DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 8/2/2024 has been acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
Claims 1-30 are pending.
Claims 1, 6, 15-16, 21, and 30 have been amended.
Claims 1 and 16 are independent.
This FINAL Office action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 11/24/2025.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 11/24/2025; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and were persuasive. Therefore the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) have been withdrawn.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant remarks “the amended claim does not merely recite a "mental process" or "abstract idea." Instead, it requires specific computer processing of phase-time duration data to generate a predicted spatial length of roadway representing traffic capacity-a form of signal-phase data transformation that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. The claimed computation relies on measurable signal-timing inputs and produces a numeric-to-spatial conversion unique to computer-implemented traffic control technology” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
It remains the Office’s stance that these amendments are precisely what generic computers can do, gathering data and calculating, and further could be performed with in the mind, or even with a pencil and paper. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions with data sets, where the instructions are used to apply the exception using the generic processor and generic display. Furthermore, the examiner submits that the recitations of calculating data based on phase timing and signal phase is a mere definition that does not necessarily impose any meaningful limits on performing the steps in the human mind, as it only computes data where a user could in fact perform this mentally or using paper and pencil. In addition to that, the examiner submits that calculating data and using a processor and then displaying, are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a processor to perform the process with a display. In particular, the calculating steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of computing data for use in the displaying), and amounts to mere computing and displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore the Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant remarks “even if the claim were viewed as reciting an abstract concept, the additional elements integrate that concept into a practical application. The computer system is explicitly configured to process traffic-controller timing data and render a spatial visualization of predicted traffic capacity at a real-world intersection. This provides a technological improvement in traffic-signal management-namely, a computer-based transformation of time-based signal information into spatial capacity data that enables engineers to intuitively monitor and adjust real intersections” and again the Office respectfully disagrees.
It remains the Office’s stance that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a processor or the display or an improvement to another technology or technical field. Therefore the Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant further remarks “the claimed combination is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. The conversion of phase-time datasets into predicted dequeue-zone lengths and their rendering to reflect intersection capacity is neither conventional in the art nor known in prior traffic-control systems. The amendment narrows the claim to require this specific, technological improvement, and thus the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
It remains the Office’s stance that the independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the apparatus, the processor and display amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer and display component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of calculating, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Therefore the Office respectfully disagrees.
Therefore the Office respectfully disagrees and the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 remain.
Office Note: Claims 14 and 19 suggest possible control of a traffic controller based on the adjusted dequeue zones based on user input. If this suggestion of control can be amended to positively recite the control, this step, would overcome the current 101 rejection as this positively reciting control would move the claimed subject matter outside the realm of abstract idea an to a statutory category. For example “wherein the traffic control adjusts the duration of active time at the roadway intersection based on the adjusted duration of the dequeue zones received through the user input”, or something of that nature.
With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus (system). Therefore, Claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 16 is directed to an process (method). Therefore, Claim 16 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claims 1 and 16 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and Claim 1 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
Claim 1 recites: A computer system for displaying a supply of traffic capacity at a roadway intersection, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media having stored thereon executable instructions that when executed by one or more processors configure the computer system to:
calculate one or more dequeue zone sizes based on phase time duration data for the roadway intersection; wherein the one or more dequeue zone sizes comprise a predicted or estimated length of roadway or a predicted or estimated number of vehicles that can dequeue during a single active signal phase
and display, at a computer interface, a visual representation of the one or more dequeue zone sizes for one or more approaches of the roadway intersection, wherein the visual representation of the one or more dequeue zone sizes comprises a spatial representation.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “calculating” steps encompass a user to make gather information and then display the data. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
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.
Regarding the additional limitations of “processors and display”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “processor and display” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the calculating steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea and display the results. Additionally, the processor and display is claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the processor and display. Furthermore, the examiner submits that the recitations of calculating data is a mere definition that does not necessarily impose any meaningful limits on performing the steps in the human mind, as it only computes data where a user could in fact perform this mentally or using paper and pencil. In addition to that, the examiner submits that calculating data and using a processor and then displaying, are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a processor to perform the process with a display. In particular, the calculating steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of computing data for use in the displaying), and amounts to mere computing and displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a controller or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent Claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the apparatus, the processor and display amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer and display component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of calculating, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of calculating and displaying are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors from which the data is acquired/received are all conventional sensors. 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. Hence, Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Further Claim 16 is not patent eligible for the same reasons.
Dependent Claims 2-15 and 17-30 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with Claims 1 and 16.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claims, for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device and controlling a traffic lights with the new zones. This feature is almost positivity recited in Claims 14 and 29 but instead of communicating, actually controlling the intersection. For example “wherein the traffic control adjusts the duration of active time at the roadway intersection based on the adjusted duration of the dequeue zones received through the user input”, or something of that nature. Limitations such as these suggested with a change to positively capture the control of the intersection would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-4, 7-13, 15-19, 22-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Myr (United States Patent Publication 2008/0094250) in view of Xu et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0151064).
With respect to Claim 1: While Myr discloses “A computer system for displaying a supply of traffic capacity at a roadway intersection” [Myr, ¶ 0008, 0037, 0070, 0077-0081, 0104-0106, 0143, 0202 with Figures 3 and 5];
“comprising: one or more processors” [Myr, ¶ 0277];
“and one or more computer-readable media stored having thereon executable instructions that when executed by the one or more processors configure the computer system to” [Myr, ¶ 0277];
“calculate one or more dequeue zone sizes based on phase time duration data for the roadway intersection” [Myr, ¶ 0008, 0037, 0070, 0077-0081, 0104-0106, 0143, 0202 with Figures 3 and 5 (assigns vehicle groups that will move during the same green time interval. Groups are designated here as Gr1, Gr2, Gr3 and Gr4 and will represent vehicle queues on individual lanes and their travel directions of the TL)];
“wherein the one or more dequeue zone sizes comprise vehicles that can dequeue during a single active signal phase” [Myr, ¶ 0008, 0037, 0070, 0077-0081, 0104-0106, 0143, 0202 with Figures 3 and 5 (assigns vehicle groups that will move during the same green time interval. Groups are designated here as Gr1, Gr2, Gr3 and Gr4 and will represent vehicle queues on individual lanes and their travel directions of the TL)];
“and display, at a computer interface, a visual representation of the one or more dequeue zone sizes for one or more approaches of the roadway intersection” [Myr, ¶ 0008, 0037, 0070, 0077-0081, 0104-0106, 0143, 0202 with Figures 3 and 5];
“wherein the visual representation of the one or more dequeue zone sizes comprises a spatial representation” [Myr, ¶ 0008, 0037, 0070, 0077-0081, 0104-0106, 0143, 0202 with Figures 3 and 5];
Myr does not specifically state how the deques zones are calculated, just that they are.
Xu, which is also intersection control system teaches “A computer system for displaying a supply of traffic capacity at a roadway intersection” [Xu, ¶ 0007, 0010-0011, 0054, 0064 with Figures 5-7];
“comprising: one or more processors” [Xu, ¶ 0004 with Figure 1];
“and one or more computer-readable media stored having thereon executable instructions that when executed by the one or more processors configure the computer system to” [Xu, ¶ 0004 with Figure 1];
“calculate one or more dequeue zone sizes based on phase time duration data for the roadway intersection” [Xu, ¶ 0007, 0010-0011, 0054, 0064 with Figures 5-7 (The apparatus may further be caused to determine a congestion condition in response to the estimated number of vehicles at the start of the next transition from a red phase to a green phase of the traffic light being greater than the intersection saturation vehicle number)];
“wherein the one or more dequeue zone sizes comprise a predicted or estimated length of roadway or a predicted or estimated number of vehicles that can dequeue during a single active signal phase” [Xu, ¶ 0007, 0010-0011, 0054, 0064 with Figures 5-7 (The apparatus may further be caused to determine a congestion condition in response to the estimated number of vehicles at the start of the next transition from a red phase to a green phase of the traffic light being greater than the intersection saturation vehicle number)];
“and display, at a computer interface, a visual representation of the one or more dequeue zone sizes for one or more approaches of the roadway intersection” [Xu, ¶ 0007, 0010-0011, 0054, 0064 with Figures 5-7 (the method may provide an indication on a display of a representation of the path through the intersection to be highlighted in a first color in response to the congestion status being low, a second color in response to the congestion status being medium, and a third color in response to the congestion status being heavy)];
“wherein the visual representation of the one or more dequeue zone sizes comprises a spatial representation” [Xu, ¶ 0007, 0010-0011, 0054, 0064 with Figures 5-7 (the method may provide an indication on a display of a representation of the path through the intersection to be highlighted in a first color in response to the congestion status being low, a second color in response to the congestion status being medium, and a third color in response to the congestion status being heavy)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Xu into the invention of Myr to not only displaying intersection information and allowing user input to control traffic lights based on traffic data and congestion data as Myr discloses but to also automatically create and display vehicle light capacity values, based on the number of cars transitioning during a light as taught by Xu with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Xu into Myr to create a more robust system that can dynamically measure queue length for better traffic control and congestion avoidance [Xu, ¶ 0003]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as traffic mitigations and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 2: While Myr discloses “The computer system of claim 1, wherein the executable instructions include instructions that are executable to configure the computer system to calculate the one or more dequeue zone sizes further comprise executable instructions to calculate the one or more dequeue zone sizes” [Myr, ¶ 0008, 0037, 0070, 0077-0081, 0104-0106, 0143, 0202 with Figures 3 and 5];
Myr does not specifically state how the deques zones are calculated, just that they are.
Xu, which is also intersection control system teaches “The computer system of claim 1, wherein the executable instructions include instructions that are executable to configure the computer system to calculate the one or more dequeue zone sizes further comprise executable instructions to calculate the one or more dequeue zone sizes based upon a capacity mode” [Xu, ¶ 0007, 0010-0011, 0049-0055, 0064 with Figures 5-7 (traffic capacity may be calculated by traffic processing engine)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Xu into the invention of Myr to not only displaying intersection information and allowing user input to control traffic lights based on traffic data and congestion data as Myr discloses but to also automatically create and display vehicle light capacity values, based on the number of cars transitioning during a light as taught by Xu with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Xu into Myr to create a more robust system that can dynamically measure queue length for better traffic control and congestion avoidance [Xu, ¶ 0003]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as traffic mitigations and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 3: While Myr discloses “The computer system of claim 1, wherein the executable instructions configure the computer system to also calculate one or more queue sizes” [Myr, ¶ 0008, 0037, 0070, 0077-0081, 0104-0106, 0143, 0202 with Figures 3 and 5];
Myr does not specifically state how the deques zones are calculated, just that they are.
Xu, which is also intersection control system teaches “The computer system of claim 1, wherein the executable instructions configure the computer system to also calculate one or more queue sizes based on traffic demand data for the roadway intersection” [Xu, ¶ 0007, 0010-0011, 0049-0055, 0064 with Figures 5-7 (traffic capacity may be calculated by traffic processing engine 130 based upon analysis of probe data 120 associated with vehicles traversing an intersection)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Xu into the invention of Myr to not only displaying intersection information and allowing user input to control traffic lights based on traffic data and congestion data as Myr discloses but to also automatically create and display vehicle light capacity values, based on the number of cars transitioning during a light as taught by Xu with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Xu into Myr to create a more robust system that can dynamically measure queue length for better traffic control and congestion avoidance [Xu, ¶ 0003]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as traffic mitigations and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 4: Myr discloses “The computer system of claim 3, wherein the traffic demand data for the roadway intersection comprises historical data based upon a historical average amount of inbound traffic at the roadway intersection” [Myr, ¶ 0008, 0037, 0070, 0077-0081, 0104-0106, 0143, 0202 with Figures 3 and 5].
With respect to Claim 7: Myr discloses “The computer system of claim 3, wherein the traffic demand data for the roadway intersection comprises real-time data received from a traffic sensor system at the roadway intersection” [Myr, ¶ 0008, 0037, 0070, 0077-0081, 0104-0106, 0143, 0202 with Figures 3 and 5].
With respect to Claim 8: Myr discloses “The computer system of claim 1, wherein the visual representation of one or more legs of the roadway intersection comprises a photograph of the roadway intersection” [Myr, ¶ 0008, 0037, 0070, 0077-0081, 0104-0106, 0143, 0202 with Figures 3 and 5].
With respect to Claim 9: Myr discloses “The computer system of claim 1, wherein displaying the visual representation of the one or more dequeue zone sizes for the one or more approaches of the roadway intersection comprises rendering of the one or more dequeue zone sizes on a per-lane basis overlaid on the visual representation of one or more legs of the roadway intersection” [Myr, ¶ 0008, 0037, 0070, 0077-0081, 0104-0106, 0143, 0202 with Figures 3 and 5].
With respect to Claim 10: Myr discloses “The computer system of claim 3, wherein the visual representation also depicts a rendering of one or more queue sizes for one or more approaches of the roadway intersection.” [Myr, ¶ 0008, 0037, 0070, 0077-0081, 0104-0106, 0143, 0202 with Figures 3 and 5].
With respect to Claim 11: Myr discloses “The computer system of claim 10, wherein the rendering of the one or more queue sizes for one or more approaches of the roadway intersection comprises rendering the one or more queue sizes on a per-lane basis overlaid on the visual representation of one or more legs of the roadway intersection” [Myr, ¶ 0008, 0037, 0070, 0077-0081, 0104-0106, 0143, 0202 with Figures 3 and 5].
With respect to Claim 12: Myr discloses “The computer system of claim 3, wherein at least a portion of the one or more queue sizes and the one or more dequeue zone sizes visually overlap” [Myr, ¶ 0008, 0037, 0070, 0077-0081, 0104-0106, 0143, 0202 with Figures 3 and 5].
With respect to Claim 13: Myr discloses “The computer system of claim 1, wherein the executable instructions include instructions that are executable to configure the computer system to: receive, through the computer interface, an input configured to adjust a size of a particular dequeue zone size selected from the one or more dequeue zone sizes” Myr, ¶ 0008, 0037, 0070, 0077-0081, 0104-0106, 0143, 0202 with Figures 3 and 5];
“and display the particular dequeue zone size with the adjusted size” [Myr, ¶ 0008, 0037, 0070, 0077-0081, 0104-0106, 0143, 0202 with Figures 3 and 5].
With respect to Claim 15: While Myr discloses “The computer system of claim 1, wherein the executable instructions include instructions that are executable to configure the computer system to: render in real-time a dequeue zone size” [Myr, ¶ 0008, 0037, 0070, 0077-0081, 0104-0106, 0143, 0202 with Figures 3 and 5].
Myr does not specifically state how the deques zones are calculated, just that they are.
Xu, which is also intersection control system teaches “The computer system of claim 1, wherein the executable instructions include instructions that are executable to configure the computer system to: render in real-time a dequeue zone size live residual based upon a limited active time remaining for active phases” [Xu, ¶ 0007, 0010-0011, 0049-0055, 0064 with Figures 5-7 (ongoing basis, with updates to a digital map interface in real time as congestion is established on a per-intersection or per-path into intersection basis rather than upon congestion determination across the network or region of the network of roadways and intersections)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Xu into the invention of Myr to not only displaying intersection information and allowing user input to control traffic lights based on traffic data and congestion data as Myr discloses but to also automatically create and display vehicle light capacity values, based on the number of cars transitioning during a light as taught by Xu with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Xu into Myr to create a more robust system that can dynamically measure queue length for better traffic control and congestion avoidance [Xu, ¶ 0003]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as traffic mitigations and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claims 16-19, 22-28, and 30: all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in Claims 1-4, 7-13, and 15. The method taught/disclosed in Claims 16-19, 22-28, and 30 can clearly perform on the system of Claims 1-4, 7-13, and 15. Therefore Claims 16-19, 22-28, and 30 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 5-6 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Myr (United States Patent Publication 2008/0094250) in view of Xu et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0151064), and further view of Palumbo et al. (United States Patent 11,270,581).
With respect to Claims 5 and 6: While Myr measuring historical traffic data and traffic congestion and even using road sensors, Myr does not specifically state how the congestion or what the congestion is.
Palumbo, which is also vehicle queue/load measuring system for intersections teaches “inbound traffic is measured based upon objects stopping in one or more queue positions upstream of a stop bar on red” [Palumbo, Col 2 lines 20-67, Col 7 lines4-44 with Figure 2];
“inbound traffic is measured based upon a stop bar sensor that detects objects crossing a stop bar” [Palumbo, Col 2 lines 20-67, Col 7 lines4-44 with Figure 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Palumbo into the invention of Myr to not only displaying intersection information and allowing user input to control traffic lights based on traffic data and congestion data as Myr discloses but to also use sensors to measure the traffic loads based on stop bars as taught by Palumbo with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Palumbo into Myr to create a more robust system that can dynamically measure queue length [Palumbo, Col 2 lines 60-67]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as traffic mitigations and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claims 20-21: all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in Claims 5-6. The method taught/disclosed in Claims 20-21 can clearly perform on the system of Claims 5-6. Therefore Claims 20-21 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am -4pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c