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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
3. Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-16, and 18-20 are currently amended.
4. The 101 rejection to Claim 1 has 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.
5. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because “a computer program product” is not modified to be non-transitory. Therefore, the BRI of the computer program product includes signals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaither (US 20190122547 A1), in view of Lankes (DE 102019127307 A1; already of record), and in further view of Tonguz (US 20200265717 A1).
10. Regarding Claim 1, Gaither teaches a computer program product, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a computer processor to cause the computer processor to perform operations comprising (Gaither: [0092] main memory 608):
Broadcasting, via wireless communication technology, a first traffic control message to a first… traffic controller of a first vehicle and to a second… traffic controller of a second vehicle that are approaching an intersection (Gaither: [0054] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a traffic controller is interpreted as a vehicle controller that controls the vehicle based on the traffic information.);
Receiving, via the wireless communication technology, a first vehicle status message from the first… traffic controller of the first vehicle and a second vehicle status message from the second… traffic controller of the second vehicle (Gaither: [0028] and [0036] Vehicles 202 and 204 transmitting their operating characteristics is equivalent to a first and second vehicle status message.);
Calculating, based on the first vehicle status message, a first energy consumption of the first vehicle to stop and accelerate to a particular speed based on the first vehicle status message (Gaither: [0033] Note that fuel economy is a measure of how much fuel (energy) is consumed to travel a set distance.);
Calculating, based on the second vehicle status message, a second energy consumption of the second vehicle to stop and accelerate to the particular speed based on the second vehicle status message (Gaither: [0034] Note that fuel economy is a measure of how much fuel (energy) is consumed to travel a set distance.);
Determining that the first energy consumption is greater than the second energy consumption (Gaither: [0075] Note that a vehicle with a lower fuel economy would have a greater energy consumption to travel the same distance as a vehicle with a higher fuel economy.);
Sending, via the wireless communication technology, a second traffic control message to the first… traffic controller of the first vehicle to proceed through the intersection without stopping… (Gaither: [0027], [0062], and [0076] Note that the traffic lights being dynamically altered to favor the vehicle with the worst fuel economy is equivalent to sending a second traffic control message to the first vehicle to proceed through the intersection without stopping because there is no indication the messages are V2V.),
And sending, via the wireless communication technology, a third traffic control message to the second… traffic controller of the second vehicle to stop before entering the intersection until the first vehicle has cleared the intersection… (Gaither: [0027] and [0074] Note that the traffic lights being dynamically altered to favor the vehicle with the worst fuel economy is equivalent to sending a third traffic control message to the second vehicle to stop before entering the intersection because there is no indication the messages are V2V.).
Gaither fails to explicitly teaches the second traffic control message indicates a vehicle identifier of the first vehicle, a priority level, and that the first vehicle has a higher joule consumption; and… wherein the third traffic control message indicates a vehicle identifier of the second vehicle and that the second vehicle has a lower joule consumption.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lankes teaches the second traffic control message indicates… a priority level, and that the first vehicle has a higher joule consumption (Lankes: [0017], [0019], and [0025] Note that directing a traffic flow to pass through an intersection is equivalent to a second traffic control message indicating a priority level and higher joule consumption because Lankes explains in [0017] that priority level is granted to heavy vehicle groups over light vehicle groups. Also, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the second message indicating may be interpreted as implicitly determining priority and joule consumption based on the message (e.g., not an explicit message).);
And… wherein the third traffic control message indicates… that the second vehicle has a lower joule consumption (Lankes: [0017], [0019], and [0025] Note that directing a traffic flow to stop at an intersection is equivalent to a third traffic control message indicating a priority level and lower joule consumption because Lankes explains in [0017] that priority level is granted to heavy vehicle groups over light vehicle groups. Also, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the second message indicating may be interpreted as implicitly determining priority and joule consumption based on the message (e.g., not an explicit message).).
Gaither and Lankes are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of intersection vehicle 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 Gaither to incorporate the teachings of Lankes to indicate to vehicle a priority level and joule level because it provides the benefit of notifying vehicles to enter or stop at an intersection for reducing energy consumed amongst traffic flows. This provides the additional benefit of reducing the environmental impact of road users as Lankes explains in [0007].
Gaither and Lankes fail to explicitly teach a first Artificial Intelligence (AI) traffic controller of a first vehicle and to a second AI traffic controller of and a second vehicle; and wherein the second traffic control message indicates a vehicle identifier of the first vehicle… and wherein the third traffic control message indicates a vehicle identifier of the second vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tonguz teaches a first Artificial Intelligence (AI) traffic controller of a first vehicle and to a second AI traffic controller of and a second vehicle (Tonguz: [0014], [0028], and [0039] “Embodiments of this invention disclosed herein utilize a DAI framework for distributed problem solving” and “For a vehicle to participate in the virtual traffic light scenario, it will be necessary for the vehicle to be equipped with a dynamic traffic control system (DTCS)…”);
And wherein the second traffic control message indicates a vehicle identifier of the first vehicle… and wherein the third traffic control message indicates a vehicle identifier of the second vehicle (Tonguz: [0042] The information characterizing the type of vehicle is equivalent to a vehicle identifier.).
Gaither, Lankes, and Tonguz are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of intersection vehicle 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 Gaither and Lankes to incorporate the teachings of Tonguz to use AI traffic controllers to broadcast and receive messages that indicate vehicle identifiers because it provides the benefit of solving complex problems efficiently and coordinating a solution as explained in [0013] of Tonguz. Using AI traffic controllers provide the additional benefit of managing traffic at intersections without the need for infrastructure-based traffic lights with the use of V2V communication, as explicitly explained in [0028] of Tonguz.
11. Regarding Claim 2, Gaither, Lankes, and Tonguz remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further Gaither teaches determining that the first vehicle and a third vehicle are approaching the intersection (Gaither: [0053] “At operation 402, a determination is made to see whether one or more vehicles are within a certain proximity to an intersection.”);
Calculating a third energy consumption of the third vehicle to stop and accelerate to the particular speed (Gaither: [0035] Note that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that fuel economy is a measure of how much fuel (energy) is consumed to travel a set distance.);
Determining that the first energy consumption is less than the third energy consumption (Gaither: [0075] Note that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a vehicle with a lower fuel economy would have a greater energy consumption to travel the same distance as a vehicle with a higher fuel economy.);
Sending, via the wireless communication technology, a fourth traffic control message to the first vehicle... (Gaither: [0062] and [0076] “Accordingly, at operation 454, the changing of lights at the relevant traffic signals may be delayed to allow the first vehicle (provided is has better fuel economy and/or has contributed the most money) to proceed through the intersection.”);
And sending, via the wireless communication technology, a fifth traffic control message to the third vehicle… (Gaither: [0074] "If the first vehicle is traveling slowly enough to safely stop if the light is changed, the light can be changed.”).
Gaither does not explicitly teach a fourth traffic control message the first AI traffic controller to the first vehicle to stop before entering the intersection until the third vehicle has cleared the intersection; and a fifth traffic control message to a third AI traffic controller the third vehicle to proceed through the intersection.
However, Gaither teaches in [0027] that the traffic lights can be dynamically altered to favor the vehicle with the worst fuel economy (higher energy consumption).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to sending a fourth traffic control message to the first AI traffic controller of the first vehicle to stop before entering the intersection and send a fifth traffic control message to the third AI traffic controller of the third vehicle to proceed through the intersection because it provides the benefit of favoring the vehicle with the worst fuel economy (highest energy consumption) to avoid further lowering the already poor fuel economy with frequent stops.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of traffic light control, Lankes teaches a fourth traffic control message to… the first vehicle to stop before entering the intersection until the third vehicle has cleared the intersection; and… a fifth traffic control message to… the third vehicle to proceed through the intersection (Lankes: [0017], [0019], and [0025] Note that stopping one traffic flow is equivalent to a fourth traffic control message to a first vehicle and letting other traffic flow through the intersection is equivalent to a fifth traffic control message to a third vehicle.).
Gaither and Lankes 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 Gaither to incorporate the teachings of Lankes to send a fifth traffic control message to the third vehicle to proceed through the intersection without stopping and to send a fourth traffic control message to the first vehicle to stop before entering the intersection because it provides the benefit of reducing energy consumed amongst traffic flows and to reduce the environmental impact of road users as Lankes explains in at least [0007].
12. Regarding Claim 3, Gaither, Lankes, and Tonguz remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further Gaither teaches determining that the first energy consumption and the second energy consumption are equal; and using one or more factors to determine which of the first vehicle and the second vehicle is to continue through the intersection without stopping (Gaither: [0043], [0074], and [0076] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, vehicle data includes the vehicle being associated with a monetary contribution.),
Wherein the one or more factors are selected from the group consisting of weather conditions, road conditions, camera feeds, traffic data, and vehicle data of the first vehicle and the second vehicle (Gaither: [0074], [0075], and [0087] The roadway infrastructure includes cameras and traffic signals which is equivalent to camera feeds and traffic data. Also, weather used as a safety consideration is equivalent to weather and road conditions.).
13. Regarding Claim 4, Gaither, Lankes, and Tonguz remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further Gaither teaches the calculations and the determination occur at an edge compute that is part of a traffic light and that receives data from the first vehicle and the second vehicle (Gaither: [0028] and [0047] “For example, if fuel economy optimization is a goal, a comparison can be made between the respective fuel economy ratings of those vehicles proximate to an intersection”).
14. Regarding Claim 5, Gaither, Lankes, and Tonguz remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further Gaither teaches the first vehicle and a third vehicle communicate with vehicle-to-vehicle communications to determine which of the first vehicle and the third vehicle is to continue through the intersection without stopping (Gaither: [0028] and [0029] “The feasibility determination may include determining whether or not changing a light of a traffic signal would impact the safety of an approaching vehicle”).
15. Regarding Claim 6, Gaither, Lankes, and Tonguz remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further Gaither teaches determining that three or more new vehicles are approaching the intersection (Gaither: [0051] and [0054] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, three new vehicles approaching the intersection is repeating the process in Figs. 4A-C with a new set of vehicles after the first set has already passed through the intersection.);
Ranking each new vehicle of the new vehicles based on energy consumption associated with the new vehicles (Gaither: [0027] "That is, the respective fuel economy “rankings” of each vehicle approaching [ranking each of the new vehicles] or stopped at a traffic signal can be compared...");
And sending, via the wireless communication technology, new traffic control messages to AI traffic controllers of each new vehicle of the new vehicles to indicate an order of entering the intersection (Gaither: [0074] and [0076] “If the first vehicle is traveling slowly enough to safely stop if the light is changed, the light can be changed”).
16. Regarding Claim 7, Gaither, Lankes, and Tonguz remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further Gaither teaches a machine learning model receives inputs of a state and a reward for an action and outputs a highest priority for the first vehicle to indicate that the first vehicle is to proceed through the intersection without stopping, wherein the reward being a positive reward indicates that the machine learning model prioritized vehicles with higher Joule consumption, and wherein the reward being a negative reward indicates that the machine learning model prioritized vehicles with lower Joule consumption (Gaither: [0027] Note that the traffic signal controller learning traffic patterns is equivalent to a machine learning model.).
17. Regarding Claim 8, Gaither teaches a computer system, comprising: one or more computer processors, one or more computer-readable memories and one or more computer-readable, tangible storage devices; and program instructions, stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable, tangible storage devices for execution by at least one of the one or more computer processors via at least one of the one or more computer-readable memories, to perform operations comprising (Gaither: [0092] main memory 608):
Broadcasting, via wireless communication technology, a first traffic control message to a first… traffic controller of a first vehicle and to a second… traffic controller of a second vehicle that are approaching an intersection (Gaither: [0054] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a traffic controller is interpreted as a vehicle controller that controls the vehicle based on the traffic information.);
Receiving, via the wireless communication technology, a first vehicle status message from the first… traffic controller of the first vehicle and a second vehicle status message from the second… traffic controller of the second vehicle (Gaither: [0028] and [0036] Vehicles 202 and 204 transmitting their operating characteristics is equivalent to a first and second vehicle status message.);
Calculating, based on the first vehicle status message, a first energy consumption of the first vehicle to stop and accelerate to a particular speed based on the first vehicle status message (Gaither: [0033] Note that fuel economy is a measure of how much fuel (energy) is consumed to travel a set distance.);
Calculating, based on the second vehicle status message, a second energy consumption of the second vehicle to stop and accelerate to the particular speed based on the second vehicle status message (Gaither: [0034] Note that fuel economy is a measure of how much fuel (energy) is consumed to travel a set distance.);
Determining that the first energy consumption is greater than the second energy consumption (Gaither: [0075] Note that a vehicle with a lower fuel economy would have a greater energy consumption to travel the same distance as a vehicle with a higher fuel economy.);
Sending, via the wireless communication technology, a second traffic control message to the first… traffic controller of the first vehicle to proceed through the intersection without stopping… (Gaither: [0027], [0062], and [0076] Note that the traffic lights being dynamically altered to favor the vehicle with the worst fuel economy is equivalent to sending a second traffic control message to the first vehicle to proceed through the intersection without stopping because there is no indication the messages are V2V.),
And sending, via the wireless communication technology, a third traffic control message to the second… traffic controller of the second vehicle to stop before entering the intersection until the first vehicle has cleared the intersection… (Gaither: [0027] and [0074] Note that the traffic lights being dynamically altered to favor the vehicle with the worst fuel economy is equivalent to sending a third traffic control message to the second vehicle to stop before entering the intersection because there is no indication the messages are V2V.).
Gaither fails to explicitly teaches the second traffic control message indicates a vehicle identifier of the first vehicle, a priority level, and that the first vehicle has a higher joule consumption; and… wherein the third traffic control message indicates a vehicle identifier of the second vehicle and that the second vehicle has a lower joule consumption.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lankes teaches the second traffic control message indicates… a priority level, and that the first vehicle has a higher joule consumption (Lankes: [0017], [0019], and [0025] Note that directing a traffic flow to pass through an intersection is equivalent to a second traffic control message indicating a priority level and higher joule consumption because Lankes explains in [0017] that priority level is granted to heavy vehicle groups over light vehicle groups. Also, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the second message indicating may be interpreted as implicitly determining priority and joule consumption based on the message (e.g., not an explicit message).);
And… wherein the third traffic control message indicates… that the second vehicle has a lower joule consumption (Lankes: [0017], [0019], and [0025] Note that directing a traffic flow to stop at an intersection is equivalent to a third traffic control message indicating a priority level and lower joule consumption because Lankes explains in [0017] that priority level is granted to heavy vehicle groups over light vehicle groups. Also, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the second message indicating may be interpreted as implicitly determining priority and joule consumption based on the message (e.g., not an explicit message).).
Gaither and Lankes are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of intersection vehicle 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 Gaither to incorporate the teachings of Lankes to indicate to vehicle a priority level and joule level because it provides the benefit of notifying vehicles to enter or stop at an intersection for reducing energy consumed amongst traffic flows. This provides the additional benefit of reducing the environmental impact of road users as Lankes explains in [0007].
Gaither and Lankes fail to explicitly teach a first Artificial Intelligence (AI) traffic controller of a first vehicle and to a second AI traffic controller of and a second vehicle; and wherein the second traffic control message indicates a vehicle identifier of the first vehicle… and wherein the third traffic control message indicates a vehicle identifier of the second vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tonguz teaches a first Artificial Intelligence (AI) traffic controller of a first vehicle and to a second AI traffic controller of and a second vehicle (Tonguz: [0014], [0028], and [0039] “Embodiments of this invention disclosed herein utilize a DAI framework for distributed problem solving” and “For a vehicle to participate in the virtual traffic light scenario, it will be necessary for the vehicle to be equipped with a dynamic traffic control system (DTCS)…”);
And wherein the second traffic control message indicates a vehicle identifier of the first vehicle… and wherein the third traffic control message indicates a vehicle identifier of the second vehicle (Tonguz: [0042] The information characterizing the type of vehicle is equivalent to a vehicle identifier.).
Gaither, Lankes, and Tonguz are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of intersection vehicle 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 Gaither and Lankes to incorporate the teachings of Tonguz to use AI traffic controllers to broadcast and receive messages that indicate vehicle identifiers because it provides the benefit of solving complex problems efficiently and coordinating a solution as explained in [0013] of Tonguz. Using AI traffic controllers provide the additional benefit of managing traffic at intersections without the need for infrastructure-based traffic lights with the use of V2V communication, as explicitly explained in [0028] of Tonguz.
18. Regarding Claim 9, Gaither, Lankes, and Tonguz remains as applied above in Claim 8, and further Gaither teaches determining that the first vehicle and a third vehicle are approaching the intersection (Gaither: [0053] “At operation 402, a determination is made to see whether one or more vehicles are within a certain proximity to an intersection.”);
Calculating a third energy consumption of the third vehicle to stop and accelerate to the particular speed (Gaither: [0035] Note that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that fuel economy is a measure of how much fuel (energy) is consumed to travel a set distance.);
Determining that the first energy consumption is less than the third energy consumption (Gaither: [0075] Note that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a vehicle with a lower fuel economy would have a greater energy consumption to travel the same distance as a vehicle with a higher fuel economy.);
Sending, via the wireless communication technology, a fourth traffic control message to the first vehicle... (Gaither: [0062] and [0076] “Accordingly, at operation 454, the changing of lights at the relevant traffic signals may be delayed to allow the first vehicle (provided is has better fuel economy and/or has contributed the most money) to proceed through the intersection.”);
And sending, via the wireless communication technology, a fifth traffic control message to the third vehicle… (Gaither: [0074] "If the first vehicle is traveling slowly enough to safely stop if the light is changed, the light can be changed.”).
Gaither does not explicitly teach a fourth traffic control message the first AI traffic controller to the first vehicle to stop before entering the intersection until the third vehicle has cleared the intersection; and a fifth traffic control message to a third AI traffic controller the third vehicle to proceed through the intersection.
However, Gaither teaches in [0027] that the traffic lights can be dynamically altered to favor the vehicle with the worst fuel economy (higher energy consumption).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to sending a fourth traffic control message to the first AI traffic controller of the first vehicle to stop before entering the intersection and send a fifth traffic control message to the third AI traffic controller of the third vehicle to proceed through the intersection because it provides the benefit of favoring the vehicle with the worst fuel economy (highest energy consumption) to avoid further lowering the already poor fuel economy with frequent stops.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of traffic light control, Lankes teaches a fourth traffic control message to… the first vehicle to stop before entering the intersection until the third vehicle has cleared the intersection; and… a fifth traffic control message to… the third vehicle to proceed through the intersection (Lankes: [0017], [0019], and [0025] Note that stopping one traffic flow is equivalent to a fourth traffic control message to a first vehicle and letting other traffic flow through the intersection is equivalent to a fifth traffic control message to a third vehicle.).
Gaither and Lankes 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 Gaither to incorporate the teachings of Lankes to send a fifth traffic control message to the third vehicle to proceed through the intersection without stopping and to send a fourth traffic control message to the first vehicle to stop before entering the intersection because it provides the benefit of reducing energy consumed amongst traffic flows and to reduce the environmental impact of road users as Lankes explains in at least [0007].
19. Regarding Claim 10, Gaither, Lankes, and Tonguz remains as applied above in Claim 8, and further Gaither teaches determining that the first energy consumption and the second energy consumption are equal; and using one or more factors to determine which of the first vehicle and the second vehicle is to continue through the intersection without stopping (Gaither: [0043], [0074], and [0076] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, vehicle data includes the vehicle being associated with a monetary contribution.),
Wherein the one or more factors are selected from the group consisting of weather conditions, road conditions, camera feeds, traffic data, and vehicle data of the first vehicle and the second vehicle (Gaither: [0074], [0075], and [0087] The roadway infrastructure includes cameras and traffic signals which is equivalent to camera feeds and traffic data. Also, weather used as a safety consideration is equivalent to weather and road conditions.).
20. Regarding Claim 11, Gaither, Lankes, and Tonguz remains as applied above in Claim 8, and further Gaither teaches the calculations and the determination occur at an edge compute that is part of a traffic light and that receives data from the first vehicle and the second vehicle (Gaither: [0028] and [0047] “For example, if fuel economy optimization is a goal, a comparison can be made between the respective fuel economy ratings of those vehicles proximate to an intersection”).
21. Regarding Claim 12, Gaither, Lankes, and Tonguz remains as applied above in Claim 8, and further Gaither teaches the first vehicle and a third vehicle communicate with vehicle-to-vehicle communications to determine which of the first vehicle and the third vehicle is to continue through the intersection without stopping (Gaither: [0028] and [0029] “The feasibility determination may include determining whether or not changing a light of a traffic signal would impact the safety of an approaching vehicle”).
22. Regarding Claim 13, Gaither, Lankes, and Tonguz remains as applied above in Claim 8, and further Gaither teaches determining that three or more new vehicles are approaching the intersection (Gaither: [0051] and [0054] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, three new vehicles approaching the intersection is repeating the process in Figs. 4A-C with a new set of vehicles after the first set has already passed through the intersection.);
Ranking each new vehicle of the new vehicles based on energy consumption associated with the new vehicles (Gaither: [0027] "That is, the respective fuel economy “rankings” of each vehicle approaching [ranking each of the new vehicles] or stopped at a traffic signal can be compared...");
And sending, via the wireless communication technology, new traffic control messages to AI traffic controllers of each new vehicle of the new vehicles to indicate an order of entering the intersection (Gaither: [0074] and [0076] “If the first vehicle is traveling slowly enough to safely stop if the light is changed, the light can be changed”).
23. Regarding Claim 14, Gaither, Lankes, and Tonguz remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further Gaither teaches a machine learning model receives inputs of a state and a reward for an action and outputs a highest priority for the first vehicle to indicate that the first vehicle is to proceed through the intersection without stopping, wherein the reward being a positive reward indicates that the machine learning model prioritized vehicles with higher Joule consumption, and wherein the reward being a negative reward indicates that the machine learning model prioritized vehicles with lower Joule consumption (Gaither: [0027] Note that the traffic signal controller learning traffic patterns is equivalent to a machine learning model.).
24. Regarding Claim 15, Gaither teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising operations for (Gaither: [0092]):
Broadcasting, via wireless communication technology, a first traffic control message to a first… traffic controller of a first vehicle and to a second… traffic controller of a second vehicle that are approaching an intersection (Gaither: [0054] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a traffic controller is interpreted as a vehicle controller that controls the vehicle based on the traffic information.);
Receiving, via the wireless communication technology, a first vehicle status message from the first… traffic controller of the first vehicle and a second vehicle status message from the second… traffic controller of the second vehicle (Gaither: [0028] and [0036] Vehicles 202 and 204 transmitting their operating characteristics is equivalent to a first and second vehicle status message.);
Calculating, based on the first vehicle status message, a first energy consumption of the first vehicle to stop and accelerate to a particular speed based on the first vehicle status message (Gaither: [0033] Note that fuel economy is a measure of how much fuel (energy) is consumed to travel a set distance.);
Calculating, based on the second vehicle status message, a second energy consumption of the second vehicle to stop and accelerate to the particular speed based on the second vehicle status message (Gaither: [0034] Note that fuel economy is a measure of how much fuel (energy) is consumed to travel a set distance.);
Determining that the first energy consumption is greater than the second energy consumption (Gaither: [0075] Note that a vehicle with a lower fuel economy would have a greater energy consumption to travel the same distance as a vehicle with a higher fuel economy.);
Sending, via the wireless communication technology, a second traffic control message to the first… traffic controller of the first vehicle to proceed through the intersection without stopping… (Gaither: [0027], [0062], and [0076] Note that the traffic lights being dynamically altered to favor the vehicle with the worst fuel economy is equivalent to sending a second traffic control message to the first vehicle to proceed through the intersection without stopping because there is no indication the messages are V2V.),
And sending, via the wireless communication technology, a third traffic control message to the second… traffic controller of the second vehicle to stop before entering the intersection until the first vehicle has cleared the intersection… (Gaither: [0027] and [0074] Note that the traffic lights being dynamically altered to favor the vehicle with the worst fuel economy is equivalent to sending a third traffic control message to the second vehicle to stop before entering the intersection because there is no indication the messages are V2V.).
Gaither fails to explicitly teaches the second traffic control message indicates a vehicle identifier of the first vehicle, a priority level, and that the first vehicle has a higher joule consumption; and… wherein the third traffic control message indicates a vehicle identifier of the second vehicle and that the second vehicle has a lower joule consumption.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lankes teaches the second traffic control message indicates… a priority level, and that the first vehicle has a higher joule consumption (Lankes: [0017], [0019], and [0025] Note that directing a traffic flow to pass through an intersection is equivalent to a second traffic control message indicating a priority level and higher joule consumption because Lankes explains in [0017] that priority level is granted to heavy vehicle groups over light vehicle groups. Also, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the second message indicating may be interpreted as implicitly determining priority and joule consumption based on the message (e.g., not an explicit message).);
And… wherein the third traffic control message indicates… that the second vehicle has a lower joule consumption (Lankes: [0017], [0019], and [0025] Note that directing a traffic flow to stop at an intersection is equivalent to a third traffic control message indicating a priority level and lower joule consumption because Lankes explains in [0017] that priority level is granted to heavy vehicle groups over light vehicle groups. Also, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the second message indicating may be interpreted as implicitly determining priority and joule consumption based on the message (e.g., not an explicit message).).
Gaither and Lankes are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of intersection vehicle 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 Gaither to incorporate the teachings of Lankes to indicate to vehicle a priority level and joule level because it provides the benefit of notifying vehicles to enter or stop at an intersection for reducing energy consumed amongst traffic flows. This provides the additional benefit of reducing the environmental impact of road users as Lankes explains in [0007].
Gaither and Lankes fail to explicitly teach a first Artificial Intelligence (AI) traffic controller of a first vehicle and to a second AI traffic controller of and a second vehicle; and wherein the second traffic control message indicates a vehicle identifier of the first vehicle… and wherein the third traffic control message indicates a vehicle identifier of the second vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tonguz teaches a first Artificial Intelligence (AI) traffic controller of a first vehicle and to a second AI traffic controller of and a second vehicle (Tonguz: [0014], [0028], and [0039] “Embodiments of this invention disclosed herein utilize a DAI framework for distributed problem solving” and “For a vehicle to participate in the virtual traffic light scenario, it will be necessary for the vehicle to be equipped with a dynamic traffic control system (DTCS)…”);
And wherein the second traffic control message indicates a vehicle identifier of the first vehicle… and wherein the third traffic control message indicates a vehicle identifier of the second vehicle (Tonguz: [0042] The information characterizing the type of vehicle is equivalent to a vehicle identifier.).
Gaither, Lankes, and Tonguz are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of intersection vehicle 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 Gaither and Lankes to incorporate the teachings of Tonguz to use AI traffic controllers to broadcast and receive messages that indicate vehicle identifiers because it provides the benefit of solving complex problems efficiently and coordinating a solution as explained in [0013] of Tonguz. Using AI traffic controllers provide the additional benefit of managing traffic at intersections without the need for infrastructure-based traffic lights with the use of V2V communication, as explicitly explained in [0028] of Tonguz.
25. Regarding Claim 16, Gaither, Lankes, and Tonguz remains as applied above in Claim 15, and further Gaither teaches determining that the first vehicle and a third vehicle are approaching the intersection (Gaither: [0053] “At operation 402, a determination is made to see whether one or more vehicles are within a certain proximity to an intersection.”);
Calculating a third energy consumption of the third vehicle to stop and accelerate to the particular speed (Gaither: [0035] Note that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that fuel economy is a measure of how much fuel (energy) is consumed to travel a set distance.);
Determining that the first energy consumption is less than the third energy consumption (Gaither: [0075] Note that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a vehicle with a lower fuel economy would have a greater energy consumption to travel the same distance as a vehicle with a higher fuel economy.);
Sending, via the wireless communication technology, a fourth traffic control message to the first vehicle... (Gaither: [0062] and [0076] “Accordingly, at operation 454, the changing of lights at the relevant traffic signals may be delayed to allow the first vehicle (provided is has better fuel economy and/or has contributed the most money) to proceed through the intersection.”);
And sending, via the wireless communication technology, a fifth traffic control message to the third vehicle… (Gaither: [0074] "If the first vehicle is traveling slowly enough to safely stop if the light is changed, the light can be changed.”).
Gaither does not explicitly teach a fourth traffic control message the first AI traffic controller to the first vehicle to stop before entering the intersection until the third vehicle has cleared the intersection; and a fifth traffic control message to a third AI traffic controller the third vehicle to proceed through the intersection.
However, Gaither teaches in [0027] that the traffic lights can be dynamically altered to favor the vehicle with the worst fuel economy (higher energy consumption).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to sending a fourth traffic control message to the first AI traffic controller of the first vehicle to stop before entering the intersection and send a fifth traffic control message to the third AI traffic controller of the third vehicle to proceed through the intersection because it provides the benefit of favoring the vehicle with the worst fuel economy (highest energy consumption) to avoid further lowering the already poor fuel economy with frequent stops.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of traffic light control, Lankes teaches a fourth traffic control message to… the first vehicle to stop before entering the intersection until the third vehicle has cleared the intersection; and… a fifth traffic control message to… the third vehicle to proceed through the intersection (Lankes: [0017], [0019], and [0025] Note that stopping one traffic flow is equivalent to a fourth traffic control message to a first vehicle and letting other traffic flow through the intersection is equivalent to a fifth traffic control message to a third vehicle.).
Gaither and Lankes 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 Gaither to incorporate the teachings of Lankes to send a fifth traffic control message to the third vehicle to proceed through the intersection without stopping and to send a fourth traffic control message to the first vehicle to stop before entering the intersection because it provides the benefit of reducing energy consumed amongst traffic flows and to reduce the environmental impact of road users as Lankes explains in at least [0007].
26. Regarding Claim 17, Gaither, Lankes, and Tonguz remains as applied above in Claim 15, and further Gaither teaches determining that the first energy consumption and the second energy consumption are equal; and using one or more factors to determine which of the first vehicle and the second vehicle is to continue through the intersection without stopping (Gaither: [0043], [0074], and [0076] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, vehicle data includes the vehicle being associated with a monetary contribution.),
Wherein the one or more factors are selected from the group consisting of weather conditions, road conditions, camera feeds, traffic data, and vehicle data of the first vehicle and the second vehicle (Gaither: [0074], [0075], and [0087] The roadway infrastructure includes cameras and traffic signals which is equivalent to camera feeds and traffic data. Also, weather used as a safety consideration is equivalent to weather and road conditions.).
27. Regarding Claim 18, Gaither, Lankes, and Tonguz remains as applied above in Claim 15, and further Gaither teaches the calculations and the determination occur at an edge compute that is part of a traffic light and that receives data from the first vehicle and the second vehicle (Gaither: [0028] and [0047] “For example, if fuel economy optimization is a goal, a comparison can be made between the respective fuel economy ratings of those vehicles proximate to an intersection”).
28. Regarding Claim 19, Gaither, Lankes, and Tonguz remains as applied above in Claim 15, and further Gaither teaches the first vehicle and a third vehicle communicate with vehicle-to-vehicle communications to determine which of the first vehicle and the third vehicle is to continue through the intersection without stopping (Gaither: [0028] and [0029] “The feasibility determination may include determining whether or not changing a light of a traffic signal would impact the safety of an approaching vehicle”).
29. Regarding Claim 20, Gaither, Lankes, and Tonguz remains as applied above in Claim 15, and further Gaither teaches determining that three or more new vehicles are approaching the intersection (Gaither: [0051] and [0054] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, three new vehicles approaching the intersection is repeating the process in Figs. 4A-C with a new set of vehicles after the first set has already passed through the intersection.);
Ranking each new vehicle of the new vehicles based on energy consumption associated with the new vehicles (Gaither: [0027] "That is, the respective fuel economy “rankings” of each vehicle approaching [ranking each of the new vehicles] or stopped at a traffic signal can be compared...");
And sending, via the wireless communication technology, new traffic control messages to AI traffic controllers of each new vehicle of the new vehicles to indicate an order of entering the intersection (Gaither: [0074] and [0076] “If the first vehicle is traveling slowly enough to safely stop if the light is changed, the light can be changed”).
Response to Arguments
30. Applicant's arguments regarding the U.S.C. 101 rejection filed 2/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
31. The Applicant has alleged that “a computer-readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se” and “based on Applicant’s specification, Claim 1 is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals.” The Examiner disagrees.
The Examiner would like to remind the Applicant that the specification cannot be read into the claims. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as currently recited, the computer program product includes transitory signals. Therefore, to overcome the 101 rejection, the Applicant must amend the computer program product in the claims so that it indicates the signals are non-transitory.
32. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the U.S.C 103 rejections of Claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Tonguz (US 20200265717 A1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of an artificial intelligence traffic controller in the rejection above as cited in at least paragraphs [0014], [0028], and [0039]. Tonguz teaches to use AI traffic controllers to broadcast and receive messages that indicate vehicle identifiers for complex problems efficiently and coordinating a solution. Using AI traffic controllers provide the benefit of managing traffic at intersections without the need for infrastructure-based traffic lights with the use of V2V communication.
33. Gaither (US 20190122547 A1), in view of Lankes (DE 102019127307 A1; already of record), and in further view of Tonguz (US 20200265717 A1) 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.
34. Claims 1-20 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
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
Prosecution Insights