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 4/4/2024 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 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1 and 14 are independent.
Non-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 1-20 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 14 is directed to an method. Therefore, Claim 14 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 14 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 system comprising: one or more processors programmed to:
obtain information on lane changes of vehicles in a road section including a traffic jam section,
the road section including a plurality of lanes;
collect driving data of the vehicles after the lane changes;
estimate lane-level traffic jam distribution of the plurality of lanes based on the information on the lane changes and the driving data;
and transmit the lane-level traffic jam distribution to vehicles approaching the traffic jam section.
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 “obtaining, collecting, estimating, and transmitting” steps encompass a user to make gather data, determine traffic values, and transmit results. 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 programmed to”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “processor” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the obtaining, collecting, estimating, and transmitting steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the processor is claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and does 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 a processor. Furthermore, the examiner submits that the recitations of estimating traffic values and transmitting is a mere definition that does not necessarily impose any meaningful limits on performing the steps in the human mind, as it only estimates traffic data where a user could in fact perform this mentally or using paper and pencil. In addition to that, the examiner submits that obtaining and collecting data, using a processor, and transmitting are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a processor to perform the process. In particular, the obtaining and collecting steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the estimating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, 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 processor 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 amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of obtaining and collecting data, estimating values, and transmitting, 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 receiving the data and determining errors 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 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 14 is not patent eligible for the same reasons.
Dependent Claims 2-13 and 15-20 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 14.
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 vehicle with the transmitted data. Limitations such as these suggested above 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 § 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 1-2, 10-12, 14-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Rahab et al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0329770).
With respect to Claim 1: Rahab discloses “A system comprising: one or more processors programmed to”[Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figure 4 and Claim 1 (a processor operatively connected for computer communication to the vehicle communication network, wherein the processor: receives vehicle data transmitted from the plurality of vehicles; integrates the vehicle data into the plurality of lane level cells];
“obtain information on lane changes of vehicles in a road section including a traffic jam section” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figure 4 (For example, in some embodiments, the feature extraction module 226 can identify a vehicle maneuver within each lane-level cell based on the vehicle data. The vehicle maneuver can be classified into five classes: through maneuver including both entry and leaving (M1), left lane change out (M2), right lane change out (M3), right lane change in (M4), left lane change in (M5))];
“the road section including a plurality of lanes” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figure 4];
“collect driving data of the vehicles after the lane changes” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figure 4(Based on the crowdsourced vehicle data)];
“estimate lane-level traffic jam distribution of the plurality of lanes based on the information on the lane changes and the driving data” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figure 4 (calculates a probability that a hazard exists with respect to the lane level cell based on the vehicle data associated with the lane-level cell, the vehicle data associated with an adjacent upstream cell, and the vehicle data associated with an adjacent downstream cell)];
“and transmit the lane-level traffic jam distribution to vehicles approaching the traffic jam section” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, and 0049-0056 (the lane recommendation module 230 can control one or more vehicle systems 208 based on the hazard 106 detected downstream of the travelling lane of the HV 102. For example, hazard information and/or lane choice suggestions can be provided to a human machine interface of the HV 102)].
With respect to Claim 2: Rahab discloses “The system of claim 1, wherein the lane-level traffic jam distribution includes a probability of traffic jam in each of the plurality of lanes” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figure 4 (calculates a probability that a hazard exists with respect to the lane level cell based on the vehicle data associated with the lane-level cell, the vehicle data associated with an adjacent upstream cell, and the vehicle data associated with an adjacent downstream cell)].
With respect to Claim 10: Rajab discloses “The system of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are programmed to: obtain a number of lane changes by a vehicle before the vehicle enters a traffic jam” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4];
“obtain a number of lane changes by the vehicle after the vehicle enters the traffic jam” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4];
“and adjust the lane-level traffic jam distribution based on the number of lane changes by the vehicle before the vehicle enters the traffic jam and the number of lane changes by the vehicle after the vehicle enters the traffic jam.” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4 (the probability that there is a hazard at cell (i, j); V.sub.ij is the average speed of cell (i, j); V.sub.i is the average speed across all the lanes at longitudinal segment I; V.sub.i−1 is the average speed of the lanes at cell (i, j) in the upstream adjacent longitudinal segment; V.sub.i+1 is the average speed of the lanes at cell (i, j) in the downstream adjacent longitudinal segment; m.sub.i is the number of a vehicle maneuver (discussed below) that happened at cell (i, j), which belongs to predefined maneuver type i; m is the total number of maneuver happened at cell (i, j); n is the number of maneuver types; and β.sub.k represents the coefficients of the parameters)].
Office Note: In this example of Figure 4, the traffic jam is identified and vehicles maneuvers around the vehicle, speeds ahead, below, during and after are accounted for in the probability of each lanes traffic jam status based on the number and values. Thus speeds, maneuvers will be accounted for, as the claims require.
With respect to Claim 11: Rajab discloses “The system of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are programmed to: identify a vehicle in a traffic jam” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4];
“obtain a number of lane changes by the vehicle after being in the traffic jam and a direction of the lane changes” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4 (visualizes lane change maneuvers for vehicles when a downstream hazard is present)];
“and adjust the lane-level traffic jam distribution based on the number of lane changes by the vehicle after being in the traffic jam and the direction of the lane changes” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4 (the probability that there is a hazard at cell (i, j); V.sub.ij is the average speed of cell (i, j); V.sub.i is the average speed across all the lanes at longitudinal segment I; V.sub.i−1 is the average speed of the lanes at cell (i, j) in the upstream adjacent longitudinal segment; V.sub.i+1 is the average speed of the lanes at cell (i, j) in the downstream adjacent longitudinal segment; m.sub.i is the number of a vehicle maneuver (discussed below) that happened at cell (i, j), which belongs to predefined maneuver type i; m is the total number of maneuver happened at cell (i, j); n is the number of maneuver types; and β.sub.k represents the coefficients of the parameters)].
Office Note: In this example of Figure 4, the traffic jam is identified and vehicles maneuvers around the vehicle, speeds ahead, below, during and after are accounted for in the probability of each lanes traffic jam status based on the number and values. Thus speeds, maneuvers will be accounted for, as the claims require.
With respect to Claim 12: Rajab discloses “The system of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are programmed to: identify a first vehicle and a second vehicle in a traffic jam” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4];
“obtain a number of lane changes to a left direction by the first vehicle after being in the traffic jam” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4 (visualizes lane change maneuvers for vehicles when a downstream hazard is present)];
“obtain a number of lane changes to a right direction by the second vehicle after being in the traffic jam” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4 (visualizes lane change maneuvers for vehicles when a downstream hazard is present)];
“and adjust the lane-level traffic jam distribution based on the number of lane changes to the left direction by the first vehicle after being in the traffic jam and the number of lane changes to the right direction by the second vehicle after being in the traffic jam” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4 (the probability that there is a hazard at cell (i, j); V.sub.ij is the average speed of cell (i, j); V.sub.i is the average speed across all the lanes at longitudinal segment I; V.sub.i−1 is the average speed of the lanes at cell (i, j) in the upstream adjacent longitudinal segment; V.sub.i+1 is the average speed of the lanes at cell (i, j) in the downstream adjacent longitudinal segment; m.sub.i is the number of a vehicle maneuver (discussed below) that happened at cell (i, j), which belongs to predefined maneuver type i; m is the total number of maneuver happened at cell (i, j); n is the number of maneuver types; and β.sub.k represents the coefficients of the parameters)].
Office Note: In this example of Figure 4, the traffic jam is identified and vehicles maneuvers around the vehicle, speeds ahead, below, during and after are accounted for in the probability of each lanes traffic jam status based on the number and values. Thus speeds, maneuvers will be accounted for, as the claims require.
With respect to Claims 14-15 and 20: all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in Claims 1-2 and 10-12. The method taught/disclosed in Claims 14-15 and 20 can clearly perform on the system of Claims 1-2 and 10-12. Therefore Claims 14-15 and 20 are rejected under the same rationale.
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 3-9, 13 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Rahab et al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0329770) in view of Pronovost (United States Patent Publication 2024/0210942).
With respect to Claim 3: While Rahab discloses “The system of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are further programmed to: identify a vehicle in a traffic jam” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4];
“obtain information that the vehicle moved to a right lane and had a speed” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4 (visualizes lane change maneuvers for vehicles when a downstream hazard is present)];
“and increase the probability of traffic jam in a leftmost lane of the plurality of lanes based on the information that the vehicle moved to the right lane and had a speed” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4 (the probability that there is a hazard at cell (i, j); V.sub.ij is the average speed of cell (i, j); V.sub.i is the average speed across all the lanes at longitudinal segment I; V.sub.i−1 is the average speed of the lanes at cell (i, j) in the upstream adjacent longitudinal segment; V.sub.i+1 is the average speed of the lanes at cell (i, j) in the downstream adjacent longitudinal segment; m.sub.i is the number of a vehicle maneuver (discussed below) that happened at cell (i, j), which belongs to predefined maneuver type i; m is the total number of maneuver happened at cell (i, j); n is the number of maneuver types; and β.sub.k represents the coefficients of the parameters)];
Rahab does not specifically state measuring acceleration, rather speeds.
Pronovost, which is in the same field of invention of Rahab with teaches “obtain information that the vehicle had a state, speed, location, and acceleration” [Pronovost, ¶ 0016, 0019(based on predicted occupancy data, state data, scene data, etc. determined by one or more models. The actions may include a reference action (e.g., one of a group of maneuvers the vehicle is configured to perform in reaction to a dynamic operating environment) such as a right lane change, a left lane change, staying in a lane, going around an obstacle) and 0071 (a first token represents one of: a yield action, a drive straight action, a left turn action, a right turn action, a brake action, an acceleration action, a steering action, or a lane change action, and a second token represents a position, a heading, or an acceleration of the object), object state data associated with one or more objects (e.g., a previous trajectory, a previous action, a previous position, a previous acceleration, or other state or behavior of the object)].
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 Pronovost into the invention of Rahab to not only include using large data sets such as location, speeds, maneuvers, probabilities and such for vehicle control based on traffic determinations as Rahab discloses but to also use acceleration data for characteristic determination and vehicle control as taught by Pronovost with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Pronovost into Rahab to create a more robust system that account for vehicles a dynamic operating environment and “to identify a safe vehicle response” [Pronovost, ¶ 0015 and 0019]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements of gathering probe vehicle data, which includes location, speed, acceleration and maneuver data for vehicle control 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.
Office Note: In this example of Figure 4 of Rahab, the traffic jam is identified and vehicles maneuvers around the vehicle, speeds ahead, below, during and after are accounted for in the probability of each lanes traffic jam status. Thus speeds, maneuvers will be accounted for, as the claims require.
With respect to Claim 4: While Rajab discloses “The system of claim 3, wherein the one or more processors are further programmed to: obtain information that no vehicle in the traffic jam moved to a left lane and had a speed during a predetermined period of time” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4 (visualizes lane change maneuvers for vehicles when a downstream hazard is present)];
“increase the probability of traffic jam in the leftmost lane of the plurality of lanes based on the information that no vehicle in the traffic jam moved to a left lane and speeds during the predetermined period of time” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4 (the probability that there is a hazard at cell (i, j); V.sub.ij is the average speed of cell (i, j); V.sub.i is the average speed across all the lanes at longitudinal segment I; V.sub.i−1 is the average speed of the lanes at cell (i, j) in the upstream adjacent longitudinal segment; V.sub.i+1 is the average speed of the lanes at cell (i, j) in the downstream adjacent longitudinal segment; m.sub.i is the number of a vehicle maneuver (discussed below) that happened at cell (i, j), which belongs to predefined maneuver type i; m is the total number of maneuver happened at cell (i, j); n is the number of maneuver types; and β.sub.k represents the coefficients of the parameters)];
Rahab does not specifically state measuring acceleration, rather speeds.
Pronovost, which is in the same field of invention of Rahab with teaches “obtain information that the vehicle had a state, speed, location, and acceleration” [Pronovost, ¶ 0016, 0019(based on predicted occupancy data, state data, scene data, etc. determined by one or more models. The actions may include a reference action (e.g., one of a group of maneuvers the vehicle is configured to perform in reaction to a dynamic operating environment) such as a right lane change, a left lane change, staying in a lane, going around an obstacle) and 0071 (a first token represents one of: a yield action, a drive straight action, a left turn action, a right turn action, a brake action, an acceleration action, a steering action, or a lane change action, and a second token represents a position, a heading, or an acceleration of the object), object state data associated with one or more objects (e.g., a previous trajectory, a previous action, a previous position, a previous acceleration, or other state or behavior of the object)].
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 Pronovost into the invention of Rahab to not only include using large data sets such as location, speeds, maneuvers, probabilities and such for vehicle control based on traffic determinations as Rahab discloses but to also use acceleration data for characteristic determination and vehicle control as taught by Pronovost with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Pronovost into Rahab to create a more robust system that account for vehicles a dynamic operating environment and “to identify a safe vehicle response” [Pronovost, ¶ 0015 and 0019]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements of gathering probe vehicle data, which includes location, speed, acceleration and maneuver data for vehicle control 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.
Office Note: In this example of Figure 4 of Rahab, the traffic jam is identified and vehicles maneuvers around the vehicle, speeds ahead, below, during and after are accounted for in the probability of each lanes traffic jam status. Thus speeds, maneuvers will be accounted for, as the claims require.
With respect to Claim 5: While Rajab discloses “The system of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are further programmed to: identify a vehicle in a traffic jam” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4];
“obtain information that the vehicle moved to a left lane and had a speed” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4 (visualizes lane change maneuvers for vehicles when a downstream hazard is present)];
“and increase the probability of traffic jam in a rightmost lane of the plurality of lanes based on the information that the vehicle moved to the left lane and had a speed” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4 (the probability that there is a hazard at cell (i, j); V.sub.ij is the average speed of cell (i, j); V.sub.i is the average speed across all the lanes at longitudinal segment I; V.sub.i−1 is the average speed of the lanes at cell (i, j) in the upstream adjacent longitudinal segment; V.sub.i+1 is the average speed of the lanes at cell (i, j) in the downstream adjacent longitudinal segment; m.sub.i is the number of a vehicle maneuver (discussed below) that happened at cell (i, j), which belongs to predefined maneuver type i; m is the total number of maneuver happened at cell (i, j); n is the number of maneuver types; and β.sub.k represents the coefficients of the parameters)];
Rahab does not specifically state measuring acceleration, rather speeds.
Pronovost, which is in the same field of invention of Rahab with teaches “obtain information that the vehicle had a state, speed, location, and acceleration” [Pronovost, ¶ 0016, 0019(based on predicted occupancy data, state data, scene data, etc. determined by one or more models. The actions may include a reference action (e.g., one of a group of maneuvers the vehicle is configured to perform in reaction to a dynamic operating environment) such as a right lane change, a left lane change, staying in a lane, going around an obstacle) and 0071 (a first token represents one of: a yield action, a drive straight action, a left turn action, a right turn action, a brake action, an acceleration action, a steering action, or a lane change action, and a second token represents a position, a heading, or an acceleration of the object), object state data associated with one or more objects (e.g., a previous trajectory, a previous action, a previous position, a previous acceleration, or other state or behavior of the object)].
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 Pronovost into the invention of Rahab to not only include using large data sets such as location, speeds, maneuvers, probabilities and such for vehicle control based on traffic determinations as Rahab discloses but to also use acceleration data for characteristic determination and vehicle control as taught by Pronovost with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Pronovost into Rahab to create a more robust system that account for vehicles a dynamic operating environment and “to identify a safe vehicle response” [Pronovost, ¶ 0015 and 0019]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements of gathering probe vehicle data, which includes location, speed, acceleration and maneuver data for vehicle control 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.
Office Note: In this example of Figure 4 of Rahab, the traffic jam is identified and vehicles maneuvers around the vehicle, speeds ahead, below, during and after are accounted for in the probability of each lanes traffic jam status. Thus speeds, maneuvers will be accounted for, as the claims require.
With respect to Claim 6: While Rajab discloses “The system of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are further programmed to: identify a first vehicle and a second vehicle in a traffic jam” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4];
“obtain information that the first vehicle moved to a left lane and had a speed” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4 (visualizes lane change maneuvers for vehicles when a downstream hazard is present)];
“obtain information that the first vehicle moved to a right lane and had a speed” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4 (visualizes lane change maneuvers for vehicles when a downstream hazard is present)];
“increase the probability of traffic jam in one or more middle lanes of the plurality of lanes based on the information that the first vehicle moved to the left lane and had a speed and the second vehicle moved to the right lane and had a speed” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4 (the probability that there is a hazard at cell (i, j); V.sub.ij is the average speed of cell (i, j); V.sub.i is the average speed across all the lanes at longitudinal segment I; V.sub.i−1 is the average speed of the lanes at cell (i, j) in the upstream adjacent longitudinal segment; V.sub.i+1 is the average speed of the lanes at cell (i, j) in the downstream adjacent longitudinal segment; m.sub.i is the number of a vehicle maneuver (discussed below) that happened at cell (i, j), which belongs to predefined maneuver type i; m is the total number of maneuver happened at cell (i, j); n is the number of maneuver types; and β.sub.k represents the coefficients of the parameters)];
Rahab does not specifically state measuring acceleration, rather speeds.
Pronovost, which is in the same field of invention of Rahab with teaches “obtain information that the vehicle had a state, speed, location, and acceleration” [Pronovost, ¶ 0016, 0019(based on predicted occupancy data, state data, scene data, etc. determined by one or more models. The actions may include a reference action (e.g., one of a group of maneuvers the vehicle is configured to perform in reaction to a dynamic operating environment) such as a right lane change, a left lane change, staying in a lane, going around an obstacle) and 0071 (a first token represents one of: a yield action, a drive straight action, a left turn action, a right turn action, a brake action, an acceleration action, a steering action, or a lane change action, and a second token represents a position, a heading, or an acceleration of the object), object state data associated with one or more objects (e.g., a previous trajectory, a previous action, a previous position, a previous acceleration, or other state or behavior of the object)].
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 Pronovost into the invention of Rahab to not only include using large data sets such as location, speeds, maneuvers, probabilities and such for vehicle control based on traffic determinations as Rahab discloses but to also use acceleration data for characteristic determination and vehicle control as taught by Pronovost with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Pronovost into Rahab to create a more robust system that account for vehicles a dynamic operating environment and “to identify a safe vehicle response” [Pronovost, ¶ 0015 and 0019]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements of gathering probe vehicle data, which includes location, speed, acceleration and maneuver data for vehicle control 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.
Office Note: In this example of Figure 4 of Rahab, the traffic jam is identified and vehicles maneuvers around the vehicle, speeds ahead, below, during and after are accounted for in the probability of each lanes traffic jam status. Thus speeds, maneuvers will be accounted for, as the claims require.
With respect to Claim 7: While Rajab discloses “The system of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are further programmed to: identify a vehicle not in a traffic jam” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4];
“obtain information that the vehicle moved to a left lane and had a speed; and” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4 (visualizes lane change maneuvers for vehicles when a downstream hazard is present)];
“increase the probability of traffic jam in a leftmost lane of the plurality of lanes based on the information that the vehicle moved to the left lane and had a speed” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4 (the probability that there is a hazard at cell (i, j); V.sub.ij is the average speed of cell (i, j); V.sub.i is the average speed across all the lanes at longitudinal segment I; V.sub.i−1 is the average speed of the lanes at cell (i, j) in the upstream adjacent longitudinal segment; V.sub.i+1 is the average speed of the lanes at cell (i, j) in the downstream adjacent longitudinal segment; m.sub.i is the number of a vehicle maneuver (discussed below) that happened at cell (i, j), which belongs to predefined maneuver type i; m is the total number of maneuver happened at cell (i, j); n is the number of maneuver types; and β.sub.k represents the coefficients of the parameters)];
Rahab does not specifically state measuring acceleration, rather speeds.
Pronovost, which is in the same field of invention of Rahab with teaches “obtain information that the vehicle had a state, speed, location, and acceleration” [Pronovost, ¶ 0016, 0019(based on predicted occupancy data, state data, scene data, etc. determined by one or more models. The actions may include a reference action (e.g., one of a group of maneuvers the vehicle is configured to perform in reaction to a dynamic operating environment) such as a right lane change, a left lane change, staying in a lane, going around an obstacle) and 0071 (a first token represents one of: a yield action, a drive straight action, a left turn action, a right turn action, a brake action, an acceleration action, a steering action, or a lane change action, and a second token represents a position, a heading, or an acceleration of the object), object state data associated with one or more objects (e.g., a previous trajectory, a previous action, a previous position, a previous acceleration, or other state or behavior of the object)].
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 Pronovost into the invention of Rahab to not only include using large data sets such as location, speeds, maneuvers, probabilities and such for vehicle control based on traffic determinations as Rahab discloses but to also use acceleration data for characteristic determination and vehicle control as taught by Pronovost with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Pronovost into Rahab to create a more robust system that account for vehicles a dynamic operating environment and “to identify a safe vehicle response” [Pronovost, ¶ 0015 and 0019]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements of gathering probe vehicle data, which includes location, speed, acceleration and maneuver data for vehicle control 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.
Office Note: In this example of Figure 4 of Rahab, the traffic jam is identified and vehicles maneuvers around the vehicle, speeds ahead, below, during and after are accounted for in the probability of each lanes traffic jam status. Thus speeds, maneuvers will be accounted for, as the claims require.
With respect to Claim 8: While Rajab discloses “The system of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are further programmed to: identify a vehicle not in a traffic jam” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4];
“obtain information that the vehicle moved to a right lane and had a speed; and” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4 (visualizes lane change maneuvers for vehicles when a downstream hazard is present)];
“increase the probability of traffic jam in a rightmost lane of the plurality of lanes based on the information that the vehicle moved to the right lane and had a speed” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4 (the probability that there is a hazard at cell (i, j); V.sub.ij is the average speed of cell (i, j); V.sub.i is the average speed across all the lanes at longitudinal segment I; V.sub.i−1 is the average speed of the lanes at cell (i, j) in the upstream adjacent longitudinal segment; V.sub.i+1 is the average speed of the lanes at cell (i, j) in the downstream adjacent longitudinal segment; m.sub.i is the number of a vehicle maneuver (discussed below) that happened at cell (i, j), which belongs to predefined maneuver type i; m is the total number of maneuver happened at cell (i, j); n is the number of maneuver types; and β.sub.k represents the coefficients of the parameters)];
Rahab does not specifically state measuring acceleration, rather speeds.
Pronovost, which is in the same field of invention of Rahab with teaches “obtain information that the vehicle had a state, speed, location, and acceleration” [Pronovost, ¶ 0016, 0019(based on predicted occupancy data, state data, scene data, etc. determined by one or more models. The actions may include a reference action (e.g., one of a group of maneuvers the vehicle is configured to perform in reaction to a dynamic operating environment) such as a right lane change, a left lane change, staying in a lane, going around an obstacle) and 0071 (a first token represents one of: a yield action, a drive straight action, a left turn action, a right turn action, a brake action, an acceleration action, a steering action, or a lane change action, and a second token represents a position, a heading, or an acceleration of the object), object state data associated with one or more objects (e.g., a previous trajectory, a previous action, a previous position, a previous acceleration, or other state or behavior of the object)].
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 Pronovost into the invention of Rahab to not only include using large data sets such as location, speeds, maneuvers, probabilities and such for vehicle control based on traffic determinations as Rahab discloses but to also use acceleration data for characteristic determination and vehicle control as taught by Pronovost with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Pronovost into Rahab to create a more robust system that account for vehicles a dynamic operating environment and “to identify a safe vehicle response” [Pronovost, ¶ 0015 and 0019]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements of gathering probe vehicle data, which includes location, speed, acceleration and maneuver data for vehicle control 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.
Office Note: In this example of Figure 4 of Rahab, the traffic jam is identified and vehicles maneuvers around the vehicle, speeds ahead, below, during and after are accounted for in the probability of each lanes traffic jam status. Thus speeds, maneuvers will be accounted for, as the claims require.
With respect to Claim 9: While Rajab discloses “The system of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are further programmed to: identify a first vehicle and a second vehicle not in a traffic jam” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4];
“obtain information that the first vehicle moved to a left lane and had a speed” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4 (visualizes lane change maneuvers for vehicles when a downstream hazard is present)];
“obtain information that the first vehicle moved to a right lane and had a speed” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4 (visualizes lane change maneuvers for vehicles when a downstream hazard is present)];
“increase the probability of traffic jam in one or more middle lanes of the plurality of lanes based on the information that the first vehicle moved to the left lane and had a speed and the second vehicle moved to the right lane and had a speed” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4 (the probability that there is a hazard at cell (i, j); V.sub.ij is the average speed of cell (i, j); V.sub.i is the average speed across all the lanes at longitudinal segment I; V.sub.i−1 is the average speed of the lanes at cell (i, j) in the upstream adjacent longitudinal segment; V.sub.i+1 is the average speed of the lanes at cell (i, j) in the downstream adjacent longitudinal segment; m.sub.i is the number of a vehicle maneuver (discussed below) that happened at cell (i, j), which belongs to predefined maneuver type i; m is the total number of maneuver happened at cell (i, j); n is the number of maneuver types; and β.sub.k represents the coefficients of the parameters)];
Rahab does not specifically state measuring acceleration, rather speeds.
Pronovost, which is in the same field of invention of Rahab with teaches “obtain information that the vehicle had a state, speed, location, and acceleration” [Pronovost, ¶ 0016, 0019(based on predicted occupancy data, state data, scene data, etc. determined by one or more models. The actions may include a reference action (e.g., one of a group of maneuvers the vehicle is configured to perform in reaction to a dynamic operating environment) such as a right lane change, a left lane change, staying in a lane, going around an obstacle) and 0071 (a first token represents one of: a yield action, a drive straight action, a left turn action, a right turn action, a brake action, an acceleration action, a steering action, or a lane change action, and a second token represents a position, a heading, or an acceleration of the object), object state data associated with one or more objects (e.g., a previous trajectory, a previous action, a previous position, a previous acceleration, or other state or behavior of the object)].
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 Pronovost into the invention of Rahab to not only include using large data sets such as location, speeds, maneuvers, probabilities and such for vehicle control based on traffic determinations as Rahab discloses but to also use acceleration data for characteristic determination and vehicle control as taught by Pronovost with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Pronovost into Rahab to create a more robust system that account for vehicles a dynamic operating environment and “to identify a safe vehicle response” [Pronovost, ¶ 0015 and 0019]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements of gathering probe vehicle data, which includes location, speed, acceleration and maneuver data for vehicle control 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.
Office Note: In this example of Figure 4 of Rahab, the traffic jam is identified and vehicles maneuvers around the vehicle, speeds ahead, below, during and after are accounted for in the probability of each lanes traffic jam status. Thus speeds, maneuvers will be accounted for, as the claims require.
With respect to Claim 13: While Rajab discloses “The system of claim 1, wherein the driving data includes location, speeds, and maneuvers of the vehicles” [Rahab, ¶ 0004, 0035, 0049-0056, with Figures 3-4];
Rahab does not specifically state measuring acceleration, rather speeds.
Pronovost, which is in the same field of invention of Rahab with teaches “wherein the driving data includes acceleration or deceleration of the vehicles” [Pronovost, ¶ 0016, 0019(based on predicted occupancy data, state data, scene data, etc. determined by one or more models. The actions may include a reference action (e.g., one of a group of maneuvers the vehicle is configured to perform in reaction to a dynamic operating environment) such as a right lane change, a left lane change, staying in a lane, going around an obstacle) and 0071 (a first token represents one of: a yield action, a drive straight action, a left turn action, a right turn action, a brake action, an acceleration action, a steering action, or a lane change action, and a second token represents a position, a heading, or an acceleration of the object), object state data associated with one or more objects (e.g., a previous trajectory, a previous action, a previous position, a previous acceleration, or other state or behavior of the object)].
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 Pronovost into the invention of Rahab to not only include using large data sets such as location, speeds, maneuvers, probabilities and such for vehicle control based on traffic determinations as Rahab discloses but to also use acceleration data for characteristic determination and vehicle control as taught by Pronovost with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Pronovost into Rahab to create a more robust system that account for vehicles a dynamic operating environment and “to identify a safe vehicle response” [Pronovost, ¶ 0015 and 0019]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements of gathering probe vehicle data, which includes location, speed, acceleration and maneuver data for vehicle control 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: all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in Claims 3-9 and 13. The method taught/disclosed in Claims 16-19 can clearly perform on the system of Claims 3-9 and 13. Therefore Claims 16-19 are rejected under the same rationale.
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
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