DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice on Prior Art Rejections
2. 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.
Status of Claims
3. This Office Action is in response to the applicant's arguments/remarks filed November 10, 2025. Claim 11 has been amended. Claims 1-13 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
4. Judicial Exception Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101. Applicant's arguments/remarks filed November 10, 2025 regarding 35 USC § 101 rejection have been fully considered. Applicant's arguments/amendments are not persuasive. Accordingly, the 35 USC § 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that “These steps go beyond mere data collection or abstract comparison; they implement a concrete, real-world interaction between traffic signals, sensors, and vehicle control systems, thereby improving the safety of automated driving. Furthermore, the specification states that the invention is integrated into an infrastructure system for connected vehicles and includes the transmission of warnings to vehicles to ensure safe operation. This is a tangible technological solution in the operation of technology, e.g., automated vehicle safety via real-time plausibility checks of traffic signals”.
Pursuant to MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity [R-10.2019], “The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent… (3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B. Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: • Mere Data Gathering”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification does not disclose any improvement to the art. The limitation steps of Claim 1 that are attributed to intersection system are an insignificant extra-solution activity and mere data gathering that is not considered an inventive concept. The examiner considers the data gathering of claim 1 to be insignificant extra-solution activity (Step 2A), and therefore find that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, the 35 USC § 101 rejection is maintained.
5. 35 USC § 103 rejection. Applicant's arguments/remarks filed November 10, 2025 regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejection have been fully considered. Applicant's arguments/amendments are not persuasive. Accordingly, the 35 USC § 103 rejection is maintained.
The applicant argues that “The claims recite the feature of acquiring a traffic flow that crosses a traffic flow regulated by the traffic light signal, and ascertaining characterizing data of the crossing traffic flow. In contrast, Khosla discloses evaluating vehicle positions, densities, or priorities but does not disclose or suggest identifying a "crossing traffic flow," e.g., a perpendicular or conflicting flow at the intersection”
Pursuant to MPEP 2144 Supporting a Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 103, I. RATIONALE MAY BE IN A REFERENCE, OR REASONED FROM COMMON KNOWLEDGE IN THE ART, SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES, ART-RECOGNIZED EQUIVALENTS, OR LEGAL PRECEDENT, “The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992)”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation of “acquiring a traffic flow that crosses a traffic flow” a conventional and known limitation in the art that is also expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art in the Non-Final rejection. For example, in Khosla fig 6A, 6B, and 7, it can be observed that there is a number of vehicles passing a traffic signal over a period of time. This feature is known in the art and use for any number of calculations to predict traffic parameters. Traffic flow is the product of traffic density times speed and since the prior art discloses these two, traffic flow can be calculated (See at least fig 1-12, ¶ 5, 21, 104, 109, 110, 113, 115, 116, 124, 150, 128, “The one or more vehicle groups may be based on clearance factors, such as the number of vehicles in a proximate area, traffic density flowing in a direction, the speed of the vehicles, the classification of the vehicles, the configuration of the junction (e.g., turning lanes, merging lanes), vehicle sizes, platooning information, and vehicle or group priority information”). Additionally, this limitation can be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art and traffic flow determination has been used to detect useful traffic information to modify infrastructure. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Accordingly, the limitations argued by the applicant are expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art as shown. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Therefore, for the above reasons, the examiner maintains rejection over claims 1-13.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
6. 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.
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.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) 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;
(B) 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”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “a communication unit configured to transmit and/or receive”, “communicator configured to transmit”, “acquirer configured to acquire”, “evaluator configured to evaluate”, “outputter configured to issue a warning”, in claims 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The examiner notes that the corresponding structure that performs the claimed function described is found in the specification to be an infrastructure system “an infrastructure system 100 (for example a RSU) comprising a device 201” in at least figure 2.
If applicant does not intend to have this/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.
Judicial Exception Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites “receiving a transmitted traffic light signal, wherein the traffic light signal represents a current traffic light phase and an associated lane of a traffic light of the intersection system; acquiring a traffic flow that crosses a traffic flow regulated by the traffic light signal, and ascertaining characterizing data of the crossing traffic flow; evaluating the characterizing data to determine whether they correspond to the characterizing data to be expected in relation to the transmitted traffic light signal; and issuing a warning based on detecting a non-correspondence.”.
The limitations of claim 1 presented above, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an intersection system” nothing in the claims elements precludes the steps from practically being performed as part of human activities. For example, “receiving a transmitted traffic light signal, wherein the traffic light signal represents a current traffic light” in the context of this claim encompasses the user the user manually or mentally observing a traffic light at an intersection. Similarly, the limitation of “acquiring a traffic flow that crosses a traffic flow regulated by the traffic light signal”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind where a person is mentally able to observe traffic flow at an intersection. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation of “issuing a warning” is not a practical application. Accordingly, the claim lack of additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. The independent claims 2-10 are also rejected for their dependency upon claim 1. Further, claims 11-13 are also rejected because they amount no more than the same mere instructions of the method of claim 1 in a system which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Khosla et al, US 2024/0096212, in view of Naga et al. US 2023/0113684, hereinafter referred to as Khosla and Naga, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Khosla discloses a method for carrying out a plausibility check of a transmitted traffic light signal at an intersection system, comprising the following steps:
receiving a transmitted traffic light signal, wherein the traffic light signal represents a current traffic light phase and an associated lane of a traffic light of the intersection system (See at least fig 1-12, ¶ 4, 5, 6, 7, 21, 108, 113, 112, “The RSU 602 may be configured to broadcast or unicast instruction messages to the respective vehicles in the groups. For example, the application layer specifications (e.g., SAE/ESTI/C-SAE) may include traffic intersection control information messages indicating whether the receiving vehicles should proceed ( e.g., green light) or not proceed (e.g., red light) through the intersection 600”);
acquiring a traffic flow that crosses a traffic flow regulated by the traffic light signal, and ascertaining characterizing data of the crossing traffic flow (See at least fig 1-12, ¶ 5, 21, 104, 109, 110, 113, 115, 116, 124, 128, 150 “The method of clause 1 the one or more vehicle groups are based a location of a vehicle, a number of vehicles in a proximate area, a traffic density flowing in a direction, a configuration of an intersection, a size associated with a vehicle, a priority value associated with one or more vehicles, or any combination thereof”);
evaluating the characterizing data to determine whether they correspond to the characterizing data to be expected in relation to the transmitted traffic light signal (See at least fig 1-12, ¶ 5, 112, 116, 128, 152, 129, 123, 124 “the method includes evaluating the state of the junction. The RSU 808 may evaluate the locations of vehicles in and proximate to the junction prior to transmitting traffic intersection messages. For example, the location information for each of the vehicles may be used to identify the density of the vehicles to evaluate the state of the junction in view of a traffic control plan”); and
issuing a warning based on detecting a non-correspondence (See at least fig 1-12, ¶ 4, 5, 6, 101, 103, 148, 134, 133, 130, 21, 108 “The diagrams include an intersection 600 with at least one traffic light 608 which may be experiencing a system failure and may be inoperable. The intersection 600 includes an RSU 602 configured to communicate with entities proximate to the intersection 600 such as a plurality of vehicles, the traffic light 608, other signal devices and sensors/detectors”).
Khosla fails to explicitly disclose issuing a warning.
However, Naga teaches issuing a warning (See at least fig 1-7, ¶ 3, 7, 9, 19, 30, 36, 68, 75, 80, “RSU are informed of the faulty RSU status and may transmit information about the faulty RSU to nearby RSUs and other OBUs. Nearby non-faulty RSUs may then forward information about the faulty RSU to the operation center. This may result in the operation center adjusting commands relayed to OBUs via RSUs, for example, changing a travel path of a vehicle configured with the OBU, adjusting traffic signals, adjusting the vehicle speed, and so on.”).
Therefore, 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 method of Khosla and include issuing a warning as taught by Naga because it would allow for real-time adjustment of traffic control (e.g., traffic signals, speed limits, lane closures, et cetera) based on traffic conditions (Naga ¶ 19).
Regarding claim 2, Khosla discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the characterizing data of the crossing traffic flow include position data of objects and/or speed data of objects and/or acceleration data of objects (See at least fig 1-12, ¶ 128, 132, 127, 115, 109, 23, 59, 60, 121, “The RSU 808 may determine vehicle state information (e.g., location, speed, direction, etc.) based on the received BSMs 810 and/or information reported by the neighboring stations. For example, neighboring RSUs may process received BSMs and forward the corresponding state information to the RSU 808”).
Regarding claim 3, Khosla discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the characterizing data of the crossing traffic flow is determined using a stationary sensor system of an infrastructure system (See at least fig 1-12, ¶ 35, 113, 107, 104, 98, 96, 97, “Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) is a communication model that allows vehicles to share information with the components that support a road or highway system, such as overhead radio-frequency identification (RFID) readers and cameras, traffic lights, lane markers, streetlights, signage and parking meters, and so forth.”).
Regarding claim 4, Khosla discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein at least one object list of objects that represent the crossing traffic flow within a specific spatial area around the intersection system is created, wherein the plausibility check is carried out based on the at least one object list (See at least fig 1-12, ¶ 5, 7, 22, 154, 137, 135, 130, 125, 114, 115, “The message in FIG. 9B may be group casted to the vehicles in the coverage area, and the receiving vehicles may be configured to act on the message based on detecting their respective identification in the temporary IDList. Other signaling techniques may be used to provide the OBUs with the traffic intersection control information”).
Regarding claim 5, Khosla discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation of the characterizing data includes acquiring a collective movement of a plurality of crossing objects, wherein the expected characterizing data include a speed of the crossing objects and/or a speed distribution of the crossing objects and/or an acceleration of the crossing objects and/or acceleration direction of the crossing objects, associated with a specific traffic light phase (See at least fig 1-12, ¶ 128, 132, 127, 115, 109, 23, 59, 60, 121, “The RSU 808 may determine vehicle state information (e.g., location, speed, direction, etc.) based on the received BSMs 810 and/or information reported by the neighboring stations. For example, neighboring RSUs may process received BSMs and forward the corresponding state information to the RSU 808”).
Regarding claim 6, Khosla discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein the crossing objects are crossing motor vehicles (See at least fig 1-12, ¶ 128, 132, 127, 115, 109, 23, 59, 60, 121, 108, “The intersection 600 includes an RSU 602 configured to communicate with entities proximate to the intersection 600 such as a plurality of vehicles, the traffic light 608, other signal devices and sensors/detectors ( e.g., vehicle detection devices, pedestrian crosswalk signals, etc.).”).
Regarding claim 7, Khosla discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein an increase in speed and/or a decrease in speed along a row of crossing objects is recognized and assigned to: (i) a specific traffic light phase and/or (ii) a change of a traffic light phase (See at least fig 1-12, ¶ 4, 5, 6, 7, 21, 108, 103, 110, 111, 112, 109, 113, “The vehicles may be configured to negotiate the right of way based on previously established clearance factors or other rules engines. For example, a first in first out scheme may be used give a group priority at an intersection. In high traffic density use cases, subgroups may be created such that a portion of a group is given priority ( e.g., a green light) while other subgroups are provided halt instructions ( e.g., red light). Other grouping options may also be used.”).
Regarding claim 8, Khosla discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein an almost constant speed greater than zero, within a defined speed interval, of the crossing objects is recognized and assigned to a red phase of the traffic light (See at least fig 1-12, ¶ 4, 5, 6, 7, 21, 108, 103, 110, 111, 112, 109, 113, 121, 127, 132, 128, “The one or more vehicle groups may be based on clearance factors, such as the number of vehicles in a proximate area, traffic density flowing in a direction, the speed of the vehicles, the classification of the vehicles, the configuration of the junction (e.g., turning lanes, merging lanes), vehicle sizes, platooning information, and vehicle or group priority information”).
Regarding claim 9, Khosla discloses the method according to Claim 5, wherein an almost constant speed near or equal to zero of the crossing objects is recognized and assigned to a green phase of the traffic light (See at least fig 1-12, ¶ 4, 5, 6, 7, 21, 108, 103, 110, 111, 112, 109, 113, 121, 127, 132, 128, “The one or more vehicle groups may be based on clearance factors, such as the number of vehicles in a proximate area, traffic density flowing in a direction, the speed of the vehicles, the classification of the vehicles, the configuration of the junction (e.g., turning lanes, merging lanes), vehicle sizes, platooning information, and vehicle or group priority information”).
Regarding claim 10, Khosla discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the warning includes a V2X message transmitted to at least one at least partially automated connected motor vehicle that is moving in an area of the traffic light, wherein the V2X message includes an instruction to transfer the motor vehicle into a safe state (See at least fig 1-12, ¶ 102, 103, 113, 3, 21, 23, 96, 101, “This is just one use case for V2X for improving safety. Other examples of V2X use cases directed to safety include forward collision warning, lane change warning/
blind spot warning, emergency electric brake light warning, intersection movement assist, emergency vehicle approaching, road works warning, and platooning”).
Regarding claim 11, Khosla discloses a device for carrying out a plausibility check of a transmitted traffic light signal at an intersection system, the device comprising:
a communicator configured to transmit and/or receive a traffic light signal, wherein the traffic light signal represents a current traffic light phase of a traffic light of the intersection system (See at least fig 1-12, ¶ 4, 5, 6, 7, 21, 108, 113, 112, “The RSU 602 may be configured to broadcast or unicast instruction messages to the respective vehicles in the groups. For example, the application layer specifications (e.g., SAE/ESTI/C-SAE) may include traffic intersection control information messages indicating whether the receiving vehicles should proceed ( e.g., green light) or not proceed (e.g., red light) through the intersection 600”);
an acquirer configured to acquire a traffic flow which crosses a traffic flow regulated by the traffic light signal and ascertain characterizing data of the crossing traffic flow (See at least fig 1-12, ¶ 5, 21, 104, 109, 110, 113, 115, 116, 124, 128, 150 “The method of clause 1 the one or more vehicle groups are based a location of a vehicle, a number of vehicles in a proximate area, a traffic density flowing in a direction, a configuration of an intersection, a size associated with a vehicle, a priority value associated with one or more vehicles, or any combination thereof”);
an evaluator configured to evaluate the characterizing data to determine whether they correspond to the characterizing data to be expected in relation to the transmitted traffic light signal (See at least fig 1-12, ¶ 5, 112, 116, 128, 152, 129, 123, 124 “the method includes evaluating the state of the junction. The RSU 808 may evaluate the locations of vehicles in and proximate to the junction prior to transmitting traffic intersection messages. For example, the location information for each of the vehicles may be used to identify the density of the vehicles to evaluate the state of the junction in view of a traffic control plan”); and
an outputter configured to issue a warning if a non-correspondence is detected (See at least fig 1-12, ¶ 4, 5, 6, 101, 103, 148, 134, 133, 130, 21, 108 “The diagrams include an intersection 600 with at least one traffic light 608 which may be experiencing a system failure and may be inoperable. The intersection 600 includes an RSU 602 configured to communicate with entities proximate to the intersection 600 such as a plurality of vehicles, the traffic light 608, other signal devices and sensors/detectors”).
Khosla fails to explicitly disclose issue a warning.
However, Naga teaches issue a warning (See at least fig 1-7, ¶ 3, 7, 9, 19, 30, 36, 68, 75, 80, “RSU are informed of the faulty RSU status and may transmit information about the faulty RSU to nearby RSUs and other OBUs. Nearby non-faulty RSUs may then forward information about the faulty RSU to the operation center. This may result in the operation center adjusting commands relayed to OBUs via RSUs, for example, changing a travel path of a vehicle configured with the OBU, adjusting traffic signals, adjusting the vehicle speed, and so on.”).
Therefore, 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 system of Khosla and include issue a warning as taught by Naga because it would allow for real-time adjustment of traffic control (e.g., traffic signals, speed limits, lane closures, et cetera) based on traffic conditions (Naga ¶ 19).
Regarding claim 12, Khosla discloses an infrastructure system for supporting driving of an at least partially automated connected motor vehicle, the infrastructure system being configured to carry out a plausibility check of a transmitted traffic light signal at an intersection system, the infrastructure system configured to:
receive a transmitted traffic light signal, wherein the traffic light signal represents a current traffic light phase and an associated lane of a traffic light of the intersection system (See at least fig 1-12, ¶ 4, 5, 6, 7, 21, 108, 113, 112, “The RSU 602 may be configured to broadcast or unicast instruction messages to the respective vehicles in the groups. For example, the application layer specifications (e.g., SAE/ESTI/C-SAE) may include traffic intersection control information messages indicating whether the receiving vehicles should proceed ( e.g., green light) or not proceed (e.g., red light) through the intersection 600”);
acquire a traffic flow that crosses a traffic flow regulated by the traffic light signal, and ascertaining characterizing data of the crossing traffic flow (See at least fig 1-12, ¶ 5, 21, 104, 109, 110, 113, 115, 116, 124, 128, 150 “The method of clause 1 the one or more vehicle groups are based a location of a vehicle, a number of vehicles in a proximate area, a traffic density flowing in a direction, a configuration of an intersection, a size associated with a vehicle, a priority value associated with one or more vehicles, or any combination thereof”);
evaluate the characterizing data to determine whether they correspond to the characterizing data to be expected in relation to the transmitted traffic light signal (See at least fig 1-12, ¶ 5, 112, 116, 128, 152, 129, 123, 124 “the method includes evaluating the state of the junction. The RSU 808 may evaluate the locations of vehicles in and proximate to the junction prior to transmitting traffic intersection messages. For example, the location information for each of the vehicles may be used to identify the density of the vehicles to evaluate the state of the junction in view of a traffic control plan”); and
issue a warning based on detecting a non-correspondence (See at least fig 1-12, ¶ 4, 5, 6, 101, 103, 148, 134, 133, 130, 21, 108 “The diagrams include an intersection 600 with at least one traffic light 608 which may be experiencing a system failure and may be inoperable. The intersection 600 includes an RSU 602 configured to communicate with entities proximate to the intersection 600 such as a plurality of vehicles, the traffic light 608, other signal devices and sensors/detectors”).
Khosla fails to explicitly disclose issue a warning.
However, Naga teaches issue a warning (See at least fig 1-7, ¶ 3, 7, 9, 19, 30, 36, 68, 75, 80, “RSU are informed of the faulty RSU status and may transmit information about the faulty RSU to nearby RSUs and other OBUs. Nearby non-faulty RSUs may then forward information about the faulty RSU to the operation center. This may result in the operation center adjusting commands relayed to OBUs via RSUs, for example, changing a travel path of a vehicle configured with the OBU, adjusting traffic signals, adjusting the vehicle speed, and so on.”).
Therefore, 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 system of Khosla and include issue a warning as taught by Naga because it would allow for real-time adjustment of traffic control (e.g., traffic signals, speed limits, lane closures, et cetera) based on traffic conditions (Naga ¶ 19).
Regarding claim 13, Khosla discloses a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program for carrying out a plausibility check of a transmitted traffic light signal at an intersection system, the computer program, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to perform the following steps:
receiving a transmitted traffic light signal, wherein the traffic light signal represents a current traffic light phase and an associated lane of a traffic light of the intersection system (See at least fig 1-12, ¶ 4, 5, 6, 7, 21, 108, 113, 112, “The RSU 602 may be configured to broadcast or unicast instruction messages to the respective vehicles in the groups. For example, the application layer specifications (e.g., SAE/ESTI/C-SAE) may include traffic intersection control information messages indicating whether the receiving vehicles should proceed ( e.g., green light) or not proceed (e.g., red light) through the intersection 600”);
acquiring a traffic flow that crosses a traffic flow regulated by the traffic light signal, and ascertaining characterizing data of the crossing traffic flow (See at least fig 1-12, ¶ 5, 21, 104, 109, 110, 113, 115, 116, 124, 128, 150 “The method of clause 1 the one or more vehicle groups are based a location of a vehicle, a number of vehicles in a proximate area, a traffic density flowing in a direction, a configuration of an intersection, a size associated with a vehicle, a priority value associated with one or more vehicles, or any combination thereof”);
evaluating the characterizing data to determine whether they correspond to the characterizing data to be expected in relation to the transmitted traffic light signal (See at least fig 1-12, ¶ 5, 112, 116, 128, 152, 129, 123, 124 “the method includes evaluating the state of the junction. The RSU 808 may evaluate the locations of vehicles in and proximate to the junction prior to transmitting traffic intersection messages. For example, the location information for each of the vehicles may be used to identify the density of the vehicles to evaluate the state of the junction in view of a traffic control plan”); and
issuing a warning based on detecting a non-correspondence (See at least fig 1-12, ¶ 4, 5, 6, 101, 103, 148, 134, 133, 130, 21, 108 “The diagrams include an intersection 600 with at least one traffic light 608 which may be experiencing a system failure and may be inoperable. The intersection 600 includes an RSU 602 configured to communicate with entities proximate to the intersection 600 such as a plurality of vehicles, the traffic light 608, other signal devices and sensors/detectors”).
Khosla fails to explicitly disclose issuing a warning.
However, Naga teaches issuing a warning (See at least fig 1-7, ¶ 3, 7, 9, 19, 30, 36, 68, 75, 80, “RSU are informed of the faulty RSU status and may transmit information about the faulty RSU to nearby RSUs and other OBUs. Nearby non-faulty RSUs may then forward information about the faulty RSU to the operation center. This may result in the operation center adjusting commands relayed to OBUs via RSUs, for example, changing a travel path of a vehicle configured with the OBU, adjusting traffic signals, adjusting the vehicle speed, and so on.”).
Therefore, 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 system of Khosla and issuing a warning as taught by Naga because it would allow for real-time adjustment of traffic control (e.g., traffic signals, speed limits, lane closures, et cetera) based on traffic conditions (Naga ¶ 19).
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS MARTINEZ whose email is luis.martinezborrero@uspto.gov and telephone number is (571)272-4577. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM EST.
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, HUNTER LONSBERRY can be reached on (571)272-7298. 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.
/LUIS A MARTINEZ BORRERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665