for the vehicle comprises accessing an in-vehicle sensor to detect if the vehicle is towing a trailer (“… Similarly, if one or more trailers have been attached to the vehicle, the vehicle system can detect that event and similarly make that known to the tolling system through the smart phone” [col. 21, lines 7-12]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, where collecting RUC-related data for the vehicle comprises accessing an in-vehicle sensor to detect if the vehicle is towing a trailer, as taught by Breed with the RUC calculation of Davis, III in view of London. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Breed that doing so would provide for a ubiquitous and fair infrastructure charging system [col. 2, lines 9-12].
As to claim 11, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Davis, III in view of London does not teach, where the first road usage charge is calculated by increasing an initial RUC rate if the location data and the RUC-related data indicate that the vehicle is towing a trailer in a high congestion RUC zone. However, Breed teaches, where the first road usage charge is calculated by increasing an initial RUC rate if the location data and the RUC-related data indicate that the vehicle is towing a trailer in a high congestion RUC zone (“… When the vehicle has completed its trip, or at some other convenient time, software at the remote site (e.g., toll station 22, processing facility 36, and/or toll facility 40) can calculate a toll based on the usage by the vehicle of the highway or other infrastructure. The charging rate can depend on the vehicle ID which identifies its class, the time of the day, congestion encountered and/or the value of the highway or other infrastructure used. This ID information, along with information about the time, congestion, and road value, may be transmitted by the transmitter 32 on the vehicle or obtained by the remote processing facility 36 from one or more other sources …” and “… Since the vehicle-resident transmitter 32 will know the nature of the vehicle, trucks can be preferentially tolled over cars and cars over motorcycles. Vehicles pulling trailers can be charged for the vehicle and the trailer …” [col. 11, lines 6-42 and col. 12, lines 35-55]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, where the first road usage charge is calculated by increasing an initial RUC rate if the location data and the RUC-related data indicate that the vehicle is towing a trailer in a high congestion RUC zone, as taught by Breed with the RUC calculation of Davis, III in view of London. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Breed that doing so would provide for a ubiquitous and fair infrastructure charging system [col. 2, lines 9-12].
As to claim 21, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 20 as discussed above. Davis, III in view of London does not teach, wherein the road usage charge is calculated by adjusting an initial RUC rate by: increasing the initial RUC rate if the RUC-related data indicates the vehicle is driving in an environmentally sensitive RUC zone, decreasing the initial RUC rate if the RUC-related data indicates the vehicle is driving in a high occupancy vehicle lane, increasing the initial RUC rate if the RUC-related data indicates the vehicle is towing a trailer, decreasing the initial RUC rate if the RUC-related data indicates the vehicle has a number of vehicle passengers which exceeds a predetermined number of passengers, increasing the initial RUC rate if the RUC-related data indicates the exceeds a weight limit or axel count limit, or decreasing the initial RUC rate if the RUC-related data indicates the vehicle is a low- emission vehicle. However, Breed teaches, wherein the road usage charge is calculated by adjusting an initial RUC rate by: increasing the initial RUC rate if the RUC-related data indicates the vehicle is driving in an environmentally sensitive RUC zone, decreasing the initial RUC rate if the RUC-related data indicates the vehicle is driving in a high occupancy vehicle lane, increasing the initial RUC rate if the RUC-related data indicates the vehicle is towing a trailer, decreasing the initial RUC rate if the RUC-related data indicates the vehicle has a number of vehicle passengers which exceeds a predetermined number of passengers, increasing the initial RUC rate if the RUC-related data indicates the exceeds a weight limit or axel count limit, or decreasing the initial RUC rate if the RUC-related data indicates the vehicle is a low- emission vehicle (“… Since the vehicle-resident transmitter 32 will know the nature of the vehicle, trucks can be preferentially tolled over cars and cars over motorcycles. Vehicles pulling trailers can be charged for the vehicle and the trailer …” [col. 12, lines 35-55]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the road usage charge is calculated by adjusting an initial RUC rate by: increasing the initial RUC rate if the RUC-related data indicates the vehicle is driving in an environmentally sensitive RUC zone, decreasing the initial RUC rate if the RUC-related data indicates the vehicle is driving in a high occupancy vehicle lane, increasing the initial RUC rate if the RUC-related data indicates the vehicle is towing a trailer, decreasing the initial RUC rate if the RUC-related data indicates the vehicle has a number of vehicle passengers which exceeds a predetermined number of passengers, increasing the initial RUC rate if the RUC-related data indicates the exceeds a weight limit or axel count limit, or decreasing the initial RUC rate if the RUC-related data indicates the vehicle is a low- emission vehicle, as taught by Breed with the RUC calculation of Davis, III in view of London. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Breed that doing so would provide for a ubiquitous and fair infrastructure charging system [col. 2, lines 9-12].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0030882 to Davis, III et al. (Davis, III) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0334920 to London et al. (London), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0201039 to Gartner et al. (Gartner).
As to claim 6, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Davis, III in view of London does not teach, where collecting RUC-related data for the vehicle comprises accessing the in-vehicle data storage device at the vehicle to determine a weight of the vehicle or an axel count or engine type for the vehicle. However, Gartner teaches, where collecting RUC-related data for the vehicle comprises accessing the in-vehicle data storage device at the vehicle to determine a weight of the vehicle or an axel count or engine type for the vehicle (“… So as to correctly calculate the toll in the road toll system 1, one or more toll parameters OC that are specific to the respective vehicle 2 are set or stored in the OBUs 3. The toll parameters OC can be of any arbitrary type and can, for example, provide information about the deployment purpose of the vehicle 2 (for example emergency vehicle, means of public transportation, private vehicle, truck and the like), the status of the user of the vehicle 2, about the size, weight, emission class, number of axles of the vehicle 2 with or without trailer, and the like …” [0033-0034]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, where collecting RUC-related data for the vehicle comprises accessing the in-vehicle data storage device at the vehicle to determine a weight of the vehicle or an axel count or engine type for the vehicle, as taught by Gartner with the RUC calculation of Davis, III in view of London. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Gartner that doing so would be used to correctly calculate the toll in the road toll system [0034].
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0030882 to Davis, III et al. (Davis, III) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0334920 to London et al. (London), as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0076878 to Burr et al. (Burr) and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0116302 to Wilmes et al. (Wilmes).
As to claims 8 and 18, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 12 as discussed above. Davis, III in view of London does not teach, where the RUC report identifies the first road usage charge as being computed with a reduced RUC rate if the location data and the RUC-related data indicate that the vehicle is low-emission vehicle that is driving in an environmentally sensitive RUC zone. However, Burr teaches, where the RUC report identifies the first road usage charge as being computed with a reduced RUC rate if the location data and the RUC-related data indicate that the vehicle is low-emission vehicle that is properly driving in an RUC zone (“Consequently, the road pricing scheme of the invention can be used to generate road user charges based upon the day and time of the journey (where, for example, travel at peak times may incur a greater charge than at off peak times), the type of road used (where, for example, motorway use incurs a greater charge than rural road use). In addition, the road pricing scheme of the invention can be used to generate road user charges based on the amount of fuel consumed (where for example, fuel efficient cars incur a smaller charge, or a rebate is provided as a consequence of already paid fuel duty) and/or the determined emissions (where for example, cars which provide less emissions incur a smaller charge).” [0220]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, where the RUC report identifies the first road usage charge as being computed with a reduced RUC rate if the location data and the RUC-related data indicate that the vehicle is low-emission vehicle that is properly driving in an RUC zone, as taught by Burr with the RUC calculation of Davis, III in view of London. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Burr that doing so would consolidate all existing road charging schemes into one administrative process [0001].
While Burr teaches, where the RUC report identifies the first road usage charge as being computed with a reduced RUC rate if the location data and the RUC-related data indicate that the vehicle is low-emission vehicle that is properly driving in an RUC zone, Burr does not teach an environmentally sensitive RUC zone. However, Wilmes teaches, an environmentally sensitive RUC zone (“Another example involves taxes relating to sources of pollution based on location in environmentally sensitive areas. For example, purchases of energy in areas of concentrated pollution may be taxes. Daytime purchases of gasoline in a high ozone area may be taxed based on location, time of day, direction of travel, speed, energy consumed, number of passengers or a variety of inputs.” [0096]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the environmentally sensitive RUC zone of Wilmes for the RUC zone of Burr. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Wilmes that doing so would facilitate determination of a tax rate [0011].
(Examiner’s Note: the wording of claim 8 is cited above. The wording of claim 18 is different, but the limitations are the same. Thus, the analysis for claims 8 and 18 is the same.)
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0030882 to Davis, III et al. (Davis, III) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0334920 to London et al. (London), as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0298388 to Van Duren et al. (Van Duren).
As to claims 9 and 19, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 12 as discussed above. While Davis, III [0055] teaches charging different rates based on how quickly traffic is moving, Davis, III in view of London does not teach, where the first road usage charge is calculated by increasing an initial RUC rate if the location data and the RUC-related data indicate that the vehicle is driving in a high congestion RUC zone. However, Van Duren teaches, where the first road usage charge is calculated by increasing an initial RUC rate if the location data and the RUC-related data indicate that the vehicle is driving in a high congestion RUC zone (“Such techniques may allow for accurate charging while helping to preserve operator privacy, which may be applied in cases where a charger (e.g., a charging entity such as a state or municipality) is associated with a relatively small area. For example, some cities may implement congestion charges in which vehicles are charged for operating in congested areas (e.g., downtown areas) during certain times. In a congestion pricing RUC, vehicle distance (e.g., ‘road consumption’) may be tracked to a smaller area, corridor, time, or any combinations thereof, to determine total charge according to a corresponding charge policy.” [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, where the first road usage charge is calculated by increasing an initial RUC rate if the location data and the RUC-related data indicate that the vehicle is driving in a high congestion RUC zone, as taught by Van Duren with the RUC calculation of Davis, III in view of London. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Van Duren that doing so would enable congestion-based ‘Local RUC’ models to be adopted to replace existing tolling models and expensive Tolling infrastructure [0099].
(Examiner’s Note: the wording of claim 9 is cited above. The wording of claim 19 is different, but the limitations are the same. Thus, the analysis for claims 9 and 19 is the same.)
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0030882 to Davis, III et al. (Davis, III) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0334920 to London et al. (London), as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0279437 to Borras et al. (Borras).
As to claim 10, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. While Davis, III [0052-0054] teaches charging a fee if the number of passengers in a vehicle does not meet the minimum requirements for driving in an HOV lane, Davis, III in view of London does not teach, where the first road usage charge is calculated by reducing an initial RUC rate if the location data and the RUC-related data indicate that occupancy for the vehicle meets a minimum passenger count while driving in a high congestion RUC zone. However, Borras teaches, where the first road usage charge is calculated by reducing an initial RUC rate if the location data and the RUC-related data indicate that occupancy for the vehicle meets a minimum passenger count while driving in a high congestion RUC zone (“Vehicular traffic in metropolitan regions reaches a peak twice a day. These time periods have colloquially been referred to as “rush hour,” even though they can last more than an hour … In order to provide an incentive for drivers to share rides, and reduce congestions, authorities have sought to provide discounts in these express lanes for vehicles with more than one occupant …” [0003-0004]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, where the first road usage charge is calculated by reducing an initial RUC rate if the location data and the RUC-related data indicate that occupancy for the vehicle meets a minimum passenger count while driving in a high congestion RUC zone, as taught by Borras with the RUC calculation of Davis, III in view of London. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Borras that doing so would encourage ride sharing to reduce traffic congestion [0051].
As to claim 15, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. While Davis, III [0052-0054] teaches charging a fee if the number of passengers in a vehicle does not meet the minimum requirements for driving in an HOV lane, Davis, III in view of London does not teach, wherein calculating the first road usage charge comprises reducing an initial RUC rate if the location data and the RUC-related data indicate that the vehicle is properly driving in a high-occupancy lane. However, Borras teaches, wherein calculating the first road usage charge comprises reducing an initial RUC rate if the location data and the RUC-related data indicate that the vehicle is properly driving in a high-occupancy lane (“In accordance with some embodiments of the disclosure there is provided a system for verifying a number of occupants in a vehicle for tolling discounts which includes a mobile device configured to identify distinct voice prints of occupants in the vehicle, and to determine a number of occupant based at least in part on a number of distinct voice prints detected …” and “… If the voiceprint is not found in the database, it is then added, and if it had not been used to increment the occupant counter, then the occupant counter is incremented for the auto HOV declaration for the toll rate discount.” [0009 and 0067]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein calculating the first road usage charge comprises reducing an initial RUC rate if the location data and the RUC-related data indicate that the vehicle is properly driving in a high-occupancy lane, as taught by Borras with the RUC calculation of Davis, III in view of London. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Borras that doing so would encourage ride sharing to reduce traffic congestion [0051].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0030882 to Davis, III et al. (Davis, III) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0334920 to London et al. (London), as applied to claim 12 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0076596 to Scofield et al. (Scofield).
As to claim 16, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. Davis, III in view of London does not teach, wherein calculating the first road usage charge comprises increasing an initial RUC rate if the location data and the RUC-related data indicate that the vehicle is not driving in a high-occupancy lane. However, Scofield teaches, wherein calculating the first road usage charge comprises increasing an initial RUC rate if the location data and the RUC-related data indicate that the vehicle is not driving in a high-occupancy lane (“… As a second such example, a first segment may be identified that represents a first transit area type (e.g., a high-occupancy vehicle lane or restricted-access lane of a road), and a second segment representing a second transit area type that is different from the first transit area type of the first segment (e.g., a general-use lane of the same road) …” and “… Transit volume estimates 218 may indicate that the first area 102 is exhibiting high transit volume, while a second area 102 exhibits comparatively few travelers 104 and comparatively light transit volume. In order to reduce this disparity, at a second time 1010, the transit tolls 1004 for the respective areas 102 may be adjusted (e.g., increasing the toll 1004 for the first area 102 while reducing the toll 1004 for the second area 102) in order to persuade travelers 104 to choose a detour through the second area 102 …” [0052 and 0067]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein calculating the first road usage charge comprises increasing an initial RUC rate if the location data and the RUC-related data indicate that the vehicle is not driving in a high-occupancy lane, as taught by Scofield with the RUC calculation of Davis, III in view of London. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Scofield that doing so would persuade travelers to choose routes and driving behaviors that redistribute the transit volume throughout the region [0067].
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0030882 to Davis, III et al. (Davis, III) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0334920 to London et al. (London), as applied to claim 12 above, and in further view of NPL “ROAD USAGE CHARGE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS” by B. Starr McMullen, Ph.D. et al. (McMullen).
As to claim 17, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. Davis, III in view of London does not teach, wherein calculating the first road usage charge comprises increasing an initial RUC rate if the RUC-related data indicates that the vehicle exceeds a maximum weight measure or axel count or if the location data and the RUC-related data indicates that occupancy for the vehicle does not meet a minimum passenger count while driving in a high congestion RUC zone. However, McMullen teaches, wherein calculating the first road usage charge comprises increasing an initial RUC rate if the RUC-related data indicates that the vehicle exceeds a maximum weight measure or axel count or if the location data and the RUC-related data indicates that occupancy for the vehicle does not meet a minimum passenger count while driving in a high congestion RUC zone (“Another concern for policymakers in implementing a RUC (per-mile fee) is how to determine the structure of the rate. A flat rate structure is the easiest to apply but assumes that every passenger vehicle impacts the road system equally and thus imposes the exact same cost on the system. This assumption is not unreasonable when considering light passenger vehicles as there is negligible difference in road damage between passenger vehicles, but there is a much greater difference between passenger vehicles and heavy trucks. The Oregon weight distance tax for heavy trucks (those over 26,000 pounds) takes this into account by setting different mileage rates to heavy trucks of differing weights and by equivalent single axle loads (ESALs)” [pages 11-12]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein calculating the first road usage charge comprises increasing an initial RUC rate if the RUC-related data indicates that the vehicle exceeds a maximum weight measure or axel count or if the location data and the RUC-related data indicates that occupancy for the vehicle does not meet a minimum passenger count while driving in a high congestion RUC zone, as taught by McMullen with the RUC calculation of Davis, III in view of London. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for the purposes of having road usage charges be more proportionate to road wear and tear.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/S.S.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights