Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5 April, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 7 – 9 of claim 1 states: “determine a traffic flow profile for the location, the traffic flow profile identifying characteristics of the roadway incident that match characteristics of the traffic flow profile at a second time”. It is unclear to the examiner what the “characteristics of the traffic flow profile at a second time” are, and how they are being matched. At no point does it appear a traffic flow profile was or is identified at a second time, nor is it explicitly clear when the traffic flow profile is being determined in this step. ¶ 0073 of the examiner’s specification filed 5 April, 2024 states “Roadway incident response system 310 may use the sensor data to determine a traffic flow profile for the location where the characteristics of the roadway incident that match characteristics of the traffic flow profile stored in the traffic flow profile data store”. This indicates a historic traffic flow profile already exists for the location and the new traffic flow profile is being determined to match characteristics of the historic traffic flow profile. This should be reflected in the independent claims. Claims 10 and 19 are objected to for the same reasoning.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
When reviewing independent claim 1, and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 1 is held to claim an abstract idea without reciting elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Examiner will analyze claim 1, and similar rationale applies to independent claim 10 and 19. The rationale, under MPEP § 2106, for this finding is explained below:
The claimed invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception, as defined below. The following two step analysis is used to evaluate these criteria.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
When examining the claim under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner interprets that the claims is related to a process since the claim is directed to a system comprising a processor which executes machine readable instructions stored on a computer readable memory.
Step 2a, Prong 1: Does the claim wholly embrace a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception?
The Examiner interprets that the judicial exception applies since claim 1 limitations of “receive sensor data from a vehicle at a location in a transportation network, the location being associated with a roadway incident at a first time”, “determine a traffic flow profile for the location, the traffic flow profile identifying characteristics of the roadway incident that match characteristics of the traffic flow profile at a second time”, “based on the traffic flow profile, determine a severity value for the roadway incident at the first time”, and “calculate a start time of the roadway incident that is prior to the first time, the start time corresponding with the traffic flow profile for the location in view of the severity value at the first time” are directed to an abstract idea. The claim is related to a mental process by each step equating to observations, evaluations, and judgements based on the input sensor data. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two.
Step 2a, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The Examiner interprets that claim 1 limitation does not provide additional elements or combination of additional elements to a practical application since the claim is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). See, MPEP §2106.04(a), Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"). OR Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."). For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B. If there are no additional elements in the claim, then it cannot be eligible. In such a case, after making the appropriate rejection (see MPEP § 2106.07 for more information on formulating a rejection for lack of eligibility), it is a best practice for the examiner to recommend an amendment, if possible, that would resolve eligibility of the claim.
Step 2b: If a judicial exception into a practical application is not recited in the claim, the Examiner must interpret if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner interprets that the claims do not amount to significantly more since the claim is directed to receiving sensor data from a vehicle, then performing determinations and observations with that data to make decisions for when a start time of an accident took place. No steps in the independent claim recite anything that could not be performed mentally by a person.
Furthermore, the generic computer components of the memory and processor recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Claims 2 – 9, 11 – 18, and 20 depending on the independent claims include all the limitation of the independent claim. The Examiner finds that claims do not state significantly more since the claim only recites “wherein the characteristics of the traffic flow profile comprise speed, density, and traffic flow” in claims 2 and 11; “wherein the sensor data comprises image data “, “identifying an emergency vehicle leaving the location of the roadway incident in the image data”, and “determining an end time of the roadway incident that is associated with the start time, the severity value, the traffic flow profile, and the emergency vehicle leaving the location of the roadway incident” in claims 3 and 12; “wherein the sensor data comprises image data “, “identifying a count of emergency vehicles that exceed a threshold value at the location of the roadway incident in the image data”, and “determining an end time of the roadway incident that is associated with the start time, the severity value, the traffic flow profile, and the count of emergency vehicles” in claims 4 and 13; “wherein the sensor data comprises image data “, “identifying emergency cones at the location of the roadway incident in the image data”, and “determining an end time of the roadway incident that is associated with the start time, the severity value, the traffic flow profile, and the emergency cones at the location of the roadway incident” in claims 5 and 14; “wherein the traffic flow profile comprises a standard duration to cure other roadway incidents that are within a threshold similarity of the roadway incident” in claims 6 and 15; “provide instructions to a group of vehicles that have passed the location of the roadway incident to provide updated navigation instruction” in claims 7 and 16; “wherein the traffic flow profile is a bell curve along a timeline, wherein the start time of the bell curve and an end time of the bell curve correspond with speeds greater than a threshold value for the location” in claims 8 and 17; “receive information associated with a roadway incident”, and “assess the information associated with the roadway incident” in claims 9 and 18; and ““identifying a count of emergency vehicles” and “determining an end time of the roadway incident that is associated with the start time and the count of emergency vehicles” in claim 20.
Thus, claims 2 – 6, 8, 9, 11 – 15, 17, 18, and 20 recite the same abstract idea, and claims 7 and 16 recite insignificant extra-solution activity and therefore are not drawn to the eligible subject matter as they are directed to the abstract idea without significantly more.
Therefore, the Examiner interprets that the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3 - 7, and 12 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 3 and 12 state “determining an end time of the roadway incident that is associated with the start time, the severity value, the traffic flow profile, and the emergency vehicle leaving the location of the roadway incident.”, however, there is no mention in the applicant’s specification of the emergency vehicle being used to determine an end time of the roadway incident. ¶ 0053 discusses that the existence of emergency vehicles can be factored into the traffic flow profile, ¶ 0062 and 0065 discusses the existence of emergency vehicles being related to the severity value of the roadway incident, and ¶ 0076 discloses that an increased severity value increases the start time of a roadway incident. As disclosed, it appears the emergency vehicles can affect certain variables such as the traffic flow profile or the severity, but as claimed, the inclusion of emergency vehicles is not used specifically in the calculation of the end time of a traffic incident. The examiner questions how the applicant uses emergency vehicles to calculate the end time of the roadway incident, whether this be using a mathematical formula for the end time wherein emergency vehicles are represented as a variable, or some other form of directly attributing the vehicles to the calculation of the end time.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected for similar rationale, however rather than the mere inclusion of emergency vehicles being factored into the calculation of the end time, a number of emergency vehicles is used. The same questions are presented for these claims, how does the applicant directly use a count of emergency vehicles to calculate the end time of the roadway incident? Is this by using a mathematical formula for the end time wherein emergency vehicles are represented as a variable, or some other form of directly attributing the vehicles to the calculation of the end time?
Claims 5 and 14 state “determining an end time of the roadway incident that is associated with the start time, the severity value, the traffic flow profile, and the emergency cones at the location of the roadway incident.”, however, there is no mention in the applicant’s specification of the traffic cones being used to determine an end time of the roadway incident. ¶ 0053 discusses that the existence of roadway cones can be factored into the traffic flow profile, ¶ 0062 and 0065 discusses the number of roadway cones being related to the severity value of the roadway incident, and ¶ 0076 discloses that an increased severity value increases the start time of a roadway incident. As disclosed, it appears the emergency cones can affect certain variables such as the traffic flow profile or the severity, but as claimed, the inclusion of emergency cones is not used specifically in the calculation of the end time of a traffic incident. The examiner questions how the applicant uses emergency cones to calculate the end time of the roadway incident, whether this be using a mathematical formula for the end time wherein emergency cones are represented as a variable, or some other form of directly attributing the emergency cones to the calculation of the end time.
Claims 6 and 15 state “wherein the traffic flow profile comprises a standard duration to cure other roadway incidents that are within a threshold similarity of the roadway incident.”, however, there is no mention in the applicants specification of a traffic flow profile comprising standard durations to cure other roadway incidents, nor is there a mention of threshold similarities. ¶ 0068 discloses that traffic flow profiles may provide a predicted duration of the roadway incident based on similar, historical roadway incidents with similar characteristics, however, there is no mention of “standard durations to cure other roadway incidents” or using threshold similarities in the traffic flow profiles. The examiner does not understand how these standard durations are presented in traffic flow profile, is this a table with predetermined values for a variety of incident types? Additionally, there is no concise explanation of what “within a threshold similarity” is to mean, is a calculation made for similarity to traffic incidents? Is a traffic incident directly classified as a specific type using a threshold measurement? These steps are not described in the applicant’s disclosure.
Claims 7 and 16 state “provide instructions to a group of vehicles that have passed the location of the roadway incident to provide updated navigation instructions.”, however, there is no mention in the applicant’s specification of instructions being provided to vehicles which have passed the roadway incident, nor does the applicant’s specification discuss these vehicles providing any form of updated navigation instructions, or where these navigation instructions are provided to. ¶ 0080 discloses providing instructions to vehicles which have not passed the roadway incident to “move past the roadway incident or instruct vehicles to take alternative routes to avoid the roadway altogether.”, however this is a means of receiving alternative routing in vehicles which haven’t passed the incident, there is no disclosure of a vehicle having passed the incident providing updated navigation instructions. It is not made clear by the specification where are the updated navigation instructions being provided to, what purpose these updated instructions serve, or why are vehicles that have passed the incident being prompted for these instructions.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the traffic flow profile at a second time" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As written, the limitation states “determine a traffic flow profile” and “the traffic flow profile identifying characteristics” which are understood to be the same profile. However, “the traffic flow profile as a second time” is distinctly a different profile but is never previously claimed or mentioned.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 19 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Blandin et al (U.S. Patent No. 9286797 B1, hereinafter “Blandin”).
Regarding claim 19, Blandin teaches a method comprising:
Receive information associated with a roadway incident (Figure 3; Column 3, Lines 10 – 16: According to embodiments, a computer system can be configured to identify a location of a traffic incident, based on data received from a first sensor and a second sensor. sensors send traffic flow data, but data received from the sensors may include information not necessarily related to traffic flow, and may include sensor location, date of installation, weather conditions, or others.); and
Assessing the information associated with the roadway incident by:
determining a traffic flow profile for the information associated with the roadway incident (Column 3, Line 16 – 23: The traffic data the system receives from the sensors can be generally termed traffic flow data and can include: traffic density (which can represent the mean number of vehicles at a specified time in a section of the road, divided by the section length), the mean rate of flow (based on vehicles crossing a specified position over a short interval of time), and the (space) mean speed of vehicles.),
based on the traffic flow profile, determine a severity value for the roadway incident (Column 12, Line 14 – 22: Conditions that may be necessary (i.e. minimum traffic needed at the time of the incident) are indicated in the following description, with free flow traffic indicating a lack of congestion and thus a lack of an incident symptom, versus a higher traffic density which would provide for symptom detection. If at the time of the incident, Re-1(qi) ≤ ρcrit, then the severity of the incident is low and traffic conditions remain in free-flow. If, on the other hand, at the time of the incident, Re-1(qi) > ρcrit then a shockwave is triggered.); and
calculate a start time of the roadway incident, the start time corresponding with the traffic flow profile in view of the severity value (Equation 7, 8, 9; Column 12, Line 24 – 30: For example, suppose initially that the boundary traffic densities are constant during the time interval tϵ[0, tI). In this case, the speed of the shockwave is constant and can be given by:
PNG
media_image1.png
64
279
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; Column 12, Line 57 – 65: From (8) and (9), the time of the incident can be determined from boundary sensor measurements as:
PNG
media_image2.png
117
305
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blandin et al (U.S. Patent No. 9286797 B1, hereinafter “Blandin”) in view of Weldemariam et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0020038 A1, hereinafter “Weldemariam”).
Regarding claim 1, Blandin teaches a system comprising:
a memory (Column 14, Line 36 – 41: The computer program product may include a computer readable storage medium (or media) having computer readable program instructions thereon for causing a processor to carry out aspects of the present invention.); and
a processor that is configured to execute machine readable instructions stored in the memory to cause the processor to (Column 14, Line 36 – 41: The computer program product may include a computer readable storage medium (or media) having computer readable program instructions thereon for causing a processor to carry out aspects of the present invention.):
receive sensor data (Figure 3; Column 3, Lines 10 – 16: According to embodiments, a computer system can be configured to identify a location of a traffic incident, based on data received from a first sensor and a second sensor. sensors send traffic flow data, but data received from the sensors may include information not necessarily related to traffic flow, and may include sensor location, date of installation, weather conditions, or others.);
determine a traffic flow profile for the location (Column 3, Line 16 – 23: The traffic data the system receives from the sensors can be generally termed traffic flow data and can include: traffic density (which can represent the mean number of vehicles at a specified time in a section of the road, divided by the section length), the mean rate of flow (based on vehicles crossing a specified position over a short interval of time), and the (space) mean speed of vehicles.), the traffic flow profile identifying characteristics of the roadway incident that match characteristics of the traffic flow profile at a second time (Column 3, Line 63 – 67: In some embodiments, the data indicating a symptom of a traffic incident, collected from each sensor, can be used to identify a sending and a receiving symptom. For example, a sending symptom could be a change in traffic conditions emanating from the traffic incident back toward a first sensor, against the flow of traffic. This could occur as a backup of traffic from the location of the incident back up the highway, against the direction of traffic, with the detectable location of the traffic change moving farther and farther upstream over time. A receiving symptom could then be a change in traffic conditions emanating from the location of the traffic incident, in the direction of traffic flow, toward a second sensor, where it is detected.);
based on the traffic flow profile, determine a severity value for the roadway incident at the first time (Column 12, Line 14 – 22: Conditions that may be necessary (i.e. minimum traffic needed at the time of the incident) are indicated in the following description, with free flow traffic indicating a lack of congestion and thus a lack of an incident symptom, versus a higher traffic density which would provide for symptom detection. If at the time of the incident, Re-1(qi) ≤ ρcrit, then the severity of the incident is low and traffic conditions remain in free-flow. If, on the other hand, at the time of the incident, Re-1(qi) > ρcrit then a shockwave is triggered.); and
calculate a start time of the roadway incident that is prior to the first time, the start time corresponding with the traffic flow profile for the location in view of the severity value at the first time (Equation 7, 8, 9; Column 12, Line 24 – 30: For example, suppose initially that the boundary traffic densities are constant during the time interval tϵ[0, tI). In this case, the speed of the shockwave is constant and can be given by:
PNG
media_image1.png
64
279
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; Column 12, Line 57 – 65: From (8) and (9), the time of the incident can be determined from boundary sensor measurements as:
PNG
media_image2.png
117
305
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).
Blandin does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor data is received from a vehicle.
However, Weldemariam does teach wherein the sensor data is received from a vehicle (¶ 0027: The device data source 108 can include devices, such as mobile devices and vehicles integrated with computing devices (e.g., car infotainment systems), operated by a plurality of entities or users. The device data source 108 can provide data such as user profiles or user data 230 indicating incident response patterns (e.g., how long will a user have to wait to leave the incident scene) and various vehicle sensor data 214 (e.g., vehicle speed, fuel consumption, fuel level, battery depletion, predicted range, etc.). In an example, the processor 120 can utilize the received vehicle sensor data 214, such as vehicle speeds, to estimate a current traffic state 206 of the area 160).
Blandin and Weldemariam are considered to be analogous art as both pertain to traffic incident prediction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system for traffic incident location identification (as taught by Blandin) and the predictive route congestion management system(as taught by Weldemariam) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would be the system of Weldemariam can coordinate traffic flow to vehicle destinations so as to minimize congestion. (See ¶ 0044)
This motivation for the combination of Blandin and Weldemariam is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 2, the Blandin and Weldemariam combination teaches the system of claim 1.
Additionally, Blandin teaches wherein the characteristics of the traffic flow profile comprise speed, density, and traffic flow (Column 3, Line 16 – 23: The traffic data the system receives from the sensors can be generally termed traffic flow data and can include: traffic density (which can represent the mean number of vehicles at a specified time in a section of the road, divided by the section length), the mean rate of flow (based on vehicles crossing a specified position over a short interval of time), and the (space) mean speed of vehicles.).
Regarding claim 6, the Blandin and Weldemariam combination teaches the system of claim 1.
Additionally, Weldemariam teaches wherein the traffic flow profile comprises a standard duration to cure other roadway incidents that are within a threshold similarity of the roadway incident (Weldemariam The historical data 202 received from the historical data source 105 can also include historical clearance time data 225 indicating clearance time of historical incidents at roadway location or area 160. For example, the historical clearance data 225 can indicate durations, such as an amount of time, to clear historical incidents at the area 160. The historical clearance data 225 can be represented by numerical vectors arranged in a matrix.).
Regarding claim 9, the Blandin and Weldemariam combination teaches the system of claim 1.
Additionally, Blandin teaches wherein the processor is further caused to:
receive information associated with a roadway incident (Column 3, Line 63 – 67: In some embodiments, the data indicating a symptom of a traffic incident, collected from each sensor, can be used to identify a sending and a receiving symptom.); and
assess the information associated with the roadway incident (Column 3, Line 63 – 66: For example, a sending profile can be created by configuring the system to detect, from the traffic flow data from the second sensor, traffic conditions including traffic density, a mean rate of flow and a (space) mean speed of vehicles.).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 has been analyzed with regard to respective claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 has been analyzed with regard to respective claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 has been analyzed with regard to respective claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 has been analyzed with regard to respective claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takasaki et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0292955 A1) teaches a system for calculating traffic flow changes comprising determining the location of a traffic incident, determining the severity of the incident, and determining other miscellaneous factors in order to detect the traffic flow rate of the affected area surrounding one or more collisions.
Filley et al (U.S. Patent No. 9959756 B2) teaches a method for determining impact area of a roadway incident and generating a geographic polygon based on the impact area, the polygon is then overlayed on a cellular map and transmits an alert message to devices within the polygon.
Xu et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0135022 A1) teaches a method for providing alerts for a traffic slowdown which monitors traffic incidents by collecting location data, a map of the local road network, and calculating an approaching speed of a vehicle to the incident so as to determine if a traffic alert is needed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JONES whose telephone number is (703)756-4573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 EST, off Every Other Friday.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571) 272-7778. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW B. JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667