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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Specifically, the certified copy of KR10-2022-0022535 has been received. However, to date, a certified copy of the other priority application, KR10-2022-0054723, has not been received. See 35 U.S.C. 119(a)(3).
Specification
The Abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “according to an embodiment of the disclosure” in line 1 is redundant, can be implied, and should be removed. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 5-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: instances of “accumulation capacities” should be changed to “the accumulation capacities” to further clarify the antecedent basis and avoid confusion.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “its” should be changed to more clearly reference the “at least one object”.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “their” should be changed to more clearly reference the “multiple accumulation capacities”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“an object detecting unit configured to detect object information based on a lane image” in claims 1-17.
“a capacity calculating unit configured to calculate accumulation capacity of each of objects for each of lanes included in a lane and an opposite lane of the lane based on the object information” in claims 1-17.
“an occupancy calculating unit configured to calculate occupancy of the lane and occupancy of the opposite lane based on the accumulation capacity of each of objects” in claims 1-17.
“a cut line setting unit configured to set at least one cut line to the lane and the opposite lane based on the occupancy of the lane and the occupancy of the opposite lane” in claims 1-17.
“a template generating unit configured to generate a first template corresponding to the lane and a second template corresponding to the opposite lane based on the object information, and generate a template by disposing side by side the first template and the second template in a width direction” in claims 14-16.
“a simulation unit configured to display the generated template and provide a traffic simulation in the template” in claims 15 and 16.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1- 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “set at least one cut line to the lane and the opposite lane based on the occupancy of the lane and the occupancy of the opposite lane”. Claim 18 similarly recites, “setting at least one cut line to the lane and the opposite lane based on the occupancy of the lane and the occupancy the opposite lane.” In the context of image processing for controlling a traffic signal, the plain meaning of a “cut line” would encompass a line in an image, for example a segmentation boundary. However, based on Figures 7 and 8 and the disclosure at paragraphs 77-87, for example, it appears that Applicant is using a different meaning in at least some described embodiments. For example, the embodiments of Figures 7 and 8 include multiple entries in a table indicated as a “cut line”. Some of those terms appear in claims 1 and 18, but there is no claim language that provides sufficient context for understanding the meaning of “cut line”. It is unclear how the “setting” of the “cut line” occurs and what that involves. Whether adopting a narrow interpretation based on one of the disclosed embodiments or using the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, it remains unclear when reading the claims what scope is appropriate. Accordingly, for purposes of applying prior art, a “cut line” is interpreted according to its plain meaning, which is a line that cuts or divides something. Dependent claims 2-17 are rejected for inheriting and not curing the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim 7 recites, “wherein the occupancy calculating unit estimates that an object corresponding to each of accumulation capacities exists when an object corresponding to each of accumulation capacities does not exist but an object corresponding to accumulation capacity greater than each of accumulation capacities exists, and calculates the occupancy depending on the estimating.” It is unclear what “an object corresponding to each of accumulation capacities does not exist” corresponds to. The “each of accumulation capacities” are untethered from the rest of the claim and it is unclear how one can determine that there is no object in existence with a particular capacity. For purposes of applying prior art, claim 7 is interpreted to mean that the “occupancy” or vehicle presence in a lane is calculated in the event a vehicle outside the monitored zone exists and will arrive where the queue length is calculated.
Claim 8 recites, “wherein the cut line setting unit calculates total occupancy corresponding to each of accumulation capacities by summating occupancy of the lane corresponding to each of accumulation capacities and occupancy of the opposite lane corresponding to each of accumulation capacities, and sets at least one object corresponding to accumulation capacity, which is more than reference accumulation capacity and its total occupancy is more than specific occupancy, as the at least one cut line.” It is unclear what is intended by “one object corresponding to accumulation capacity”. Is the “object” the same object as recited earlier in the claims, e.g. a vehicle or pedestrian? Or is it a graphical or mathematical object that defines a spatial boundary of the “cut line”? Or something else? It is unclear what is intended by “sets at least one object corresponding to accumulation capacity ... as the at least one cut line” because the vehicle or pedestrian “objects” are three-dimensional in reality and two-dimensional in a camera image, and a line has one dimension. The claims and the Specification do not sufficiently explain how the “object” is used to set a line. The “reference accumulation capacity” is untethered from the rest of the claim. The phrase “its total occupancy is more than specific occupancy” is unclear because “specific occupancy” is untethered from the claim, which makes understanding “its total occupancy” through context difficult. The limitation “which is more than reference accumulation capacity and its total occupancy is more than specific occupancy” is not given patentable weight because it is merely a description of the “accumulation capacities” after the calculation of total occupancy has already occurred, and any accumulation capacity or queue length value will be greater than a reference capacity of zero. For purposes of applying prior art, claim 8 is interpreted to mean that the “cut line” is set or established based on determining a total occupancy by combining vehicle information from the opposing lanes. Dependent claim 9 is rejected for inheriting and not curing the deficiencies of claim 8.
Claim 9 recites, “wherein the cut line setting unit sets one or more objects corresponding to multiple accumulation capacities, which are more than reference accumulation capacity and their total occupancy is more than specific occupancy, as the at least one cut line.” Claim 9 includes the same issue described above in relation to claim 8 and how an “object” is used to “set” a cut line. For the sake of brevity, the same reasoning is incorporated here. It is unclear how one object can correspond to “multiple accumulation capacities”. The “one or more objects”, “reference accumulation capacity” and “specific occupancy” are untethered from the rest of the claim, which makes it confusing as to whether “their total occupancy” is related to the summed occupancy in claim 8. It is unclear if the “reference accumulation capacity” in claim 9 is the same or different as the “reference accumulation capacity” in claim 8. For purposes of applying prior art, claim 9 is interpreted to mean that the “cut line” is established or determined to span multiple lanes in a same direction of travel near an intersection, e.g., two adjacent lanes traveling southbound that are located at an intersection.
Claim 12 recites claim elements (i) “arrival of a vehicle group in previous intersection or not”, (ii) “sharp increase of a vehicle or not” and (iii) “information concerning accumulation capacity of another lane”. Elements (i) and (ii) are confusing in part due to the phrase “or not” because it presents a vague alternative of essentially anything but what precedes it. It is unclear what a “previous intersection” is in element (i). Element (iii) is confusing because “another lane” has no reference to some other previously-recited lane to make sense of how it is distinguished from said previously-recited lane. In other words, elements (i) and (ii) appear to warrant little to no patentable weight because they cover all possibilities (meaning always true) and element (iii) does not clearly delineate what “another lane” could be, which makes the corresponding “information concerning accumulation capacity” indeterminate. Furthermore, the term “sharp” in element (ii) is a relative term with insufficient context in the claim and lacking a limiting definition in the specification. For purposes of applying prior art, claim 12 is interpreted as only giving patentable weight to element (iii) and a “sharp increase” is considered to be any increase.
Claim 17 recites, “wherein the opposite lane includes at least one lane passable at a simultaneous entry signal of an intersection between the lane and the intersection”. This claim is confusing and implies a second intersection when the described embodiments are primarily concerned with a single intersection. Also, “an intersection between the lane and the intersection” is confusing because “the lane” is already associated with the traffic signal in claim 1, which implies an intersection. For purposes of applying prior art, claim 17 is interpreted to mean that the opposite lane is one in which an entry signal of the intersection causes the lane and the opposing lane to simultaneously receive a green light.
35 USC § 101
The claims have been evaluated for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 101, including the subject matter eligibility analysis detailed in MPEP 2106. In determining if the claims are directed to a judicial exception, particularly an abstract idea, they must recite one of the enumerated groupings of mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Regarding the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas, the claimed subject matter includes the mathematical concepts of lane occupancy calculation and accumulated capacity. However, when reading claims 1 and 18 as a whole, it is not reasonable to conclude that the claims are directed to the mathematical concepts. Rather, it is more appropriate to conclude that the claims are directed to traffic optimization of opposing lanes of traffic at an intersection.
Regarding the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas, the claimed subject matter does not recite fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
Regarding the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas, which includes concepts performed in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, the claims recite the concepts of object detection performed on an image, calculating lane capacity and occupancy for opposing lanes, and setting a “cut line” based on the calculated occupancies. However, when reading claims 1 and 18 as a whole, it is not reasonable to conclude that the claims are directed to the mental processes. Rather, it is more appropriate to conclude that the claims are directed to traffic optimization of opposing lanes of traffic at an intersection. Even considering that claims have been found to recite mental processes in the presence of a computer, for example merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, in this case, it is not reasonable to interpret the claims as one single mental process of calculating and determining lane occupancies and accumulated lane capacities of opposing lanes from different approaches at a traffic signal. A generic computer, at best, could provide a person with a means to play a video of an intersection and a simple calculator, but would require special programming to achieve the claimed concepts.
Accordingly, claims 1-18 are patent eligible (Step 2A, Prong One: No).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10-15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 20220092973 to Shabestary et al. (hereinafter “Shabestary”).
Regarding claim 1, Shabestary teaches a system for controlling a traffic signal comprising:
an object detecting unit (Shabestary, par. 154, “processor device 225”) configured to detect object information based on a lane image (Shabestary, par. 60, “Each traffic light 202, 204, 206, 208 includes a sensor shown as a long-range camera 212 facing the same direction as the light.”);
a capacity calculating unit (Shabestary, par. 154, “processor device 225”) configured to calculate accumulation capacity (queue length) of each of objects for each of lanes included in a lane and an opposite lane of the lane based on the object information (A queue length (accumulation capacity) is calculated for each traffic lane and for each approach. See Shabestary at par. 109, “the traffic environment data includes a queue length for each traffic lane in the traffic environment, each queue length indicating the length of a queue of stationary vehicles in that lane. Thus, if the traffic environment encompasses a 50 meter radius around the center of a four-way intersection of two four-lane roads (i.e. two lanes northbound, two lanes southbound, two lanes eastbound, two lanes westbound), the traffic environment data may include eight queue lengths indicating the number of stationary vehicles within 50 meters of the intersection in each lane at time t. Examples of queue lengths are described below with reference to FIGS. 10A-11C.”);
an occupancy calculating unit (Shabestary, par. 154, “processor device 225”) configured to calculate occupancy (presence of a vehicle in a lane) of the lane and occupancy of the opposite lane based on the accumulation capacity of each of objects (The location and velocity of each vehicle are determined. See Shabestary at par. 110. If a vehicle is detected, it is present and occupies a portion of a respective lane.); and
a cut line (queue boundary or in general, a segmentation boundary or boundary that delineates a region) setting unit (Shabestary, par. 154, “processor device 225”) configured to set at least one cut line to the lane and the opposite lane based on the occupancy of the lane and the occupancy of the opposite lane (Shabestary, par. 11, “FIG. 5 shows a top view of a traffic environment 500 at an intersection, showing segmentation of the traffic lanes into cells. The northbound lanes are segmented into northbound cells 502, the southbound lanes are segmented into southbound cells 504, the eastbound lanes are segmented into eastbound cells 506, and the westbound lanes are segmented into westbound cells 508. Each cell 510 corresponds to a square region of the road surface of the traffic environment. In this example, traffic environment data provided to the RL model 240 may include traffic data indicating vehicle density data and vehicle velocity data for each cell 510. The vehicle density data may be, e.g., a count of the number of vehicles present within the cell at time t.”; par. 13, “the cells are grouped together to create a matrix of positions and speeds of vehicles approaching the intersection”).
Regarding claim 2, Shabestary teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the capacity calculating unit gives traffic capacity of each of objects based on a type (A stationary vehicle is a type of vehicle. See Shabestary at par. 30, “The length indicates a number of stationary cars in the queue.”), a number (Shabestary at par. 30, “The length indicates a number of stationary cars in the queue”) and an order (travel direction for vehicles in the same lane) of the object (Queue length (capacity) for a lane is determined from traffic environment data that “may simply include a number of vehicles present in each lane ... and/or an aggregate velocity measurement for each lane.” See Shabestary at par. 116. ) and calculates the accumulation capacity of each of objects on the basis of traffic capacity of each of objects (The queue length of each lane for the northbound, southbound, eastbound and westbound approaches is determined from the environmental data of each object in each lane. See Shabestary at par. 109, “if the traffic environment encompasses a 50 meter radius around the center of a four-way intersection of two four-lane roads (i.e. two lanes northbound, two lanes southbound, two lanes eastbound, two lanes westbound), the traffic environment data may include eight queue lengths indicating the number of stationary vehicles within 50 meters of the intersection in each lane at time t.”).
Regarding claim 5, Shabestary teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the occupancy calculating unit calculates the occupancy corresponding to each of the accumulation capacities based on whether an object corresponding to each of accumulation capacities exists on each of lanes (Shabestary, par. 109, “traffic environment data will include traffic data indicating some aspect of the behavior and/or presence of vehicle traffic in the environment.”).
Regarding claim 6, Shabestary teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the occupancy calculating unit assigns occupancy corresponding to each of lanes (The location and velocity of each vehicle are determined. See Shabestary at par. 110. If a vehicle is detected, it is present and occupies a portion of a respective lane.), and calculates the occupancy corresponding to each of accumulation capacities based on occupancy assigned to a lane on which an object corresponding to each of accumulation capacities exists (Queue length is determined from the detection of vehicles present in the monitored area. See Shabestary at par. 109).
Regarding claim 10, Shabestary teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising:
a controller (Shabestary, par. 154, “processor device 225”) configured to set any one of the at least one cut line as a final cut line (FIG. 5 shows rectangular areas that cover a space between the stop line at the intersection and a distance separated from that line that ends at a fixed location, which is a cut-line because it is a line that cuts the boundary of the observed area. See also Shabestary at par. 112, “Each cell 510 corresponds to a square region of the road surface of the traffic environment ... each cell may be aligned with the directionality of the lane and may be the width of the lane, but the length of the cell may be longer or shorter than its width.”).
Regarding claim 11, Shabestary teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the controller sets the final cut line based on traffic situation or environment information (Shabestary, par. 112, “traffic environment data provided to the RL model 240 may include traffic data indicating vehicle density data and vehicle velocity data for each cell 510.”).
Regarding claim 12, Shabestary teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the environment information includes a sharp increase of a vehicle or not (A group of stationary vehicles does not increase in number of vehicles or vehicle speed. See Shabestary at par. 30, “environment comprises determining a length of each of one or more queues of stationary vehicles in the traffic environment.”).
Regarding claim 13, Shabestary teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the controller generates a control signal for controlling a signal time of a signal controller based on the final cut line (Shabestary, par. 21, “The reinforcement learning model is used to generate traffic signal cycle data by applying a policy to the training data sample and one or more past training data samples.”; par. 95, “In the case of a real traffic environment using real traffic signals, the controller device 220 may send control signals to the traffic signal (e.g., lights 202, 204, 206, 208) to effect the phase durations dictated by the traffic signal cycle data. In the case of a simulated traffic environment, the RL model provides the traffic signal cycle data to the simulator module 248, which simulates the response of the traffic environment to the phase durations of the traffic signal cycle data as effected by the simulated traffic signal.”).
Regarding claim 14, Shabestary teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising:
a template generating unit (Shabestary, par. 154, “processor device 225”) configured to generate a first template corresponding to the lane and a second template corresponding to the opposite lane based on the object information (The segmented road sections (cells) are templates for processing environment data. See Shabestary at Figures 5 and 6), and generate a template by disposing side by side the first template and the second template in a width direction (Shabestary at par. 112, “each cell may be aligned with the directionality of the lane and may be the width of the lane, but the length of the cell may be longer or shorter than its width.”; par. 114, “The data from the cells from each lane direction 502, 504, 506, 508 are concatenated into a two-dimensional matrix of vehicle velocity data 602 and a two-dimensional matrix of vehicle density data 604, wherein the data from each set of lanes is represented as a horizontal band of the matrix.”).
Regarding claim 15, Shabestary teaches the system of claim 14, further comprising:
a simulation unit (Shabestary, par. 154, “processor device 225”; par. 64, “display”) configured to display the generated template and provide a traffic simulation in the template (The controller and display are capable of displaying any of the data being processed. See Shabestary at par. 68, “In some embodiments, the simulator module 248 may be traffic micro-simulation software, such as Simulation of Urban Mobility (SUMO) software. SUMO is open source microscopic traffic simulator software that provides the option for users and developers to customize parameters and features of the simulation model through a functional interface or Application Programming Interface (API). The API may be used to train a cycle-level traffic signal controller in a simulation environment that is very close to reality, as described in greater detail below”).
Regarding claim 17, Shabestary teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the opposite lane includes at least one lane passable at a simultaneous entry signal of an intersection between the lane and the intersection (Shabestary, par. 7, “During a fourth phase 108, Phase 4, the traffic signal displays an amber left-turn arrow (shown as a broken line) and a green “through” light or arrow to both northbound and southbound traffic.” The traffic signal in Figure 2 permits the opposing lanes to pass at simultaneous entry when the signal lights for the opposing lanes turn green,)
Claim 18 substantially corresponds to claim 1 by reciting a method comprising steps that correspond to the functions of the system of claim 1 (Shabestary, Abstract, “Methods, systems, and processor-readable media for adaptive cycle-level traffic signal control are described.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 3, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shabestary in view of U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 20020116118 to Stallard et al. (hereinafter “Stallard”).
Regarding claim 3, Shabestary teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach that which is explicitly taught by Stallard.
Stallard teaches a capacity correction factor (Stallard, par. 52, “Each of the partial vehicles created is assigned a weight based on the turning percent for that movement. ... The GASCAP process creates 3“partial” vehicles, one for the left movement 18 with a weight of 0.2, one for the through movement 19 with weight of 0.6, and one for the right movement 20 with weight of 0.2.”) and calculates the accumulation capacity of each of objects on the basis of traffic capacity of each of objects (Stallard, par. 53, “The queue estimation method is called every second. At each second the method determines if any of the “partial” vehicles that were created from the detector activations will arrive in queue.”; pars. 64-65, “The queue estimation method also computes when a vehicle that is in queue will depart from the queue. The time to exit the queue is a function of the position of the vehicle in the queue, the saturation flow rate, and the start up loss time. An example of computing the exit time is shown below in equation 17 ... and fcontribution is the weight assigned to the vehicle based on its movement.”).
Shabestary discloses monitoring vehicle traffic at an intersection and determining a queue length of each lane based on environmental sensor data based on the individual vehicles in each lane. Thus, Shabestary shows that it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use sensor data related to each object as part of the queue length calculation and traffic signal control operations, which is analogous to the claimed invention in that it is pertinent to the problem being solved by the claimed invention, optimizing traffic flow through an intersection. Stallard discloses adaptive signal control for traffic networks that assigns a per-object weight based on whether the object is turning left, turning right, or traveling through the intersection. Thus, Stallard shows that it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a correction factor to determine a queue length of vehicles in a lane at an intersection, which is analogous to the claimed invention in that it is pertinent to the problem being solved by the claimed invention, optimizing traffic flow through an intersection.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the weighting factor disclosed by Stallard with the image processing used to calculate a queue length disclosed by Shabestary, to thereby calculate the queue length based on a turning correction factor of each vehicle. Based on the foregoing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made such modification according to known methods to yield the predictable results to have the benefit of generating more accurate queue lengths.
Regarding claim 4 (Interpreted as a disjunctive list based on paragraph 63 of the specification, which indicates that the listed considerations may be used individually or in combination. See MPEP 2111.01 and Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004)), Shabestary in view of Stallard teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the capacity calculating unit corrects the accumulation capacity further considering a branch (A left branch is a left turn, a right branch is a right turn. See Stallard at par. 52) of the road and a junction of the road (an intersection is a junction of roads).
The rationale for obviousness is the same as provided for claim 3.
Regarding claim 7, Shabestary teaches the system of claim 5, but does not teach that which is explicitly taught by Stallard (Per the corresponding rejection under 35 US.C. 112(b) above, claim 7 is interpreted to mean that the “occupancy” or vehicle presence in a lane is calculated in the event a vehicle outside the monitored zone exists and will arrive where the queue length is calculated.).
Stallard teaches wherein the occupancy calculating unit estimates that an object corresponding to each of accumulation capacities exists when an object corresponding to each of accumulation capacities does not exist but an object corresponding to accumulation capacity greater than each of accumulation capacities exists, and calculates the occupancy depending on the estimating (Stallard, par. 65, “If the vehicle has not arrived in queue and there is a queue, then the time at which the vehicle will arrive in queue is computed.”).
The rationale for obviousness is the same as provided for claim 3.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shabestary in view of U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 20220084400 to Wang al. (hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 8 (Claim 8 is interpreted to mean that the “cut line” is set or established based on determining a total occupancy by combining vehicle information from the opposing lanes. See rejection under 112(b) above), Shabestary teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach that which is explicitly taught Wang.
Wang teaches calculating a total occupancy corresponding to each of accumulation capacities (Wang, par. 60, “The traffic condition type of the intersection may be detected according to information such as congestion information of the intersection provided by a user or map service, travel data of vehicles at the intersection, and an intersection image acquired in real time. Exemplarily, the traffic condition type may be determined according to whether a vehicle queuing queue exists in the image acquired by a roadside equipment, for example, the congestion traffic type is determined when a distance between adjacent vehicles in the same lane is detected to be less than or equal to a set distance threshold value in the image; and the clear traffic type is determined when the distance between adjacent vehicles in the same lane is detected to be greater than a set distance threshold value in the image”. When the distance between vehicles is sufficiently small, a congestion is determined.) and sets at least one object (Wang, par. 67, “queue tail position”) corresponding to accumulation capacity, which is more than reference accumulation capacity and its total occupancy is more than specific occupancy (Any number is more or greater than zero), as the at least one cut line (Wang, par. 70, “The queue tail position of the vehicle queuing queue corresponding to the path sequence included in the congestion path sequence set refers to an acquired queue tail position of the vehicle queue at the intersection in the process of the vehicle travelling along the path sequence. In the travel process, multiple queue tail positions may be obtained, and a queue tail position with the longest distance to the intersection is selected and determined as the queue tail position of the vehicle queuing queue corresponding to the path sequence. Exemplarily, multiple path sequences are acquired to respectively extract a queue tail position, and the stop position is determined, for example, an average of the multiple queue tail positions may be calculated to determine the stop position. Travel directions are not distinguished in the congestion path sequence set.”).
Shabestary discloses monitoring vehicle traffic at an intersection and determining a queue length of each lane based on environmental sensor data based on the individual vehicles in each lane. The vehicles are monitored by cameras observing different approaches. Traffic-signal timing parameters are determined from traffic-state information derived from four adjacent regions of the different approaches. Thus, Shabestary shows that it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine sensor data from each approach, which each have a region having a stopping point and an upstream entry point, to control the intersection timing, which is analogous to the claimed invention in that it is pertinent to the problem being solved by the claimed invention, optimizing traffic flow through an intersection. Wang discloses a camera-based traffic monitoring system that determines queue tail positions from actual traffic conditions. Thus, Wang shows that it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to estimate congestion at any side of an intersection by dynamically calculating queue tail positions for each approach, which is analogous to the claimed invention in that it is pertinent to the problem being solved by the claimed invention, optimizing traffic flow through an intersection.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the fixed upstream boundary disclosed by Shabestary by adjusting the upstream boundary using a dynamically-determined queue tail as disclosed by Wang, to thereby control operation of the intersection dynamically based on live traffic conditions for each approach by summating (The plain meaning of “summate” includes forming a cumulative effect.1) occupancy of the lane corresponding to each of accumulation capacities and occupancy of the opposite lane corresponding to each of accumulation capacities (The entire intersection is controlled, thereby forming a cumulative effect of processing each approach). Based on the foregoing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made such modification according to known methods to yield the predictable results to have the benefit of reducing congestion as a result of dynamically updating the timing at the intersection from live data.
Regarding claim 9 (Claim 9 is interpreted to mean that the “cut line” is established or determined to span multiple lanes in a same direction of travel near an intersection, e.g., two adjacent lanes traveling southbound that are located at an intersection. See rejection under 112(b) above), Shabestary in view of Wang teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the cut line setting unit sets one or more objects corresponding to multiple accumulation capacities (Wang, par. 67, “queue tail position”), which are more than reference accumulation capacity and their total occupancy is more than specific occupancy (any real value is more than zero), as the at least one cut line (i.e., as the upstream boundary of the northbound/southbound/eastbound/westbound lanes segmented into respective cell. See Shabestary at Figure 5.).
The rationale for obviousness is the same as provided for claim 8.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shabestary in view of U.S. Pat. No. 9,418,546 to Whiting et al. (hereinafter “Whiting”).
Regarding claim 16, Shabestary teaches the system of claim 15, but does not teach that which is explicitly taught by Whiting.
Whiting teaches displaying a template with a user interface (UI) of setting a cut line (Whiting, col. 3, ll. 50-63, “The traffic detection zone 103 may be initialized by a user via the traffic management tool 170, for example via an application resident on a computing device and/or using a graphical user interface. The user at step 120 may select a specific size and location of a traffic detection zone 103 in relation to a traffic intersection or other portion of a roadway, using the traffic management tool 170. The traffic detection zone 103 may therefore be pre-selected by a user prior to performance of the classification engine defined herein, and may also be adjusted by the user during system performance. Alternatively, the size, location, and number of traffic detection zones 103 may be automatically selected and adjusted.”).
Shabestary is analogous to the claimed invention for the reasons provided above. Whiting discloses a user interface for designing a traffic zone at an intersection. Thus, Whiting shows that it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a GUI to design a traffic monitoring system at an intersection, which is analogous to the claimed invention in that it is pertinent to the problem being solved by the claimed invention, optimizing traffic flow through an intersection.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the traffic zone designing user interface disclosed by Whiting with the traffic monitoring system of Shabestary, to thereby enable a user to interactively view or modify a traffic zone spanning a distance from the intersection to a fixed distance away from the intersection. Based on the foregoing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made such modification according to known methods to yield the predictable results to have the benefit of enabling manual fine-tuning of the performance of the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN P POTTS whose telephone number is (571)272-6351. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm EST.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-3638. 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.
/RYAN P POTTS/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
1 https://web.archive.org/web/20210624225525/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/summate.
Prosecution Insights