DETAILED ACTION
NOTICE OF PRE-AIA OR AIA STATUS
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
ELECTION/RESTRICTION
Claims 7-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/15/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I. comprising claims 1-6 and 14 in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged.
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on 12/15/2025. Applicant withdrew claims 7-13 from consideration. Claims 1-6 and 14 are pending and are examined below.
PRIORITY
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of foreign priority to JP2021-146928, filed on 9/09/2021.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a report acquiring unit acquiring,” “a traffic signal response policy generation unit generating” and “a transmission processing unit transmitting” in claim 1 (with dependent claims 2-6).
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function at least includes: server processor 32. (See at least PGPUB ¶¶ 127-129, 132-133, 135 and FIG. 9.)
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims fail to pass the Alice/Mayo test for determining patent eligibility.
The patent eligibility test is performed below for independent claims 1 and 14.
Step 1—Does the claim fall within a statutory category?
Claim 1: Yes, the claim recites a machine or manufacture.
Claim 14: Yes, the claim recites a machine or manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One—Is a judicial exception recited?
Claims 1 and 14 are provided below with the abstract idea indicated in bold and additional elements without bold.
1. A vehicle data generation server generating vehicle control data with respect to a traffic signal, the vehicle data generation server comprising:
a report acquiring unit acquiring, from each of multiple vehicles, a data set as a traffic signal response report, the data set indicating information on (i) a travel lane of the corresponding vehicle, (ii) a combination of activated colors of the traffic signal observed by the corresponding vehicle, and (iii) a behavior of the corresponding vehicle with respect to the combination of activated colors of the traffic signal;
a traffic signal response policy generation unit generating, as traffic signal response policy data for each traffic signal, passable pattern data indicating, for each lane, a combination of activated colors under which passing is possible, based on the traffic signal response reports acquired by the report acquiring unit; and
a transmission processing unit transmitting the traffic signal response policy data generated by the traffic signal response policy generation unit to an external device,
wherein the passable pattern data is a data set indicating, for the combination of activated colors, one or more passable lane numbers, and
the passable pattern data does not include data indicating a shape of each activated light element included in the traffic signal.
14. A vehicle data generation server generating vehicle control data with respect to a traffic signal, the vehicle data generation server comprising:
a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium; and
a processor, by executing program code stored in the computer-readable non-transitory storage, configured to:
acquire, from each of multiple vehicles, a data set as a traffic signal response report, the data set indicating information on (i) a travel lane of the corresponding vehicle, (ii) a combination of activated colors of the traffic signal observed by the corresponding vehicle, and (iii) a behavior of the corresponding vehicle with respect to the combination of activated colors of the traffic signal;
generate, as traffic signal response policy data for each traffic signal, passable pattern data indicating, for each lane, a combination of activated colors under which passing is possible, based on the traffic signal response reports acquired from the multiple vehicles; and
transmit the traffic signal response policy data that is generated to an external device,
wherein
the passable pattern data is a data set indicating, for the combination of activated colors, one or more passable lane numbers, and
the passable pattern data does not include data indicating a shape of each activated light element included in the traffic signal.
The above shows: yes, a judicial exception is recited. But for the additional elements, the claim limitation pertaining to generating passable pattern data is a process which can practically be performed in the human mind with or without the use of a physical aid. Specifically, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim encompasses evaluating acquired data to arrive at a final judgment. The courts have held such forms of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion to represent the abstract idea of a mental process. As a result, the bolded limitations represent a mental process. Hence, the claim recites an abstract idea. (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(III).)
Step 2A, Prong Two—Is the abstract idea integrated into a practical application?
No. The claims as a whole merely use generic computer components — i.e., a server, a traffic signal response policy generation unit, a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium and a processor — that are recited at a high level of generality such that they cannot be considered more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B—Does the claim provide an inventive concept?
No. The additional elements of the claims amount to either:
Insignificant pre-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering:
acquiring, from each of multiple vehicles, a data set as a traffic signal response report
the report acquiring unit in claim 1 constitutes a mere generic computer component utilized to carry out said insignificant extra-solution activity
Insignificant post-solution activity in the form of well-understood and conventional activity:
transmitting the traffic signal response policy data generated by the traffic signal response policy generation unit to an external device
the transmission processing unit in claim 1 constitutes a mere generic computer component utilized to carry out said insignificant extra-solution activity
Claims 2-6 depend from claim 1 but do not render the claimed invention patent eligible because they are directed to additional mental steps:
generating passable pattern data as the traffic signal response policy data,
generating passable pattern data for the traffic signal that includes an arrow light element, and
generating stop pattern data.
Claims 1-6 and 14 do not pass the patent eligibility test. Accordingly, claims 1-6 and 14 are rejected under § 101.
Note
Amending the independent claims to recite a form of vehicle control which necessitates an actuation in structure may render the claims as patent eligible pending further consideration. The originally-filed specification appears to provide support for such an amendment in at least PGPUB paras. [0158]-[0181].
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 14 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Omari et al. (US20210166145A1; “Omari”) in view of Kubota et al. (US20060009188A1; “Kubota”).
As to claim 1, Omari discloses a vehicle data generation server generating vehicle control data with respect to a traffic signal, the vehicle data generation server comprising:
a report acquiring unit acquiring, from each of multiple vehicles, a data set as a traffic signal response report, the data set indicating information on (i) a travel lane of the corresponding vehicle, (ii) a combination of activated colors of the traffic signal observed by the corresponding vehicle, and (iii) a behavior of the corresponding vehicle with respect to the combination of activated colors of the traffic signal (“The computing system may extract, based on the sensor data, a plurality of vehicle trajectories indicating a path that a plurality of vehicles have taken when moving through the region.” ¶ 24. “A computing system may access vehicle traffic-pattern data associated with a region of a road network, wherein the vehicle traffic-pattern data comprises a first lane identifier and a second lane identifier indicating one or more lanes associated with a vehicle trajectory through the region and a traffic-light state corresponding to signal information of one or more traffic lights in the region when a vehicle moved through the region.” ¶ 40 and FIG. 6. “A computing system may correlate the vehicle trajectories with the traffic-light states, based on which the computing system may learn the traffic rules. Traffic-light states may be based on the signal information of one or more relevant traffic lights. The signal information of the one or more traffic lights may indicate each of the one or more traffic lights being green, blinking green, yellow, blinking yellow, red, or blinking red. … [T]he computing system may determine if there is a correlation between a traffic-light state and a vehicle trajectory, e.g., from lane 302 to lane 308 as displayed in FIG. 3A. Table 2 illustrates example possible lane connectivity associated with traffic-light state corresponding to FIG. 3A.” ¶ 27 and FIG. 3A; see also ¶¶ 28, 32 and FIG. 3B.); and
a traffic signal response policy generation unit generating, as traffic signal response policy data for each traffic signal, passable pattern data indicating, for each lane, a combination of activated colors under which passing is possible, based on the traffic signal response reports acquired by the report acquiring unit (“A computing system may correlate the vehicle trajectories with the traffic-light states, based on which the computing system may learn the traffic rules. Traffic-light states may be based on the signal information of one or more relevant traffic lights. The signal information of the one or more traffic lights may indicate each of the one or more traffic lights being green, blinking green, yellow, blinking yellow, red, or blinking red. … [T]he computing system may determine if there is a correlation between a traffic-light state and a vehicle trajectory, e.g., from lane 302 to lane 308 as displayed in FIG. 3A. Table 2 illustrates example possible lane connectivity associated with traffic-light state corresponding to FIG. 3A.” ¶ 27 and FIG. 3A. Continuing, see TABLE 2 at ¶ 28 which, for each lane, associates a trajectory (e.g., from ingress lane to egress lane 308) with a traffic light state. See also ¶ 32 which further discusses correlating a color of a traffic signal to a vehicle behavior (e.g. turn). Note: Indicating that a certain trajectory in a certain lane was performed under a certain color combination analogizes to indicating that passing is possible under such a color combination.),
wherein
the passable pattern data is a data set indicating, for the combination of activated colors, one or more passable lane numbers (See at least ¶¶ 27, 28 32, TABLE 2 and FIG. 3A. Note: The lanes 302, 304 and 306 are correspondingly numbered, and as penned above the lanes (with their respective lane numbers) are associated with color combinations to indicate whether passing is possible a respective lane number.), and
the passable pattern data does not include data indicating a shape of each activated light element included in the traffic signal (See at least ¶¶ 27, 28 32, TABLE 2 and FIG. 3A. Note: Omari makes no reference towards including shape data of the traffic signal; hence Omari necessarily performs this claim limitation in its disclosed processing.).
Omari fails to explicitly disclose: a transmission processing unit transmitting the traffic signal response policy data generated by the traffic signal response policy generation unit to an external device.
Nevertheless, Kubota teaches: transmitting traffic signal response policy data generated by a traffic signal response policy generation unit to an external device (“The control server SV may collect traffic signal information 11 from a plurality of navigation apparatus 1 and may store the collected traffic signal information 11 in the database DB. Thus, a large number of pieces of traffic signal information 11 are collected from many cars, and the collected information is managed at the control server SV.” ¶ 120. “When a navigation apparatus 1 is approaching a traffic signal S, the navigation apparatus 1 may access the database DB stored in the control server SV to acquire the traffic signal information 11 associated with that traffic signal S. … In this case, the analysis of images and producing of the traffic signal information 11 may not be performed not by the controller 2 of the navigation apparatus 1 but may be performed by the control server SV.” ¶ 121. Note: That is, for the successful operation of Kubota the control server SV transmits traffic signal information (i.e., traffic signal response policy data) to an external device (i.e., a navigation apparatus 1).).
Omari discloses: a vehicle data generation server, which acquires a traffic signal response report and, based on the traffic signal response report, generates traffic signal response policy data, wherein the traffic signal response policy data associates color combinations of a traffic signal to lane numbers under which passing is possible. Kubota teaches: transmitting traffic signal response policy data generated by a traffic signal response policy generation unit to an external device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Omari to include the feature of: transmitting traffic signal response policy data generated by a traffic signal response policy generation unit to an external device, as taught by Kubota, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for exploiting the computational power of a server, thereby yielding “a highly reliable database DB” in the context of generating traffic signal response policy data. (See Kubota, ¶ 121.) Indeed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Kubota would be useful for bridging the gap between Omari’s generation of traffic signal response policy data (see above-cited portions of Omari) with Omari’s intended purpose of “control[ling] the vehicle 740 to operate in prescribed manners and to guide the autonomous vehicle 740 to its destinations without colliding into other objects” especially in the context of “traffic control at intersections.” (See Omari, ¶¶ 1 and 54.) That is, with a reasonable expectation of success it would have been obvious to implement Kubota’s teaching to transmit Omari’s generated traffic signal response policy data to an autonomous vehicle (external device) to perform control at an intersection.
Independent claim 14 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1 as the claims recite similar subject matter but for minor differences.
As to claim 2, Omari discloses:
the traffic signal response policy generation unit generates the passable pattern data as the traffic signal response policy data (“A computing system may correlate the vehicle trajectories with the traffic-light states, based on which the computing system may learn the traffic rules. Traffic-light states may be based on the signal information of one or more relevant traffic lights. The signal information of the one or more traffic lights may indicate each of the one or more traffic lights being green, blinking green, yellow, blinking yellow, red, or blinking red. … [T]he computing system may determine if there is a correlation between a traffic-light state and a vehicle trajectory, e.g., from lane 302 to lane 308 as displayed in FIG. 3A. Table 2 illustrates example possible lane connectivity associated with traffic-light state corresponding to FIG. 3A.” ¶ 27 and FIG. 3A. Continuing, see TABLE 2 at ¶ 28 which, for each lane, associates a trajectory (e.g., from ingress lane to egress lane 308) with a traffic light state. See also ¶ 32 which further discusses correlating a color of a traffic signal to a vehicle behavior (e.g. turn). Note: Indicating that a certain trajectory in a certain lane was performed under a certain color combination analogizes to indicating that passing is possible under such a color combination.),, and
the passable pattern data is a data set indicating, for a combination of respective quantities of activated colors, one or more passable lanes (See at least ¶¶ 27, 28 32, TABLE 2 and FIG. 3A.).
As to claim 4, Omari discloses:
the traffic signal response report includes information on a location and a color of each activated light element included in the traffic signal (“The computing system may extract, based on the sensor data, a plurality of vehicle trajectories indicating a path that a plurality of vehicles have taken when moving through the region.” ¶ 24. “A computing system may access vehicle traffic-pattern data associated with a region of a road network, wherein the vehicle traffic-pattern data comprises a first lane identifier and a second lane identifier indicating one or more lanes associated with a vehicle trajectory through the region and a traffic-light state corresponding to signal information of one or more traffic lights in the region when a vehicle moved through the region.” ¶ 40 and FIG. 6. “A computing system may correlate the vehicle trajectories with the traffic-light states, based on which the computing system may learn the traffic rules. Traffic-light states may be based on the signal information of one or more relevant traffic lights. The signal information of the one or more traffic lights may indicate each of the one or more traffic lights being green, blinking green, yellow, blinking yellow, red, or blinking red. … [T]he computing system may determine if there is a correlation between a traffic-light state and a vehicle trajectory, e.g., from lane 302 to lane 308 as displayed in FIG. 3A. Table 2 illustrates example possible lane connectivity associated with traffic-light state corresponding to FIG. 3A.” ¶ 27 and FIG. 3A; see also ¶¶ 28, 32 and FIG. 3B.), and
the passable pattern data is a data set indicating a passable lane using a combination of the location and the color of each activated light element included in the traffic signal (“A computing system may correlate the vehicle trajectories with the traffic-light states, based on which the computing system may learn the traffic rules. Traffic-light states may be based on the signal information of one or more relevant traffic lights. The signal information of the one or more traffic lights may indicate each of the one or more traffic lights being green, blinking green, yellow, blinking yellow, red, or blinking red. … [T]he computing system may determine if there is a correlation between a traffic-light state and a vehicle trajectory, e.g., from lane 302 to lane 308 as displayed in FIG. 3A. Table 2 illustrates example possible lane connectivity associated with traffic-light state corresponding to FIG. 3A.” ¶ 27 and FIG. 3A. Continuing, see TABLE 2 at ¶ 28 which, for each lane, associates a trajectory (e.g., from ingress lane to egress lane 308) with a traffic light state. See also ¶ 32 which further discusses correlating a color of a traffic signal to a vehicle behavior (e.g. turn). Note: Indicating that a certain trajectory in a certain lane was performed under a certain color combination analogizes to indicating that passing is possible under such a color combination.).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Omari in view of Kubota as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Mimura et al. (US20220063675A1; “Mimura”).
As to claim 3, the combination of Omari and Kubota fails to explicitly disclose: the passable pattern data indicates a passable lane when a red light element, which is a light device configured to turn on in red, and a green arrow light element, which is a light device configured to turn on in green arrow, are activated.
Nevertheless, Mimura teaches: passable pattern data which indicates a passable lane when a red light element, which is a light device configured to turn on in red, and a green arrow light element, which is a light device configured to turn on in green arrow, are activated (“The communication device 25 may acquire … signal information.” ¶ 57. “It is assumed that the arrow-type traffic light is currently a red light with a right turn arrow, in this case, the signal information corresponding to such an arrow-type traffic light includes information indicating ‘red light’ corresponding to the straight or left turn lane and information indicating ‘right turn arrow light’ corresponding to the right turn lane.” ¶ 60.“The arrow lighting unit SG_A emits a green arrow for permitting the vehicle in the lane LN2a to travel for turning right at the intersection IS (hereinafter, also referred to as a ‘right turn arrow’). For example, the traffic light SG causes the arrow lighting unit SG_A to emit the right turn arrow for a predetermined period immediately after lighting of the red lighting unit SG_R.” ¶ 205. Indeed, “when the red lighting unit SG_R is lighted while the right turn arrow is lighted on the arrow lighting unit SG_A,” a vehicle may enter a state where the vehicle can travel (i.e., turn right). See ¶ 209 and FIG. 8B.).
Omari discloses: a vehicle data generation server, which acquires a traffic signal response report and, based on the traffic signal response report, generates traffic signal response policy data, wherein the traffic signal response policy data associates color combinations of a traffic signal to lane numbers under which passing is possible. Kubota teaches: transmitting traffic signal response policy data generated by a traffic signal response policy generation unit to an external device. Mimura teaches: indicating that a lane is passable when a red light element and a green arrow light element are activated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Omari and Kubota to include the feature of: passable pattern data which indicates a passable lane when a red light element, which is a light device configured to turn on in red, and a green arrow light element, which is a light device configured to turn on in green arrow, are activated, as taught by Mimura, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for indicating the claimed color combination as a passable lane, as such a color combination is globally known as indicating a protected turn for a vehicle. Such enhances the combination of Omari-Kubota by refining the identification of passable lanes given associated vehicle behavior corresponding to a certain color combination.
As to claim 5, the combination of Omari and Kubota fails to explicitly disclose:
the traffic signal response policy generation unit:
generates the passable pattern data for the traffic signal that includes an arrow light element, the arrow light element being a light device configured to turn on in arrow shape, and
does not generate the passable pattern data for a standard traffic signal that does not include the arrow light element.
Nevertheless Mimura teaches:
generating passable pattern data for a traffic signal that includes an arrow light element, the arrow light element being a light device configured to turn on in arrow shape (“The communication device 25 may acquire … signal information.” ¶ 57. “It is assumed that the arrow-type traffic light is currently a red light with a right turn arrow, in this case, the signal information corresponding to such an arrow-type traffic light includes information indicating ‘red light’ corresponding to the straight or left turn lane and information indicating ‘right turn arrow light’ corresponding to the right turn lane.” ¶ 60.“The arrow lighting unit SG_A emits a green arrow for permitting the vehicle in the lane LN2a to travel for turning right at the intersection IS (hereinafter, also referred to as a ‘right turn arrow’). For example, the traffic light SG causes the arrow lighting unit SG_A to emit the right turn arrow for a predetermined period immediately after lighting of the red lighting unit SG_R.” ¶ 205. Indeed, “when the red lighting unit SG_R is lighted while the right turn arrow is lighted on the arrow lighting unit SG_A,” a vehicle may enter a state where the vehicle can travel (i.e., turn right). See ¶ 209 and FIG. 8B.), and
does not generate the passable pattern data for a standard traffic signal that does not include the arrow light element (See at least ¶¶ 57, 60, 209 and FIG. 8B. Note: In the above-cited portions of Mimura’s processing, there is no mention of processing passable pattern data for a standard traffic signal; as such, Mimura necessarily performs the claim limitation at issue.).
Omari discloses: a vehicle data generation server, which acquires a traffic signal response report and, based on the traffic signal response report, generates traffic signal response policy data, wherein the traffic signal response policy data associates color combinations of a traffic signal to lane numbers under which passing is possible. Kubota teaches: transmitting traffic signal response policy data generated by a traffic signal response policy generation unit to an external device. Mimura teaches: generating passable pattern data for a traffic signal that includes an arrow light element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Omari and Kubota to include the features of: generating passable pattern data for a traffic signal that includes an arrow light element, the arrow light element being a light device configured to turn on in arrow shape, and does not generate the passable pattern data for a standard traffic signal that does not include the arrow light element, as taught by Mimura, with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful for indicating traffic signal with an arrow activated as indicating a passable lane, as such is globally known as indicating a passable turn for a vehicle. Such enhances the combination of Omari-Kubota by refining the identification of passable lanes given associated vehicle behavior corresponding to a certain traffic signal activation.
Claim 6 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Omari in view of Kubota as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Kato Y. et al. (JP7197301B2; “Kato”).
As to claim 6, the combination of Omari and Kubota fails to explicitly disclose:
the traffic signal response policy generation unit generates stop pattern data instead of the passable pattern data, and
the stop pattern data indicates, for each lane, a combination of activated colors under which stop is required.
Nevertheless, Kato teaches: generating stop pattern data, wherein the stop pattern data indicates, for each lane, a combination of activated colors under which stop is required (“The passable lane data 313 indicates passable lanes among a plurality of intra-intersection lanes L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, and L6 corresponding to the intersection C1 for each lighting state. The lane relation data 314 indicates whether or not the plurality of passable lanes intersect with each other in a lighting state where the intersection C1 has a plurality of passable lanes. Here, "intersection" also includes cases where the exit lanes are the same.” ¶ 30. For example, “[In] [t]he fifth lighting condition … traffic lights A1, A2, and A3 are red. The passable lane data 313 indicates that there are no passable lanes in the fifth light state. The lane relationship data 314 indicates that there are no intersecting lanes that are passable in the fifth light condition.” ¶ 36. See also ¶¶ 32-35 and 37-39 discussing other lighting states which have corresponding lanes under which stop is required. See also FIG. 6.).
Omari discloses: a vehicle data generation server, which acquires a traffic signal response report and, based on the traffic signal response report, generates traffic signal response policy data, wherein the traffic signal response policy data associates color combinations of a traffic signal to lane numbers under which passing is possible. Kubota teaches: transmitting traffic signal response policy data generated by a traffic signal response policy generation unit to an external device. Kato teaches: generating stop pattern data, wherein the stop pattern data indicates, for each lane, a combination of activated colors under which stop is required.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Omari and Kubota to include the feature of: generating stop pattern data, wherein the stop pattern data indicates, for each lane, a combination of activated colors under which stop is required, as taught by Kato, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for indicating traffic signal colors under which a vehicle must stop, thereby refining Omari-Kubota to provide a more holistic view of what a vehicle should do (i.e., pass or go) given a certain traffic signal color combination. Indeed, Omari’s TABLE 1 records whether no vehicle is movement is detected from one lane to another — Kato bridges the gap to associate no vehicle movement (i.e., stopping) to color combinations to arrive at generating stop pattern data to complement Omari’s disclosed passable pattern data.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARIO C GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3668