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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Claims 1 and 3 are currently pending.
2. Claims 2 and 4 are canceled.
3. Claims 1 and 3 are currently amended.
4. The objections to the claims are overcome.
5. The 112(b) rejection to Claims 2-4 have been overcome.
6. The 101 rejections to Claim 1 have not been overcome.
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.
7. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis of Claim 1 (see MPEP §2106.03):
As a method, the claim is directed to a statutory category (Step 1).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed to calculating
a
a
-
d
, the stop duration T3 =
a
a
-
d
Tred + ɛ, the vehicle arrival rate d =
n
t
1
-
t
2
, and the vehicle departure rate a =
n
T
4
. These limitations are a mathematical concept. “A mathematical formula as such is not accorded the protection of our patent laws” (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)) (Step 2A, Prong 1).
The applicant has not recited improvement to any technology or technical field. The applicant has recited a claim in which, is a mathematical concept, and has not presented any improvement to the instantly applicable technology (Step 2A, Prong 2).
The claim does not provide an inventive concept and the claim recites no additional elements (Step 2B). The claim does not do anything with the calculations to make the invention practical (ex: controlling based on the calculation).
In conclusion, Claim 1 is directed toward non-subject matter eligible material and is thus rejected under 35 U.S.C §101 as being patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
10. The factual inquiries 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.
11. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldessouki (US 20230068826 A1), in view of Kim (KR 101333498 B1; previously provided), and in further view of Mai (CN 112712714 A; previously provided).
12. Eldessouki teaches A vehicle trajectory-based method for sensing allocated time of signal lights at an intersection, comprising (Eldessouki: [0001]):
S1, designating, by a processor, a direction of the intersection (Eldessouki: [0041]),
Obtaining, from an Internet-of vehicles cloud platform, vehicle trajectory information of vehicles passing through the intersection in the direction (Eldessouki: [0024] and [0042]),
And extracting allocated time estimation parameters for all of the vehicles from the vehicle trajectory information, wherein the allocated time estimation parameters comprise a braking deceleration time point t1, a stop time point t2, a stop duration T3, and a passing duration T4 (Eldessouki: [0043]);
S2, filtering, by a processor, the vehicle trajectory information obtained in the S1 to remove vehicle trajectory information of a vehicle which does not stop at the intersection (Eldessouki: [0042] Note that the vehicle trajectory information is filtered to include vehicles that stop and does not include trajectories of vehicles that do not stop at the intersection (see Fig. 1B).);
S3, calculating, by a processor, a vehicle arrival rate d and a vehicle departure rate a at the intersection in the direction based on the allocated time estimation parameters (Eldessouki: [0044] and [0046] Note that equations 9 and 13 calculate the arrival and departure rates at the intersection.);
And selecting vehicle trajectories meeting a > d, and calculating
a
a
-
d
(Eldessouki: [0042] and [0044] Note that selecting the vehicle trajectories meeting a > d is equivalent to the shock wave speeds after the discharge being greater than the shock wave speeds upon arrival of the intersection (see Fig. 1C). Also note that calculating a/(a-d) is equivalent to calculating the queue length because the arrival and departure rates are used for the calculation.);
And the stop duration T3 is calculated as follows: T3 =
a
a
-
d
Tred + ɛ (Eldessouki: [0044]-[0045], [0046], and [0048] Note that the stop delay is equivalent to the stop duration T3. The stop delay is calculated based on the red time interval [allocated time for a red light] and the queue length Lq which is based on the arrival and departure rates. Also note, the maximum allowable sampling error is equivalent to the error in the equation to determine the allocated red-light time.).
Eldessouki fails to explicitly teach S4, performing, by a processor, linear regression analysis on allocated time parameters (T3,
a
a
-
d
) of vehicle trajectories of the vehicles passing through the intersection in the direction by using an allocated time equation to obtain Tred and ɛ.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches S4, performing, by a processor, linear regression analysis on allocated time parameters (T3,
a
a
-
d
) of vehicle trajectories of the vehicles passing through the intersection in the direction by using an allocated time equation to obtain Tred and ɛ (Kim: [0039], [0061], and [0111]).
Eldessouki and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of traffic light control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eldessouki to incorporate the teachings of Kim to perform a linear regression analysis on allocated time parameters of vehicle trajectories passing through the intersection because it provides the benefit real time traffic signal control for efficient traffic management. A linear model is used to analyze the parameter to minimize the intersection lag for the vehicles stopped in order to increase the intersection efficiency.
Eldessouki and Kim fail to explicitly teach the vehicle arrival rate d at the intersection in the direction in the S3 is expressed as follows: d = n/(t2-t1), the vehicle departure rate a at the intersection in the direction is expressed as follows: a = n/T4 wherein n is a number of lanes at the intersection in the direction.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mai teaches the vehicle arrival rate d at the intersection in the direction in the S3 is expressed as follows: d = n/(t2-t1), the vehicle departure rate a at the intersection in the direction is expressed as follows: a = n/T4 wherein n is a number of lanes at the intersection in the direction (Mai: [Page 2, Lines 32-36] and [Page 3, Lines 6-12] Note that the number of lanes at the intersection in the direction is equivalent to the lane number influencing coefficients r1-r4.).
Eldessouki, Kim, and Mai are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of traffic light control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eldessouki and Kim to incorporate the teachings of Mai to determine the arrival rate based on the number of lanes of the intersection, deceleration time point, and stop time point and to determine the departure rate based on the number of lanes of the intersection and passing duration because it provides the benefit of determine accurate flow rates to improve the efficiency of intersection traffic. The number of lanes in the direction of the arrival and departure from the intersection influence the time the vehicles are stopped/delayed at the intersection.
13. Regarding Claim 3, Eldessouki, Kim, and Mai remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Eldessouki teaches an electronic device, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored on the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the processor, when executing the computer program, implements the vehicle trajectory-based method for sensing allocated time of signal lights at an intersection according to claim 1 (Eldessouki: [0053]).
Response to Arguments
14. Applicant's arguments regarding the U.S.C. 101 rejections filed 12/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
15. First, the Applicant has alleged "none of the pending claims are directed to an abstract idea or merely a mathematical concept. Instead, the claims are intended to have positive effects as described above." The Examiner disagrees.
Claim 1 is still directed to a mathematical concept because of the stop duration, arrival rate, and departure rates are calculated without significantly more. The Applicant has alleged the collected allocated time information of the signal lights facilitates further application of intelligent transportation and vehicle energy-saving and safety optimization. However, this application is not claimed, and therefore, still subject to a mathematical concept. As currently claimed, the claims make a calculation but does not further apply the calculation (ex: using the calculation to control something). As a result, Claim 1 remains rejected for being a mathematical concept.
16. Applicant's arguments regarding the U.S.C. 103 rejections filed 12/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
17. First, the Applicant has alleged "neither Eldessouki, nor Kim, nor Mai, alone or in combination, discloses, teaches, or suggests step S3 in Claim 1" and "Eldessouki discloses vehicle arrival rates… and vehicle departure rates… which are quite different from the equations of the corresponding vehicle arrive rate d and vehicle departure rate a recited in amended Claim 1." The Examiner disagrees.
Eldessouki teaches S3 because the vehicle arrival rates and vehicle departure rates are determined in Equations 7 and 13. The rates are based on the time allocated time estimation parameter because each rate is dependent on the time. Further, a>d is equivalent to the shock wave speed after discharge being greater than the shock wave speed after arrival because the departures are greater than the arrivals at the intersection (corresponding to Figs. 1B and 1C).
Also, a/(a-d) is equivalent to calculating the queue length because the same variables including the arrival and departure rates are used for the calculation. It would have been well within the skill level of one ordinary skill in the art to make a calculation using the arrival and departure rates as variables absent a showing to the contrary. The Applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with another calculation using the arrival and departure rates as variables. Additionally, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a calculation is made with the arrival and departure rates, but nothing happens after the calculation is made (ex: no control based on the calculation).
In response to the arguments filed 12/4/2025, it appears that the applicant is arguing the references individually. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As was specifically stated in the Nonfinal Office Action Mailed 9/5/2025, Eldessouki was only used to disclose the arrival and departure rates. Mai was used to teach calculating the arrival rate based on the number of lanes and time, and calculating the departure rate based on the number of lanes and a passing duration. Thus, Eldessouki still teaches the features for which it was cited.
18. Second, the Applicant has alleged "Kim fails to disclose the at least equations for the vehicle arrival rate d and the vehicle departure rate a" and "Mai discloses equations in paragraphs [0012]-[0019], which are also quite different from the equations for the vehicle arrival rate d and vehicle departure rate a defined in the amended Claim 1." The Examiner disagrees.
Kim has not been applied to teach the calculation of the arrival and departure rates. Instead, Mai teaches these calculations in at least [Page 2, Lines 32-36] and [Page 3, Lines 6-12]. Further, it is unclear what paragraphs the Applicant is referring to because the Applicant only provided an application with a translated abstract. The Examiner provided a translation of the entire application and this is what has been used for the citations. In the Examiner provided translation, the citations are in the form of page and line numbers.
Additionally, Mai teaches to calculate the arrival rate and departure rate based on the same variables. The arrival rate is calculated based on the waiting time (t2-t1) and depends on the number of lanes at the intersection in the direction. This is equivalent to the lane number influencing coefficients r1-r4. Further, the departure rate is calculated based on the passing duration (time waiting for vehicles to pass safely) and also depends on the number of lanes at the intersection in the direction.
Therefore, Mai teaches to calculate the arrival and departure rates based on the same variables as claimed. It would have been well within the skill level of one ordinary skill in the art to calculate the arrival and departure rates based on time, vehicles, and lane variables absent a showing to the contrary. The Applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with another calculation method of the arrival and departure rates. Additionally, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a calculation of the arrival and departure rates, but nothing happens after the calculation is made (ex: no control based on the calculation).
As a result, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Eldessouki, Kim, and Mai teach each and every limitation of the claims.
19. Eldessouki (US 20230068826 A1), in view of Kim (KR 101333498 B1), and in further view of Mai (CN 112712714 A) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still Maintained with the current prior art of record.
20. Claims 1 and 3 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
21. 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.
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663