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 1-20 are currently pending.
2. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are currently amended.
3. 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.
4. 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
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 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).
9. 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]):
Broadcasting, via wireless communication technology, a first traffic control message to a first vehicle and a second vehicle that are approaching an intersection (Gaither: [0054]);
Receiving, via the wireless communication technology, a first vehicle status message from the first vehicle and a second vehicle status message from the second vehicle (Gaither: [0028] and [0036]);
Calculating 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 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.);
Calculating 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 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 greater than the second 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 second traffic control message to the first vehicle to proceed through the intersection without stopping… (Gaither: [0027], [0062], [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.);
And sending, via the wireless communication technology, a third traffic control message to 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.).
Gaither fails to explicitly teach to indicate that the first vehicle has a higher joule consumption; and indicates that the second vehicle has a lower joule consumption.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lankes teaches a second traffic control message to the first vehicle to proceed through the intersection without stopping and indicates that the first vehicle has a higher joule consumption; And… a third traffic control message to the second vehicle to stop before entering the intersection until the first vehicle has cleared the intersection and indicates that the second vehicle has a lower joule consumption (Lankes: [0017], [0019], and [0025] Note that stopping road users based on energy consumption (fuel) is equivalent to the third traffic control message to the second vehicle and allowing heavier vehicles to pass based on energy consumption (fuel) is equivalent to the second traffic control message to the vehicle. The second message indicates the first vehicle has a higher joule consumption and the third message indicates the second vehicle has a lower joule consumption because priority is granted based on energy requirements. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the units for energy are joules.).
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 second traffic control message to the first vehicle to proceed through the intersection without stopping and to send a third traffic control message to the second 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].
10. Regarding Claim 2, Gaither and Lankes 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]);
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]);
And sending, via the wireless communication technology, a fifth traffic control message to the third vehicle… (Gaither: [0074]).
Gaither does not explicitly teach 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.
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 vehicle to stop before entering the intersection and send a fifth traffic control message to 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]).
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].
11. Regarding Claim 3, Gaither and Lankes 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, wherein the one or more factors comprise weather conditions, road conditions, camera feeds, traffic data, and vehicle data of the first vehicle and the second vehicle (Gaither: [0043], [0074], and [0076] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, vehicle data includes the vehicle being associated with a monetary contribution.).
12. Regarding Claim 4, Gaither and Lankes remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further Gaither teaches the determinations and calculations 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]).
13. Regarding Claim 5, Gaither and Lankes 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]).
14. Regarding Claim 6, Gaither and Lankes 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 of the new vehicles based on energy consumption associated with those new vehicles (Gaither: [0027]);
And sending, via the wireless communication technology, new traffic control messages to each of the new vehicles to indicate an order of entering the intersection (Gaither: [0074] and [0076]).
15. 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]):
Broadcasting, via wireless communication technology, a first traffic control message to a first vehicle and a second vehicle that are approaching an intersection (Gaither: [0054]);
Receiving, via the wireless communication technology, a first vehicle status message from the first vehicle and a second vehicle status message from the second vehicle Gaither: [0028] and [0036]);
Calculating 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 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.);
Calculating 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 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 greater than the second 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 second traffic control message to the first vehicle to proceed through the intersection without stopping… (Gaither: [0027], [0062], [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.);
And sending, via the wireless communication technology, a third traffic control message to 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.).
Gaither fails to explicitly teach to indicate that the first vehicle has a higher joule consumption; and indicates that the second vehicle has a lower joule consumption.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lankes teaches a second traffic control message to the first vehicle to proceed through the intersection without stopping and indicates that the first vehicle has a higher joule consumption; And… a third traffic control message to the second vehicle to stop before entering the intersection until the first vehicle has cleared the intersection and indicates that the second vehicle has a lower joule consumption (Lankes: [0017], [0019], and [0025] Note that stopping road users based on energy consumption (fuel) is equivalent to the third traffic control message to the second vehicle and allowing heavier vehicles to pass based on energy consumption (fuel) is equivalent to the second traffic control message to the vehicle. The second message indicates the first vehicle has a higher joule consumption and the third message indicates the second vehicle has a lower joule consumption because priority is granted based on energy requirements. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the units for energy are joules.).
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 second traffic control message to the first vehicle to proceed through the intersection without stopping and to send a third traffic control message to the second 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].
16. Regarding Claim 9, Gaither and Lankes 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]);
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]);
And sending, via the wireless communication technology, a fifth traffic control message to the third vehicle… (Gaither: [0074]).
Gaither does not explicitly teach 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.
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 vehicle to stop before entering the intersection and send a fifth traffic control message to 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]).
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].
17. Regarding Claim 10, Gaither and Lankes 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, wherein the one or more factors comprise weather conditions, road conditions, camera feeds, traffic data, and vehicle data of the first vehicle and the second vehicle (Gaither: [0043], [0074], and [0076] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, vehicle data includes the vehicle being associated with a monetary contribution.).
18. Regarding Claim 11, Gaither and Lankes remains as applied above in Claim 8, and further Gaither teaches the determinations and calculations 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]).
19. Regarding Claim 12, Gaither and Lankes 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]).
20. Regarding Claim 13, Gaither and Lankes 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 of the new vehicles based on energy consumption associated with those new vehicles (Gaither: [0027]);
And sending, via the wireless communication technology, new traffic control messages to each of the new vehicles to indicate an order of entering the intersection (Gaither: [0074] and [0076]).
21. 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 vehicle and a second vehicle that are approaching an intersection (Gaither: [0054]);
Receiving, via the wireless communication technology, a first vehicle status message from the first vehicle and a second vehicle status message from the second vehicle (Gaither: [0028] and [0036]);
Calculating 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 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.);
Calculating 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 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 greater than the second 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 second traffic control message to the first vehicle to proceed through the intersection without stopping… (Gaither: [0027], [0062], [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.);
And sending, via the wireless communication technology, a third traffic control message to 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.).
Gaither fails to explicitly teach to indicate that the first vehicle has a higher joule consumption; and indicates that the second vehicle has a lower joule consumption.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lankes teaches a second traffic control message to the first vehicle to proceed through the intersection without stopping and indicates that the first vehicle has a higher joule consumption; And… a third traffic control message to the second vehicle to stop before entering the intersection until the first vehicle has cleared the intersection and indicates that the second vehicle has a lower joule consumption (Lankes: [0017], [0019], and [0025] Note that stopping road users based on energy consumption (fuel) is equivalent to the third traffic control message to the second vehicle and allowing heavier vehicles to pass based on energy consumption (fuel) is equivalent to the second traffic control message to the vehicle. The second message indicates the first vehicle has a higher joule consumption and the third message indicates the second vehicle has a lower joule consumption because priority is granted based on energy requirements. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the units for energy are joules.).
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 second traffic control message to the first vehicle to proceed through the intersection without stopping and to send a third traffic control message to the second 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].
22. Regarding Claim 16, Gaither and Lankes 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]);
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]);
And sending, via the wireless communication technology, a fifth traffic control message to the third vehicle… (Gaither: [0074]).
Gaither does not explicitly teach 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.
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 vehicle to stop before entering the intersection and send a fifth traffic control message to 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]).
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].
23. Regarding Claim 17, Gaither and Lankes 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, wherein the one or more factors comprise weather conditions, road conditions, camera feeds, traffic data, and vehicle data of the first vehicle and the second vehicle (Gaither: [0043], [0074], and [0076] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, vehicle data includes the vehicle being associated with a monetary contribution.).
24. Regarding Claim 18, Gaither and Lankes remains as applied above in Claim 15, and further Gaither teaches the determinations and calculations 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]).
25. Regarding Claim 19, Gaither and Lankes 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]).
26. Regarding Claim 20, Gaither and Lankes 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 of the new vehicles based on energy consumption associated with those new vehicles (Gaither: [0027]);
And sending, via the wireless communication technology, new traffic control messages to each of the new vehicles to indicate an order of entering the intersection (Gaither: [0074] and [0076]).
27. Claims 7 and 14 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 Menard (US 20240021076 A1).
28. Regarding Claim 7, Gaither and Lankes remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Gaither and Lankes fail to explicitly teach 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.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Menard 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 (Menard: [0090] and [0091]).
Gaither, Lankes, and Menard 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 and Lankes to incorporate the teachings of Menard for a machine learning model to receive inputs of a state and a reward for an action and outputs a highest priority for the first vehicle because it provides the benefit of efficiently control traffic at an intersection to reduce traffic congestion and pollution levels.
29. Regarding Claim 14, Gaither and Lankes remains as applied above in Claim 8.
Gaither and Lankes fail to explicitly teach 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.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Menard 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 (Menard: [0090] and [0091]).
Gaither, Lankes, and Menard 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 and Lankes to incorporate the teachings of Menard for a machine learning model to receive inputs of a state and a reward for an action and outputs a highest priority for the first vehicle because it provides the benefit of efficiently control traffic at an intersection to reduce traffic congestion and pollution levels.
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. First, the Applicant has alleged their specification in [0023] "states 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. Based on this, 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, 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 regarding the U.S.C. 103 rejection filed 2/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
33. First, the Applicant has alleged "dynamically altering the traffic lights does not teach or suggest sending the claimed second message and third message." The Examiner disagrees.
Gaither teaches in at least [0027] and [0074] to send the second and third traffic control messages. Dynamically altering the traffic lights is equivalent to a message because, as currently claimed, the traffic lights are a message to each vehicle on whether to stop or proceed through the intersection. There is no indication from the claim language that the messages are sent directly to the traffic controller of the specific vehicle. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the second and third messages are interpreted as traffic lights.
However, Gaither fails to explicitly teach to indicate the vehicle has a higher or lower joule consumption because dynamically altering the traffic lights is based on fuel economy, which is why Lankes is used in combination.
34. Second, the Applicant has alleged "Lankes, like Gaither, alters a traffic light, which does not teach or suggest sending the claimed second message and third message" and "the traffic lights do no indicate that the first vehicle has a higher joule consumption and that the second vehicle has a lower joule consumption." The Examiner disagrees.
Similar to Gaither, Lankes teaches to dynamically alter a traffic light at an intersection. Lankes explains in [0017] and [0019] that priority is granted depending on the energy requirements of the vehicle and that heavy vehicles are granted priority because they require more energy to stop and start compared to light vehicles. The traffic light, as explained in [0025] to direct the different traffic flows is equivalent to the second message to the first vehicle to proceed through the intersection and the third message to the second vehicle to stop before entering the intersection. As previously explained, the traffic lights are a message to each vehicle on whether to stop or proceed through the intersection and there is no indication from the claim language that the messages are sent directly to the traffic controller of the specific vehicle. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the second and third messages are interpreted as traffic lights.
Further, the second message indicates the first vehicle has a higher joule consumption and the third message indicates the second vehicle has a lower joule consumption because priority is granted based on energy requirements. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the units for energy are joules. There is no claim language that send the message to a traffic controller of the vehicle with a message type and a reasoning. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a message indication the vehicle has a higher or lower joule consumption is equivalent to a traffic signal stopping one flow of traffic and allowing another flow of traffic to pass through the intersection.
35. Gaither (US 20190122547 A1), in view of Lankes (DE 102019127307 A1; already of record), and in further view of Menard (US 20240021076 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.
36. 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
37. 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.
38. 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
Prosecution Insights