DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on May 30, 2024. Claims 1 – 20 are pending and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on May 30, 2024 and January 14, 2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4, 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.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
35 U.S.C. § 101 –Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1 and 18 are directed to a method of vehicle based lane closure detection (i.e., a process). Claims 11 is a device / system claim with instructions executed by a processor (i.e. an article of manufacture). Therefore, claims 1, 11, and 18 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
35 U.S.C. § 101 – Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, 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. See MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
A claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s).
Independent claim 18 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections. Claim 18 recites:
A method for work zone detection for a vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving measurement data about an environment surrounding the vehicle using a vehicle sensor,
wherein the measurement data includes perception data of the environment and telemetry data of a plurality of remote vehicles in the environment;
identifying a start location and an end location of a work zone based at least in part on the measurement data,
wherein the work zone is represented as a plurality of road segments spanning from the start location to the end location [recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes, achieved by utilizing (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, and/or Opinion) performed in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)];
determining a plurality of lane lateral density distributions,
wherein each of the plurality of lane lateral density distributions corresponds to one of a plurality of lanes of one of the plurality of road segments of the work zone [recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes, achieved by utilizing (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, and/or Opinion) performed in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)];
determining a lane shift status of each of the plurality of road segments based at least in part on the plurality of lane lateral density distributions [recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes, achieved by utilizing (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, and/or Opinion) performed in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)];
determining a lane closure status of each of the plurality of road segments based at least in part on the plurality of lane lateral density distributions [recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes, achieved by utilizing (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, and/or Opinion) performed in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)];
determining a shoulder closure status of each of the plurality of road segments based at least in part on the plurality of lane lateral density distributions [recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes, achieved by utilizing (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, and/or Opinion) performed in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)];
determining a speed limit for each of the plurality of road segments [recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes, achieved by utilizing (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, and/or Opinion) performed in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)]; and
transmitting the start location and end location of the work zone, the lane shift status of each of the plurality of road segments, the lane closure status of each of the plurality of road segments, the shoulder closure status of each of the plurality of road segments, and the speed limit of each of the plurality of road segments to a remote device. [Recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes, achieved by utilizing (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, and/or Opinion) performed in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)].
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.
For example, “identifying a start location and an end location…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person(s) using methods including observation, evaluation and/or judgement to ascertain the commencement and termination locations of work zones; wherein “determining lane lateral density distributions…” in the context of this claim encompasses those person(s) methods including observation, evaluation and/or judgement to ascertain lane lateral congestion distributions.
“Determining a lane shift status…” in the context of this claim encompasses those person(s) applying observations, evaluations, and judgment to ascertain when, how, and to what degree a lane shift status occurs per the aforementioned lane lateral congestion distributions. Likewise, “determining a lane closure status…” in the context of this claim encompasses those person(s) applying observations, evaluations, and judgment to ascertain when, how, and to what degree a lane closure status occurs per the aforementioned lane lateral congestion distributions. “Determining a shoulder closure status…” similarly in the context of this claim, encompasses those person(s) applying observations, evaluations, and judgment to ascertain when, how, and to what degree a shoulder closure status occurs per the aforementioned lane lateral congestion distributions.
“Determining a speed limit for… road segments…” in the context of this claim, encompasses those person(s) applying observations, evaluations, and judgment to ascertain or consider the velocity / acceleration of vehicle(s) traveling road segments in and/or around road segments in the affected lanes or work zones, especially respective to the lane lateral congestion distributions. Finally, “transmitting the start location and end location of the work zone…” in the context of this claim, using the broadest reasonable interpretation, could potentially encompass those person(s) sending, gesturing, auditory / visual cues (i.e., flashing high beam lights, etc.) to other remote vehicles (i.e., surrounding vehicles) regarding the commencement and termination locations or work zones.
.S.C. § 101 – 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 idea 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 (application) activity and post-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”):
A method for work zone detection for a vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving measurement data about an environment surrounding the vehicle using a vehicle sensor,
wherein the measurement data includes perception data of the environment and telemetry data of a plurality of remote vehicles in the environment [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors];
identifying a start location and an end location of a work zone based at least in part on the measurement data,
wherein the work zone is represented as a plurality of road segments spanning from the start location to the end location [recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes, achieved by utilizing (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, and/or Opinion) performed in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)];
determining a plurality of lane lateral density distributions,
wherein each of the plurality of lane lateral density distributions corresponds to one of a plurality of lanes of one of the plurality of road segments of the work zone [recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes, achieved by utilizing (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, and/or Opinion) performed in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)];
determining a lane shift status of each of the plurality of road segments based at least in part on the plurality of lane lateral density distributions [recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes, achieved by utilizing (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, and/or Opinion) performed in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)];
determining a lane closure status of each of the plurality of road segments based at least in part on the plurality of lane lateral density distributions [recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes, achieved by utilizing (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, and/or Opinion) performed in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)];
determining a shoulder closure status of each of the plurality of road segments based at least in part on the plurality of lane lateral density distributions [recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes, achieved by utilizing (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, and/or Opinion) performed in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)];
determining a speed limit for each of the plurality of road segments [recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes, achieved by utilizing (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, and/or Opinion) performed in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)]; and
transmitting the start location and end location of the work zone, the lane shift status of each of the plurality of road segments, the lane closure status of each of the plurality of road segments, the shoulder closure status of each of the plurality of road segments, and the speed limit of each of the plurality of road segments to a remote device. [Recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes, achieved by utilizing (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, and/or Opinion) performed in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)].
For the following reasons, 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 “receiving…” means acquiring, vehicle and surrounding vehicles acceleration in and around work zones relative to detected objects within that work zone environment, but nevertheless does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above. The Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (i.e. the claimed processor) to perform the process.
In particular, the receiving steps from the sensors and from the external source are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data sequences to object(s) / obstacle(s) data determining (evaluating) and predicting (evaluating ~ estimating) steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the execution of the instructions by the ”processor” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of forecasting information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations 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 computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply, or 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 limitations do NOT integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
35 U.S.C. § 101 – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 18 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 using a vehicle processor (computer) controller to perform the limitations comprising: “identifying a start location and an end location…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person(s) using methods including observation, evaluation and/or judgement to ascertain the commencement and termination locations of work zones; wherein “determining lane lateral density distributions…” in the context of this claim encompasses those person(s) methods including observation, evaluation and/or judgement to ascertain lane lateral congestion distributions.
“Determining a lane shift status…” in the context of this claim encompasses those person(s) applying observations, evaluations, and judgment to ascertain when, how, and to what degree a lane shift status occurs per the aforementioned lane lateral congestion distributions. Likewise, “determining a lane closure status…” in the context of this claim encompasses those person(s) applying observations, evaluations, and judgment to ascertain when, how, and to what degree a lane closure status occurs per the aforementioned lane lateral congestion distributions. “Determining a shoulder closure status…” similarly in the context of this claim, encompasses those person(s) applying observations, evaluations, and judgment to ascertain when, how, and to what degree a shoulder closure status occurs per the aforementioned lane lateral congestion distributions.
“Determining a speed limit for… road segments…” in the context of this claim, encompasses those person(s) applying observations, evaluations, and judgment to ascertain or consider the velocity / acceleration of vehicle(s) traveling road segments in and/or around road segments in the affected lanes or work zones, especially respective to the lane lateral congestion distributions. Finally, “transmitting the start location and end location of the work zone…” in the context of this claim, using the broadest reasonable interpretation, could potentially encompass those person(s) sending, gesturing, auditory / visual cues (i.e., flashing high beam lights, etc.) to other remote vehicles (i.e., surrounding vehicles) regarding the commencement and termination locations or work zones. Therefore, these limitations amount to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component and performing insignificant application of the results of the mental process. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
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.
Using additional sensors and using generic computers to perform determining and calculating steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities of automating a mental process, because the background recites conventional sensors and the vehicle controller is a conventional computer within a vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Dependent claims 2 – 10, 12 – 17, and 19 – 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, it can clearly be seen that dependent claims 2 – 10, 12 – 17, and 19 – 20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 18.
Therefore, claims 1 – 20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 2, 10 – 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0204372 A1 to XU et al. (herein after "Xu").
(Note: Claim language is in bold typeface, and the Examiner’s comments and cited passages from the prior art reference(s) are in normal typeface.)
As to Claim 1,
Xu’s road work zone travel time reliability determining system based on vehicle sensor data discloses a method for work zone detection for a vehicle (see at least Fig. 3 ~ illustrates a lane shift method for performing detection of a road work zone,
PNG
media_image1.png
454
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
see ¶0033, ¶0038 ~ "system 100 can map-match the vehicle sensor data 103 to detect a lane shift, closed... caused by the road work zone 101. For instance…in FIG. 3", and ¶0064), the method comprising:
receiving measurement data about an environment surrounding the vehicle using a vehicle sensor (see at least ¶0042 ~ "determining the location of the road work zone location based on the advance vehicle sensor data… aggregate data of all vehicles driving through the road work zone 101 to calculate... bound(s)"),
wherein the measurement data includes perception data of the environment and telemetry data of a plurality of remote vehicles in the environment (see at least ¶0043 ~ "system 100 determines... using the advanced vehicle sensor data 103... road work zone location data such as a location of work zone, length of work zone, posted speed limits, lane and shoulder widths... and signals density near work zone... striping, pothole filling, tree trimming, etc.-)");
identifying a start location and an end location of a work zone based at least in part on the measurement data (see at least Fig. 4 ~ process method steps 405 and 407 teach identifying a start location and an end location of the road work zone;
PNG
media_image2.png
616
868
media_image2.png
Greyscale
see Fig. 7 ~ outlines a process flow chart determining road work zone location data and travel time reliability based on vehicle sensor data, in particular, process method step 703 – 705,
PNG
media_image3.png
624
858
media_image3.png
Greyscale
see ¶0038, and ¶0044),
wherein the work zone is represented as a plurality of road segments spanning from the start location to the end location (see at least Figs. 4, 7, ¶0038, ¶0044, ¶0064 and ¶0097 ~ "road segment data records 905 are links or segments representing roads, streets, or paths");
determining a lane shift status of each of the plurality of road segments (see at least ¶0064 ~ "the traffic processing engine 601 can map-matching the real-time telematic data to a lane level and detecting one or more active driving lanes, one or more shifted lanes, one or more closed or dropped lanes, one or more reversed lanes, or a combination thereof in the road work zone (e.g., the obstacle/road work zone 303 in FIG. 3)");
determining a lane closure status of each of the plurality of road segments (see at least ¶0064);
determining a shoulder closure status of each of the plurality of road segments (see at least ¶0038 ~ system 100 can map-match the vehicle sensor data 103 to detect a lane shift, closed / dropped, reversed, etc. caused by the road work zone 101 and ¶0043 ~ "the system 100 determines... road work zone location data such as a location of work zone, length of work zone, posted speed limits, lane and shoulder widths... signals density near work zone"); and
determining a speed limit for each of the plurality of road segments. (See at least ¶0048 ~ "system 100 can predict traffic... with the real-time traffic information per road segment or work zone, thereby determining a current travel speed for a given road segment (e.g., a road link or TMC) or work zone").
As to Claim 2,
Xu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the start location and the end location of the work zone further comprises:
detecting a cluster of work zone objects in the environment based at least in part on the perception data, wherein the cluster of work zone objects includes at least one of:
a work zone road sign, a work zone road barricade, a work zone vehicle, and a work zone worker (see at least ¶0033 ~ "system 100 can detect a road work zone 101 and its active time based on road signs (e.g., lane marking, barrier, cones, road work signs, etc.)" and ¶0040 ~ Due to an obstacle 303 (e.g., a broken vehicle, a road work zone, etc.) on the main side of the road 300);
determining the start location and the end location of the work zone based at least in part on a location of the cluster of work zone objects (see at least Fig. 4 ~ process method steps 405 and 407, Fig. 7 ~ process method step 703 - 705; ¶0038, and ¶0044); and
dividing the work zone into a plurality of road segments spanning from the start location to the end location of the work zone (see at least ¶0040 ~ "the start location 313 and the end location 315 of the obstacle 303 can be expressed… from a node 311 of the road segment 300" and ¶0101 ~ work zone is divided into a plurality of road segments),
wherein each of the plurality of road segments has a same length. (See at least ¶0030 ~ regression modeling of work zone includes mathematical modeling of work zones, ¶0040 and ¶0101).
As to Claim 10,
Xu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting the start location and end location of the work zone (see at least Figs. 4, 7, ¶0038, and ¶0044), the lane shift status of each of the plurality of road segments (see at least ¶0064), the lane closure status of each of the plurality of road segments (see at least ¶0064), the shoulder closure status of each of the plurality of road segments (see at least ¶0038 and ¶0043 ~ "the system 100 determines... road work zone location data such as a location of work zone, length of work zone, posted speed limits, lane and shoulder widths... signals density near work zone"), and the speed limit of each of the plurality of road segments to a remote device. (See at least ¶0048 ~ "system 100 can predict traffic... with the real-time traffic information per road segment or work zone, thereby determining a current travel speed for a given road segment (e.g., a road link or TMC) or work zone").
As to Claim 11,
Xu discloses a system for work zone detection for a vehicle (see at least Fig. 3 ~ illustrates a lane shift system for performing detection of a road work zone, ¶0033, ¶0038 ~ "system 100 can map-match the vehicle sensor data 103 to detect a lane shift, closed... caused by the road work zone 101. For instance…in FIG. 3", and ¶0064), the system comprising:
a server system (see at least Figs. 8A-8B and server 1092) comprising:
a server communication system (see at least Fig. 10 and ¶0116 ~ "server host 1092 connected to the Internet... In response to information received over the Internet… can be deployed in various configurations within other computer systems, e.g., host 1082 and server 1092"); and
a server controller in electrical communication with the server communication system (see at least Fig. 10 ~ illustrates server 1092 communicatively coupled to communication interface 1070 and processor (controller) 1002 and ¶0110 ~ regarding processor (controller) 1002 performs work zone location),
wherein the server controller (see at least Fig. 10) is programmed to:
receive measurement data about an environment using the server communication system (see at least ¶0042 ~ "determining the location of the road work zone location based on the advance vehicle sensor data… aggregate data of all vehicles driving through the road work zone 101 to calculate... bound(s)"),
wherein the measurement data includes perception data of the environment and telemetry data of a plurality of remote vehicles in the environment (see at least ¶0043 ~ "system 100 determines... using the advanced vehicle sensor data 103... road work zone location data such as a location of work zone, length of work zone, posted speed limits, lane and shoulder widths... and signals density near work zone... striping, pothole filling, tree trimming, etc.)");
identify a start location and an end location of a work zone based at least in part on the measurement data (see at least Fig. 4 ~ process method steps 405 and 407 teach identifying a start location and an end location of the road work zone; Fig. 7 ~ outlines a process flow chart determining road work zone location data and travel time reliability based on vehicle sensor data, in particular, process method step 703 - 705; ¶0038, and ¶0044),
wherein the work zone is represented as a plurality of road segments spanning from the start location to the end location (see at least Figs. 4, 7, ¶0038, ¶0044, ¶0064 and ¶0097 ~ "road segment data records 905 are links or segments representing roads, streets, or paths");
determine a lane shift status of each of the plurality of road segments (see at least ¶0064 ~ "the traffic processing engine 601 can map-matching the real-time telematic data to a lane level and detecting one or more active driving lanes, one or more shifted lanes, one or more closed or dropped lanes, one or more reversed lanes, or a combination thereof in the road work zone (e.g., the obstacle/road work zone 303 in FIG. 3)");
determine a lane closure status of each of the plurality of road segments (see at least ¶0064);
determine a shoulder closure status of each of the plurality of road segments (see at least ¶0038 ~ system 100 can map-match the vehicle sensor data 103 to detect a lane shift, closed / dropped, reversed, etc. caused by the road work zone 101);
determine a speed limit for each of the plurality of road segments (see at least ¶0048 ~ "system 100 can predict traffic... with the real-time traffic information per road segment or work zone, thereby determining a current travel speed for a given road segment (e.g., a road link or TMC) or work zone"); and
transmit the start location and end location of the work zone, the lane shift status of each of the plurality of road segments, the lane closure status of each of the plurality of road segments, the shoulder closure status of each of the plurality of road segments, and the speed limit of each of the plurality of road segments to the plurality of remote vehicles using the server communication system. (See at least ¶0038).
As to Claim 17,
Xu discloses the system of claim 11, further comprising:
a vehicle system (see at least Fig. 3 ~ illustrates a lane shift system for performing detection of a road work zone, ¶0033, ¶0038 ~ "system 100 can map-match the vehicle sensor data 103 to detect a lane shift, closed... caused by the road work zone 101. For instance…in FIG. 3", and ¶0064) comprising:
a vehicle sensor (see at least Fig. 1 ~ vehicle data sensor 103 and ¶0042);
a vehicle communication system (see at least Fig. 10 ~ illustrates server 1092 communicatively coupled to communication interface 1070 and processor (controller) 1002 and ¶0110 ~ regarding processor (controller) 1002 performs work zone location); and
a vehicle controller in electrical communication with the vehicle sensor and the vehicle communication system (see at least Fig. 10 and ¶0110),
wherein the vehicle controller (see at least Fig. 10 is programmed to:
receive the measurement data about the environment using the vehicle sensor (see at least ¶0042 ~ "determining the location of the road work zone location based on the advance vehicle sensor data… aggregate data of all vehicles driving through the road work zone 101 to calculate... bound(s)"); and
transmit the measurement data to the server system using the vehicle communication system. (See at least ¶0038).
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 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 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0204372 A1 to XU et al. (herein after "Xu") as to claim 2 above, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20240194056 A1 to STENNETH et al. (herein after "Stenneth").
(Note: Claim language is in bold typeface, and the Examiner’s comments and cited passages from the prior art reference(s) are in normal typeface.)
As to Claim 3,
Xu discloses the method of claim 2.
However, xu does not explicitly disclose, wherein detecting the cluster of work zone objects in the environment comprises:
detecting the cluster of work zone objects in the environment based at least in part on the perception data using a Density Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise (DBSCAN) algorithm.
On the other hand, Stenneth’s road work zone start location determination system discloses wherein detecting the cluster of work zone objects in the environment comprises: detecting the cluster of work zone objects in the environment based at least in part on the perception data using a Density Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise (DBSCAN) algorithm. (See Fig. 7 ~ outlines a process flowchart for determining the start location of a detected road work zone as taught in ¶0110, and ¶0111 ~ DBSC algorithm detects road objects within a work zone as described in Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide road work zone start location determination system with the Density Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise (DBSCAN) algorithm, as taught by Stenneth, because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow for identifying tightly packed clusters of arbitrary road work zone objects while distinguishing outliers as noise, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: reducing road work zone object detection processing burden; increasing reliability of road work zone detection and subsequent lane shifting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is allowable.
Claims 4 – 9, 12 - 16, and 19 - 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.
In particular, the prior art is silent in disclosing wherein a method for work zone detection for a vehicle… comprises:
receiving measurement data about an environment surrounding the vehicle using a vehicle sensor, wherein the measurement data includes perception data of the environment and telemetry data of a plurality of remote vehicles in the environment;
determining a plurality of lane lateral density distributions,
wherein each of the plurality of lane lateral density distributions corresponds to one of a plurality of lanes of one of the plurality of road segments of the work zone;
determining a lane shift status of each of the plurality of road segments based at least in part on the plurality of lane lateral density distributions;
determining a lane closure status of each of the plurality of road segments based at least in part on the plurality of lane lateral density distributions. Emphasis added.
The prior art does not appear to explicitly teach or disclose the above recited claim limitations.
To that end and although further search and consideration would always need to be performed based upon any submitted amendments by the Applicant, it is the Examiner’s position that incorporating these above recited claim limitations into independent claims 1,11, and 18 could potentially advance prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ASHLEY L. REDHEAD, JR. whose telephone number is (571) 272 - 6952. The Examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Thursday, between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Peter Nolan can be reached Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (571) 270 – 7016. 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.
/ASHLEY L REDHEAD JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661