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 Amendment
This application is responsive to applicant amendments/remarks received 10/27/2025. Claims 1 and 8-9 amended. Claims 1-12 remain pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taylor (US Patent No. 20150213713 A1).
In re claim 1, Taylor teaches A method for assisting traffic flow (Para [0011]: “Systems and methods described herein relate to dynamically detecting traffic at an intersection and controlling one or more traffic signals at the intersection based on the detected traffic. For example, types and quantities of vehicles passing through different portions of an intersection may be determined, and the traffic signals may be programmed to efficiently control movement of the traffic through the intersection. In one implementation, the traffic signals may be controlled to prioritize the movement of certain types of vehicles through the intersection. For example, vehicles carrying multiple people (such as buses and/or car pools) may be identified, and the traffic signals at an intersection may be controlled to minimize a per-person delay and/or a per-vehicles delay through the intersection. In addition or alternatively, some types of vehicles, such as public safety vehicles (e.g., police cars, fire trucks, or ambulances) may be identified, and the traffic signals may be dynamically controlled to expedite movement of the public safety vehicles.”), the method comprising:
a traveler carrying a mobile communication device (SEE FIG 1, User Device 110) transmitting a traveler identifier (Para [0061]: “In another implementation, traffic signal controller 150 may receive information from user device 110 in transit inside the vehicle identifying the user device 110 (such as a telephone number or a serial number of the user device 110), an associated user (such as a name or an identifying number), or the vehicle (such as a license plate number).”);
said traveler commencing use of a vehicle while still carrying said mobile communication device, said vehicle having a vehicle identifier system transmitting (Para [0059]: “As shown in FIG. 5, process 500 may include determining vehicle types passing through an intersection (block 510). For example, as described above with respect to environment 100, traffic signal controller 150 may receive information collected by vehicle telematics unit 120 (e.g., received via user device 110 located in the vehicle or directly from vehicle telematics unit 120 via network 140). The data from vehicle telematics unit 120 may include information identifying its host vehicle type. For example, the data may specify whether the host vehicle is a car, a van, a bus, or a truck. Vehicle telematics unit 120 may also provide information identifying, for example, a make and/or model of the vehicle.”) a vehicle identifier (Para [0012]: “The vehicle type may be determined based on data received from a user device, such as a smart phone, associated with a vehicle (e.g., used by a person in the vehicle; the phone may be used in a safe manner, e.g., either by a non-driver at any time or by the driver directly while the vehicle is stopped such as at a traffic light intersection or, if the vehicle is moving, by the driver pushing a button on the dashboard in the vehicle which activates the phone to transmit the signals intended, thereby allowing the driver to be in full control of the vehicle at all times). The data may include information identifying the vehicle type (e.g., authenticating information identifying a public safety vehicle) or information associated with a configuration or performance of the vehicle that may be used to infer the vehicle type.”);
evaluating said vehicle identifier transmission to determine if said vehicle is in a detection zone for an intersection (Para [0036]: “In another aspect, cameras mounted at a given intersection, or along a particular road section, may relay images of the vehicle for which expedited passage is requested, and automatic review, or manual review by personnel at a central monitoring facility, may determine that the vehicle corresponding to the request, does not correspond to the vehicle type included in the request message. In such a scenario, the central monitoring facility, either automatically using computer equipment, or manually by monitoring personnel, may deny the request and generated and send a reply message to the requesting device, indicating the denial.”; Examiner interprets ‘a detection zone’ as ‘a given intersection’) and entitled to a higher priority through said intersection;
evaluating said mobile communication device transmission to determine if said mobile communication device is in said detection zone (Para [0061]: “In another implementation, traffic signal controller 150 may receive information from user device 110 in transit inside the vehicle identifying the user device 110 (such as a telephone number or a serial number of the user device 110), an associated user (such as a name or an identifying number), or the vehicle (such as a license plate number).”) and entitled to a higher priority through said intersection (Para [0017]: “User device 110 may determine a vehicle type based on the data collected by vehicle telematics unit 120. In one implementation, user device 110 may determine a current usage of a vehicle (i.e., its host vehicle) based on the data collected from vehicle telematics unit 120, and may identify a vehicle type based on the usage. For example, if the collected data indicates that a public safety vehicle is traveling at more than a threshold speed, it may be implied that the public safety vehicle is responding to an emergency situation and should, therefore, be prioritized by traffic signal 130. Conversely, if the collected data indicates that the public safety vehicle is traveling at less than the threshold speed, the public safety vehicle may not be responding to an emergency situation and, therefore, should not be prioritized by traffic signal 130.”);
evaluating if said mobile communication (Para [0033]: “In the example shown in FIG. 2A, user device 110 may present a display 210-A prompting a user to submit an input to identify a vehicle type associated with a user device 110. In the example shown in FIG. 2A, display 210-A may prompt a user to select (e.g., touch a corresponding area of a touch screen, select with a mouse, press a button, manually submit, etc.) a "Passenger Car" type, a "Carpool" type, or a "Taxi Cab" type. As described in greater detail below, a traffic signal 130 may be configured based on the selected vehicle type. The particular options presented in display 210-A may be generated based on information regarding the associated vehicle (e.g., asking the user to select from among the "Passenger Car" type, the "Carpool" type, or the "Taxi Cab" type based on determining that user device 110 is associated with a sedan.”);
if , entitled to a higher priority through said intersection (SEE PARA [0017] MAPPED ABOVE), and said mobile communication device is detected to be within said vehicle, assigning a higher priority to said vehicle for said vehicle go through said intersection than would be assigned to either said traveler or said vehicle if said mobile communication Para [0011]: “In one implementation, the traffic signals may be controlled to prioritize the movement of certain types of vehicles through the intersection. For example, vehicles carrying multiple people (such as buses and/or car pools) may be identified, and the traffic signals at an intersection may be controlled to minimize a per-person delay and/or a per-vehicles delay through the intersection.”, para [0067]: “Momentarily bypassing FIG. 6 and moving, instead, to FIG. 7, it shows an exemplary table that may be stored by traffic signal controller 150. Table 700 may include, for example, vehicle type entries 710 that identify different vehicle types and vehicle value entries 720 that identify different vehicle values associated with vehicle type entries 710. The values in vehicle value entries 720 may correspond, for example, to an expected number of people riding in a corresponding vehicle type. Thus, when configuring a traffic signal based on vehicle value entries 720, traffic signal controller 150 may prioritize certain vehicle types relative to other vehicle types based on the expected number or people in a vehicle. As shown in FIG. 7, vehicle type entries 710 of "Passenger Vehicle," "Carpool, "Bus" and "Van" may be associated with respective vehicle value entries 720 of 1, 4, 20 and 3.”, para [0073]: “Returning to FIG. 5, process 500 may include receiving a request to change a traffic signal (block 530)… In another implementation, user device 110 may automatically forward a request, for example, if an associated vehicle is in a particular area (e.g., travelling in a particular area specified by a user), if the vehicle is travelling at a particular time (e.g., during a time period specified by the user), or if the vehicle is delayed by the traffic signal more than a threshold amount of time.” and para [0080]: “If traffic signal controller 150 determines that the traffic signal would not change without regard for the request (block 610--"NO"), traffic signal controller 150 may adjust a vehicle value, associated with user device 110, based on the request (block 630). In one implementation, traffic signal controller 150 may determine the adjusted vehicle value based on the vehicle type associated with the request. For example, the adjusted vehicle value may correspond to additional vehicle value entries 730, in table 700, that correspond to vehicle type entries 710.”);
altering a traffic signal at said intersection based on said assigned priority (Para [0085]: “If the adjusted vehicle value would cause the traffic signal to change (block 640--"Yes"), traffic signal controller 150 may change the configuration of traffic signal and allocate a fee for request (block 670). For example, traffic signal controller 150 may forward instructions to a traffic signal 130 causing the traffic signal 130 to change and/or to implement modified cycling times. Traffic signal controller 150 may further allocate a fee (e.g., the amount associated with the request) to a user associated with user device 110. For example, the user may pay a balance amount, and the fee may be debited from the balance. As described above with respect to FIG. 2D, traffic signal controller 150 may forward a message to user device 110 indicating that the request was successful.”).
In re claim 6, Taylor teaches wherein said vehicle is a motor vehicle (SEE FIG 2A, display 210-A prompting a user to submit an input to identify a vehicle type associated with a user device 110).
In re claim 7, Taylor teaches wherein said vehicle is a mass transit vehicle (Para [0011]: “For example, vehicles carrying multiple people (such as buses and/or car pools) may be identified…”).
In re claim 8, Taylor teaches wherein said vehicle is a municipal vehicle (Para [0011]: “In addition or alternatively, some types of vehicles, such as public safety vehicles (e.g., police cars, fire trucks, or ambulances) may be identified…”).
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.
Claims 2-5 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US Patent No. 20150213713 A1), in view of Tonguz (US Patent No. 20140278029).
In re claim 2, Taylor teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches determining a time of day (Para [0073]: “Returning to FIG. 5, process 500 may include receiving a request to change a traffic signal (block 530)… In another implementation, user device 110 may automatically forward a request, for example… if the vehicle is travelling at a particular time (e.g., during a time period specified by the user)…”).
Taylor fails to teach altering said higher priority to either a lower priority or a still higher priority depending on said time of day.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tonguz teaches altering said higher priority to either a lower priority or a still higher priority depending on said time of day (Para [0067]: “FIGS. 7A and 7B depict the average travel time of the priority and non-priority vehicles, respectively, for the lunchtime scenario. While the travel times of non-priority vehicles are similar both for non-prioritized VTL and for VTL employing one or more of the methods for managing priority described herein (i.e., VTL-PIC; see FIG. 7B), up to 45 seconds of travel time can be saved for the priority vehicle by utilizing ones of the methods for managing priority described herein. Notably, the benefits of the methods for managing priority described herein (VTL-PIC) over non-prioritized VTL become more pronounced as the total number of vehicles is increased in the lunchtime scenario. This larger benefit is due to the fact that the priority vehicle may experience no conflicts at all (as opposed to the three “always-conflict intersections” involved in the rush-hour scenarios) of the 16 intersections it crosses in this scenario. Note that the benefit in terms of travel time of a priority vehicle largely depends on the number of congested intersections; hence, the expected benefit will increase considerably when a larger urban area is assumed.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Tonguz to provide altering said higher priority to either a lower priority or a still higher priority depending on said time of day with the DRIVER-CONTROLLABLE TRAFFIC SIGNAL of Taylor. Doing so enables up to 45 seconds of travel time to be saved for the priority vehicle by utilizing ones of the methods for managing priority, as recognized by Tonguz (Para [0067]).
In re claim 3, Taylor teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above but fails to teach wherein said vehicle is an autonomous vehicle.
However, Tonguz teaches wherein said vehicle is an autonomous vehicle (Para [0033]: “In other examples, the vehicle can be any self-propelled and self-controlled vehicle, such as an industrial robot, automated equipment, and other types of automated vehicles.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Tonguz to provide wherein said vehicle is an autonomous vehicle with the DRIVER-CONTROLLABLE TRAFFIC SIGNAL of Taylor. Doing so enables automatically implementing the DTCP with little to no input from the vehicle operator, as recognized by Tonguz (Para [0031]).
In re claim 4, Taylor teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above but fails to teach wherein said vehicle is a bicycle.
However, Tonguz teaches wherein said vehicle is a bicycle (Para [0033]: “In yet further examples, the vehicle can include a human powered vehicle such as a bicycle, a tricycle, a skate-board, and other similar vehicles.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Tonguz to provide wherein said vehicle is a bicycle with the DRIVER-CONTROLLABLE TRAFFIC SIGNAL of Taylor. Doing so enables a potential vehicular travel-priority conflict involving two vehicles of different types and/or priority statuses, as recognized by Tonguz (Para [0033]).
In re claim 5, Taylor teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above but fails to teach wherein said vehicle is a personal mobility device.
However, Tonguz teaches wherein said vehicle is a personal mobility device (Para [0033]: “The types of vehicles contemplated in this example, and indeed in the entirety of the present disclosure, can be any propelled, or mobile, vehicle including, for example, a self-propelled, but human-controlled, vehicle having a motor or an engine such as an automobile, a bus, a taxi, a truck, a motorcycle, an aircraft, a railed vehicle (e.g., train, trolley, streetcar, etc.), a SEGWAY® personal transporter, an electric cart, a motorized wheelchair, a fork lift or other industrial equipment, and other similar devices.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Tonguz to provide wherein said vehicle is a personal mobility device with the DRIVER-CONTROLLABLE TRAFFIC SIGNAL of Taylor. Doing so enables a potential vehicular travel-priority conflict involving two vehicles of different types and/or priority statuses, as recognized by Tonguz (Para [0033]).
In re claim 9, Taylor teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above but fails to teach wherein said detection zone indicates a lane of a roadway intersecting said intersection.
However, Tonguz teaches wherein said detection zone indicates a lane of a roadway intersecting said intersection (Para [0048]: “In some embodiments, DTC systems can include mechanisms that allow certain vehicles to have higher priority than other vehicles in having the right of way at intersections… For intermediate-priority vehicles, the DTC system may weight the travel directions and/or lanes containing mass-transit vehicles in a manner that allows each of those travel directions and/or lanes to clear more quickly than they would if a non-priority vehicle were present in place of each mass-transit vehicle.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Tonguz to provide wherein said detection zone indicates a lane of a roadway intersecting said intersection with the DRIVER-CONTROLLABLE TRAFFIC SIGNAL of Taylor. Doing so allows certain vehicles to have higher priority than other vehicles in having the right of way at intersections, and allows each of those travel directions and/or lanes to clear more quickly than they would if a non-priority vehicle were present in place of each mass-transit vehicle, as recognized by Tonguz (Para [0048]).
In re claim 10, Taylor and Tonguz teach all of the limitations of claim 9 stated above where Tonguz further teaches wherein said lane indicates how said vehicle is expected to pass through said intersection (Para [0048]: “In some embodiments, DTC systems can include mechanisms that allow certain vehicles to have higher priority than other vehicles in having the right of way at intersections… For intermediate-priority vehicles, the DTC system may weight the travel directions and/or lanes containing mass-transit vehicles in a manner that allows each of those travel directions and/or lanes to clear more quickly than they would if a non-priority vehicle were present in place of each mass-transit vehicle.”).
In re claim 11, Taylor and Tonguz teach all of the limitations of claim 10 stated above where Tonguz further teaches altering said higher priority to either a lower priority or a still higher priority depending on said lane (Para [0048]: “In some embodiments, DTC systems can include mechanisms that allow certain vehicles to have higher priority than other vehicles in having the right of way at intersections. This embodiment would, for example, facilitate and expedite the motion of priority vehicles through traffic in urban areas in the case of an emergency and/or in another type priority situation. The traffic control scheme in this embodiment can be extended to address the priority management of other transportation systems as well, such as mass-transit systems, including transit-bus systems, light-rail systems, etc. By detecting the presence of a priority vehicle, a DTC system can assign priority (i.e., give right of way) to the road and/or travel lane on which the priority vehicle is traveling. To enable such a priority scheme, one or more of two mechanisms may be utilized: detection of a priority vehicle when it approaches and leaves an intersection and a priority assignment scheme. In some embodiments, prioritization may involve three or more levels of priority. For example, in one scheme, three priority levels are provided: a highest priority for emergency vehicles en route to an emergency, an intermediate priority for mass-transit vehicles carrying multiple passengers, and lowest priority for private passenger cars. In this example, the DTC system clears the route for the highest priority vehicles as quickly and efficiently as possible, overriding any normal DTCP to create a high-priority DTCP. For intermediate-priority vehicles, the DTC system may weight the travel directions and/or lanes containing mass-transit vehicles in a manner that allows each of those travel directions and/or lanes to clear more quickly than they would if a non-priority vehicle were present in place of each mass-transit vehicle.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Taylor and Tonguz to further incorporate the teachings of Tonguz to provide altering said higher priority to either a lower priority or a still higher priority depending on said lane with the DRIVER-CONTROLLABLE TRAFFIC SIGNAL of Taylor as modified by Tonguz. Doing so allows certain vehicles to have higher priority than other vehicles in having the right of way at intersections, and allows each of those travel directions and/or lanes to clear more quickly than they would if a non-priority vehicle were present in place of each mass-transit vehicle, as recognized by Tonguz (Para [0048]).
In re claim 12, Taylor and Tonguz teach all of the limitations of claim 9 stated above where Tonguz further teaches altering said higher priority to either a lower priority or a still higher priority depending on said lane (Para [0048]: “In some embodiments, DTC systems can include mechanisms that allow certain vehicles to have higher priority than other vehicles in having the right of way at intersections. This embodiment would, for example, facilitate and expedite the motion of priority vehicles through traffic in urban areas in the case of an emergency and/or in another type priority situation. The traffic control scheme in this embodiment can be extended to address the priority management of other transportation systems as well, such as mass-transit systems, including transit-bus systems, light-rail systems, etc. By detecting the presence of a priority vehicle, a DTC system can assign priority (i.e., give right of way) to the road and/or travel lane on which the priority vehicle is traveling. To enable such a priority scheme, one or more of two mechanisms may be utilized: detection of a priority vehicle when it approaches and leaves an intersection and a priority assignment scheme. In some embodiments, prioritization may involve three or more levels of priority. For example, in one scheme, three priority levels are provided: a highest priority for emergency vehicles en route to an emergency, an intermediate priority for mass-transit vehicles carrying multiple passengers, and lowest priority for private passenger cars. In this example, the DTC system clears the route for the highest priority vehicles as quickly and efficiently as possible, overriding any normal DTCP to create a high-priority DTCP. For intermediate-priority vehicles, the DTC system may weight the travel directions and/or lanes containing mass-transit vehicles in a manner that allows each of those travel directions and/or lanes to clear more quickly than they would if a non-priority vehicle were present in place of each mass-transit vehicle.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Taylor and Tonguz to further incorporate the teachings of Tonguz to provide altering said higher priority to either a lower priority or a still higher priority depending on said lane with the DRIVER-CONTROLLABLE TRAFFIC SIGNAL of Taylor as modified by Tonguz. Doing so allows certain vehicles to have higher priority than other vehicles in having the right of way at intersections, and allows each of those travel directions and/or lanes to clear more quickly than they would if a non-priority vehicle were present in place of each mass-transit vehicle, as recognized by Tonguz (Para [0048]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of applicant Remarks, applicant argues:
“In Taylor, however, the priority at the intersection is based only on the type of vehicle in the detection zone and then a "bid" for priority that is made by the user. The vehicle may be identified by the vehicle transmitting an identifier or is transmitted by the user's phone based on, for example, the user's selection of the vehicle type: "user device 110 may identify the type of its host vehicle, such as the vehicle in which it is being transported." (Para. [0016]) Importantly, the user device in Taylor does not appear to identify itself, and, by implication, does not identify the user of the device. Instead, it simply acts as a gateway to identify the vehicle. This identification of the vehicle type is what allows for a bid for priority to be considered by the Taylor system and the acceptance of the bid allows for priority to be given to the vehicle. The identity of the user is not used in the determination of Taylor and Taylor does not contemplate that priority be based on the combination of user and vehicle.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As described in the rejection above, Taylor teaches in para [0017]: “User device 110 may determine a vehicle type based on the data collected by vehicle telematics unit 120. In one implementation, user device 110 may determine a current usage of a vehicle (i.e., its host vehicle) based on the data collected from vehicle telematics unit 120, and may identify a vehicle type based on the usage. For example, if the collected data indicates that a public safety vehicle is traveling at more than a threshold speed, it may be implied that the public safety vehicle is responding to an emergency situation and should, therefore, be prioritized by traffic signal 130. Conversely, if the collected data indicates that the public safety vehicle is traveling at less than the threshold speed, the public safety vehicle may not be responding to an emergency situation and, therefore, should not be prioritized by traffic signal 130.”, where the ‘data collected’ is described in para [0061]: “In another implementation, traffic signal controller 150 may receive information from user device 110 in transit inside the vehicle identifying the user device 110 (such as a telephone number or a serial number of the user device 110), an associated user (such as a name or an identifying number), or the vehicle (such as a license plate number).”. Therefore, Taylor teaches applicant amended features of “a traveler carrying a mobile communication device transmitting a traveler identifier” and “evaluating said vehicle identifier transmission to determine if said vehicle is in a detection zone for an intersection and entitled to a higher priority through said intersection”; applicant amendments are broad and continue to read on applied art.
Conclusion
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 JAMES EDWARD MUNION whose telephone number is (571)270-0437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/JAMES E MUNION/Examiner, Art Unit 2688 01/15/2026
/STEVEN LIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2688