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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/27/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of claims 1-16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the claims do not recite a mental process because they could not practically be performed in the human mind because of the amount and complexity of traffic data. The Examiner disagrees because people been able to recognize traffic patterns (i.e. rush hour) and that these traffic patterns change on certain days (i.e. no rush hour on weekend or major holidays). People also recognize patterns regarding certain holidays, for example traveling the day before Thanksgiving or before a three day weekend will be busier. In other words people have the ability to look at large amounts of traffic data to forecast traffic flow.
Applicant further contends that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application because the claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem rooted in traffic forecasting technology, and points to Enfish for support. The Examiner disagrees for the following reason. While the claims recite a method for determine a traffic flow for a date based on the class associated with that date (i.e. day before a one-day public holiday…), the claims do not use this information for a practical purpose (i.e. controlling a vehicle in a different manner depending on the determined traffic flow). Whereas, Enfish is configuring memory in a specific manner, which integrates the exception into a practical application. In other words Enfish changed the how the memory is configured, and the current application is using a table/database to organize information. This would be like creating a database program vs using a database program.
Applicant additionally contends the claims amount to significantly more than the recited exception. The Examiner disagrees because the classification is part of the mental process and thus would not amount to significantly more (also see updated rejection below).
The Examiner further notes that Applicants arguments contain some elements that are not
Applicant's arguments filed 3/27/3036 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §102/103 rejection of claims 1-16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In ¶0035 Jang discloses that the “holidays” may include “traffic holidays” which include the day before or after a holiday and gives the example of Thanksgiving (which occurs on Thursday), and in ¶0051 states “Various categories or classifications are possible for holidays… Holidays may be divided into any number of classifications.”. Therefore, Jang discloses a class of holiday before a one-day public holiday that is not a weekend and a class of holiday after one-day public holiday that is not a weekend.
Additionally the Examiner notes in ¶0062 Jang states “sub-minor holidays..” and in ¶0063 states “in addition to the examples above the look up table 161 may include classification for…”. In other words the Fig 8 is a limited example of classifications and not an exhaustive list.
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.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 is produced below with the abstract idea in bold and additional elements are underlined
An apparatus for forecasting a traffic flow of a road, the apparatus comprising:
storage configured to store traffic information categorized by predetermined dates (pre-solution activity using generic computing module); and
a controller configured to: (applying the abstract idea using generic computing module)
divide the dates into a specified number of classes, determine a target class corresponding to a target date among the classes, (mental process/step) and
determine a traffic flow of the target date based on information associated with one or more dates included in the target class within the traffic information (mental process/step).
wherein the class includes at least one of a day before a one-day public holiday that is not a weekend, a day after a one-day public holiday that is not a weekend, a day before two consecutive public holidays, a day after two consecutive days of public holidays, a day before five consecutive days of public holidays, or a day after five consecutive days of public holidays (mental process/step).
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claims recite apparatus/method. Therefore, the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2016.03
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes (mental process)
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitations of “divide the dates into a specified number of classes, determine a target class corresponding to a target date among the classes”, “determine a traffic flow of the target date based on information associated with one or more dates included in the target class within the traffic information”, and “wherein the class includes at least one of…”. These limitation, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “storage…a controller…”. That is, other than reciting “storage…a controller…” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “storage…a controller…” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (collecting and classifying traffic information based on being a day before/after a weekday holiday, before 2 consecutive holidays, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determining what class apply to a date, and the determine the traffic flow for the date). The mere nominal recitation “storage…a controller…” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. 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.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of “storage…a controller…”. The “storage” and “controller” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose controller, i.e. a computer. The “controller” is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the evaluating step. Nothing in the claims or specification indicate that the “storage” or “controller” are anything more than parts of a general purpose computer.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “storage…a controller…” were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification and claims do not provide any indication that the storge or controller is anything other than a conventional computer. 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 (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Independent claim 9 has similar and are rejected for the same reasons above. Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 9.
Therefore, claims 1-16 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0127245 (Jang et al.).
With respect to claims 1 and 9
Jang discloses: An apparatus/method for forecasting a traffic flow of a road (see at least Fig 1; #120; and ¶0026), the apparatus/method comprising:
storage (#123) configured to store traffic information categorized by predetermined dates (see at least Fig 1; #123; and ¶0027-29; Discussing traffic data in database is sorted according to days of the calendar and stored in database #123); and
a controller (see at least Fig 1; #125; and ¶0028-0031) configured to:
divide the dates into a specified number of classes (see at least Fig 8; #161; Table 1 and Table 2; and ¶0029, ¶0050, ¶0051, ¶0063-66, and ¶0088-90; Discussing days having different classifications.),
determine a target class corresponding to a target date among the classes (see at least Fig 8, 9(a-b), and 13; #161 and S207; and ¶0044, ¶0066, ¶0067, and ¶0088-90; Discussing determining if the requested traffic prediction date is a holiday.), and
determine a traffic flow of the target date (see at least Fig 8, 9(a-b), and 13; #161 and S207-209; and ¶0090) based on information associated with one or more dates included in the target class within the traffic information (see at least Fig 8, 9(a-b), and 13; #161 and S207-209; ¶0044, ¶0066, ¶0067, and ¶0090; and claim 4 and claim 12; Discussing using the classification for a particular day to determine the expected traffic pattern.).
wherein the class includes at least one of a day before a one-day public holiday that is not a weekend, a day after a one-day public holiday that is not a weekend, a day before two consecutive public holidays, a day after two consecutive days of public holidays, a day before five consecutive days of public holidays, or a day after five consecutive days of public holidays (see at least Fig 8; #161; and ¶0035, ¶0050-52, and ¶0063-66; Discussing that “traffic holidays” may be before and/or after a holiday like Thanksgiving).
With respect to claims 2 and 10
Jang discloses: wherein the controller (#125) is configured to:
receive, from a traffic information server (#110 and #123), traffic information of the target date (see at least Fig 1; #110 and #123; and ¶0026-28), and
determine a future traffic flow of the target date based on traffic information associated with the one or more dates included in the target class and the traffic information of the target date (see at least Fig 8, 9(a-b), and 13; #161 and S207-209; ¶0044, ¶0066, ¶0067, ¶0077,and ¶0090; and claim 4 and claim 12; Discussing using the classification for a particular day to determine the expected traffic pattern for that day.).
With respect to claims 3 and 11
Jang discloses:
wherein the storage is configured to store morning traffic information (see at least Fig 6(a-b), 7(a-b), and 9(a-b); #152, #155, and #158; and ¶0059-62; Discussing storing morning rush hour information) and afternoon traffic information (see at least Fig 6(a-b), 7(a-b), and 9(a-b); #153, #156, and #160; and ¶0059-62; Discussing storing an afternoon rush hour) categorized by the predetermined dates (see at least Fig 6(a-b), 7(a-b), and 9(a-b); #150- 160; and ¶0059-62, ¶0077, and ¶0090; Discussing that the traffic patterns are stored based on the date).
With respect to claims 7 and 15
Jang discloses:
wherein the traffic information includes at least one of a traffic volume on each road, a traffic speed on each road, or a travel time on each road (see at least ¶0027-29).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-6 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0127245 (Jang et al.) in view of F. Rempe, G. Huber and K. Bogenberger, "Travel time prediction in partitioned road networks based on floating car data," 2016 IEEE 19th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2016, pp. 1982-1987, doi: 10.1109/ITSC.2016.7795876. (hereinafter Rempe).
With respect to claims 4 and 12
Jang teaches: wherein the controller is configured to: receive, from a traffic information server, traffic information (see at least Fig 1; #110 and #123; and ¶0026-28)
Jang does not teach:
receiving morning traffic information of the target date, and determine an afternoon traffic flow of the target date based on information associated with the one or more dates included in the target class within the morning traffic information and the morning traffic information of the target date.
However Rempe teaches:
receiving morning traffic information of the target date (see at least Fig2; §III; pg. 1984-1985; Discussing making traffic predictions for the afternoon based on morning traffic information.), and determine an afternoon traffic flow of the target date based on information associated with the one or more dates included in the target class within the morning traffic information (see at least Fig2; §III and §!V; pg. 1984-1987; Discussing making traffic predictions for the afternoon based on morning traffic information and different types of days.) and the morning traffic information of the target date (see at least Fig2; §III; pg. 1984-1985; Discussing making traffic predictions for the afternoon based on morning traffic information.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the traffic prediction system disclosed in Jang with the method for predicting afternoon traffic flow based on morning traffic flow taught in Rempe with a reasonable expectation of success, because doing so would improve the accuracy of traffic predictions (see Rempe Abstract).
With respect to claims 5 and 13
Jang teaches: wherein the controller is configured to: receive, from a traffic information server, traffic information (see at least Fig 1; #110 and #123; and ¶0026-28)
Jang does not teach:
receiving, morning traffic information of the target date, determine a representative date from the one or more dates included in the target class, the representative date being associated with information that is most similar to the morning traffic information of the target date among morning traffic information associated with the one or more dates included in the target class, and determine an afternoon traffic flow of the target date based on afternoon traffic information of the representative date.
However Rempe teaches:
receiving morning traffic information of the target date (see at least Fig 2; §III; pg. 1984-1985; Discussing making traffic predictions for the afternoon based on morning traffic information.),
determine a representative date from the one or more dates included in the target class (see at least Fig 2; §III and §IV; pg. 1984-1987; Discussing looking at days with similar morning traffic), the representative date being associated with information that is most similar to the morning traffic information of the target date among morning traffic information associated with the one or more dates included in the target class (see at least Fig 2; §III and §IV; pg. 1984-1987; Discussing looking at days with similar morning traffic), and
determine an afternoon traffic flow of the target date based on afternoon traffic information of the representative date (see at least Fig 2; §III and §IV; pg. 1984-1987; Discussing looking at days with similar morning traffic to predict the afternoon traffic).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the traffic prediction system disclosed in Jang with the method for predicting afternoon traffic flow based on morning traffic flow of other days with similar morning traffic flow as taught in Rempe with a reasonable expectation of success, because doing so would improve the accuracy of traffic predictions (see Rempe Abstract).
With respect to claims 6 and 14
Jang does not specifically teach
wherein the controller is configured to determine the representative date based on a contrastive learning model.
However Rempe teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to determine the representative date based on a contrastive learning model (see at least Fig 1; §III; and pg. 1984 and pg. 1985; Discussing a learning model that finds the k vectors with the lowest difference, which given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification would be a “contrastive learning model”.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the traffic prediction system disclosed in Jang with the method for predicting afternoon traffic flow based on morning traffic flow of other days with similar morning traffic flow, using a contrastive learning model as taught in Rempe with a reasonable expectation of success, because doing so would improve the accuracy of traffic predictions (see Rempe Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR 20230057558 (Choi et al.): Discussing looking at effects of holidays and weekend on next day traffic.
US 2005/0071081 (Hirose et al.): Discusses date classifications that include days before long holidays.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL F WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
MICHAEL F. WHALEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/M.F.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights