DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments/remarks and amendments filed on 02/04/2026. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-13, 15-20 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. No claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s arguments/remarks, filed on 02/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 5-6, 13-14, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Inoguchi in view of Fowe EP 3 745 087 B1 (the reference was provided by the examiner on 11/20/2025, hence Fowe) as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 13-14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoguchi et al US 2009/0292456 A1 (hence Inoguchi) in view of Fowe EP 3 745 087 B1 (hence Fowe).
In re claims 1, 13, and 19, Inoguchi discloses a traffic information generating method for generating traffic information about a road on which a vehicle travels (Abstract) and teaches the following:
receiving driving data from a plurality of vehicles within a sampling region (Fig.12 and Paragraph 0147 “the representative congestion degrees for the same link generated by plural vehicles”), the driving data including speeds (Fig.3, #11, Paragraph 0059 “a vehicle speed sensor” and Paragraph 0060 “The communication device 13 is configured to transmit vehicle information to the vehicle information center 5”), positions (Fig.3, #14 “GPS”, and Paragraph 0060 ““The communication device 13 is configured to transmit vehicle information to the vehicle information center 5”), and lane change activity of the plurality of vehicles (The BRI of the claim is a vehicle turning at intersection, Fig.9, and Paragraph 0093 “an example of congestion degrees detected at the time of a right turn”, furthermore, said data is collected and never used in claims 1, 13, and 19);
identifying first locations of one or more back of queue samples based on the driving data (Fig.2, step 1, data collected to the left side of the chart that corresponds to Link 1 of steps 3-4, and Paragraph 0050 “in the example of FIG. 2, there are five links delimited by dotted lines. Such link information may be obtained from a map data storing unit 15 of a car navigation system shown in FIG. 3B”, and “allocating the congestion information to the individual links” read on locations);
each of the one or more back of queue samples indicating a location of a rear portion of a vehicle queue (Fig.13, and Paragraph 0158 (b), and Paragraph 0159);
identifying second locations of one or more front of queue samples based on the driving data (Fig.2, step 1, data collected to the right side of the chart that corresponds to Links 4-5 of steps 3-4, and Paragraph 0050 “in the example of FIG. 2, there are five links delimited by dotted lines. Such link information may be obtained from a map data storing unit 15 of a car navigation system shown in FIG. 3B”, and “allocating the congestion information to the individual links” read on locations);
each of the one or more front of queue samples indicating a location of a front portion of a vehicle queue (Fig.13, and Paragraph 0158 (a), and Paragraph 0159);
performing cluster analysis on the first locations and the second locations (Fig.2, S3 and Paragraph 0048 “When equal congestion degrees continue in a section, the section is regarded as a continuation of the same congestion degree”);
identifying one or more clusters of back of queue samples and one or more clusters of front of queue samples based on the cluster analysis (Fig.2, S4, and Paragraph 0049 “links (which are roads connecting intersections) are allocated individual congestion degrees”, and Fig.13, (a), (b), and (c), and Paragraphs 0158-0170);
determining a number of lane-level traffic jams within the sampling region based on a number of clusters of back of queue samples identified and a number of clusters of front of queue samples identified (Fig.2, S5, Link1 – Link4, Paragraph 0050 “By allocating the congestion information to the individual links, the degree of congestion of an individual link as a whole and the more detailed congestion degree information within the link can be detected” and Paragraphs 0145 and 0149 that detail S5, wherein Paragraph 0149 discloses “the congestion location grouping unit 12e generates detailed congestion degrees within the link from the vehicle information about the plural vehicles”, and Fig.13, (a), (b), and (c), and Paragraphs 0158-0170)
However, Inoguchi doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
autonomously controlling a vehicle based on the determined number of lane-level traffic jams within the sampling region
Nevertheless, Fowe discloses determining lane level speed profiles, and more particularly, to using historical vehicle speed data to establish speed profiles on a lane level of granularity for road segments and for a series of road segments (Abstract) and teaches the following:
autonomously controlling a vehicle based on the determined number of lane-level traffic jams within the sampling region (Paragraphs 0036 and 0038)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the reference to include the autonomous control of a vehicle, as taught by Fowe, in order to provide instructions for directing travel of a vehicle in the identified lane based on traffic (Fowe, Paragraph 0008).
In re claim 2, Fowe teaches the following:
using K-means clustering to determine the number of clusters of back of queue samples and the number of clusters of front of queue samples (Paragraph 0006)
In re claims 5 and 14, Inoguchi teaches the following:
identifying the one or more back of queue samples where a speed of one or more of the plurality of vehicles drops below a first threshold (Fig.2, Link 1 to link 2 where congestion increases from V to IV, see Paragraph 0044);
and identifying the one or more front of queue samples where a speed of one or more of the plurality of vehicles increases above a second threshold (Fig.2, Link 4 to link 5 where congestion increases from I to V, see Paragraph 0044)
In re claim 6, Inoguchi teaches the following:
wherein the number of lane-level traffic jams within the sampling region is equal to a maximum of the number of clusters of back of queue samples and the number of clusters of front of queue samples (Paragraph 0050 “there are five links delimited by dotted lines” which add up to the entire link)
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoguchi in view of Fowe and further in view of Adcock et al US 2023/0179604 A1 (hence Adcock).
In re claim 3, Inoguchi discloses the claimed invention as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
performing Silhouette analysis to determine the number of clusters of back of queue samples and the number of clusters of front of queue samples
Nevertheless, Adcock discloses a system to receive user profile data for a plurality of users and user activity data associated with each user (Abstract) and teaches the following:
performing Silhouette analysis to determine the number of clusters of back of queue samples and the number of clusters of front of queue samples (Paragraph 0049 “the optimum number of clusters may be determined based on performing a silhouette analysis”, and Paragraph 0070 “implementations of the disclosed technology can be utilized with automobiles”)
perform clustering analysis”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Inoguchi reference to include performing Silhouette analysis to determine the number of clusters, as taught by Adcock, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order for determining an optimum number of clusters (Adcock, Paragraph 0062).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7-12, 15-18, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669