DETAILED ACTION
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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 limitation “a template generating unit, a simulation unit, a capacity calculating unit” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “configured to generate template, configured to display, configured to calculate,” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-19 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: a template generating unit, a simulation unit, and a capacity calculating unit (see Fig. 4Para. 33) is disclosed in Applicant’s specification as the system for controlling the traffic signal (for example the system 100 in FIG. 4) may be included in an external server or exist as an extra device.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1, and similarly for claim 20, recites “a template generating unit configured to generate a first template related to a lane and a second template related to an opposite lane of the lane based on object information detected by analyzing a lane image; and a simulation unit configured to display the first template and the second template”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the generating and displaying from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Specifically, independent claim 1 and similarly for claim 20, recites “a template generating unit configured to generate a first template related to a lane and a second template related to an opposite lane of the lane based on object information detected by analyzing a lane image; and a simulation unit configured to display the first template and the second template”, which is a process of organizing or manipulating information and displaying. Thus, all of the limitations can be performed mentally. As such, the claim is directed solely to perform mental processes that fall into the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas and is directed to a judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not recite any generic processor. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Displaying the information is insignificant extra-solution activity, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-19 recites limitations adding specific information to the abstract idea. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 20220044558 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Li teaches a system for controlling a traffic signal (Li, Para. 134, the display device may alternatively be a desktop computer, a tablet computer, a handheld intelligent display device, or the like of a management department. Management department personnel may manage and control the traffic status in a timely manner by observing the digital representation. The management personnel can manage the target on the road based on the target attribute information displayed in the digital representation) comprising: a template generating unit configured to generate a first template related to a lane and a second template related to an opposite lane of the lane based on object information detected by analyzing a lane image (Li, Fig. 11; Para. 70, A target modeling unit 162 is configured to perform modeling on the target based on the type information and the attribute information of the target that are obtained by the data processing subsystem 120 and the data analysis subsystem 140, to obtain a modeled target corresponding to each target. A target mapping unit 163 is configured to map the modeled target corresponding to each target to a map, to obtain the digital representation of the road; Para. 127, the step S301 is continuously performed in real time on the video data shot by each camera disposed on the road, the steps S302 to S306 are cyclically performed on video frames obtained at different moments in the step S301, so that a location and a posture of a target in the digital representation of the road displayed by the display device change with a change of the target on the road in the physical world. In this way, the digital representation can reflect a current traffic status of the road in real time (for example, a moving status of each target and traffic congestion at each traffic intersection in each intersection direction); and a simulation unit configured to display the first template and the second template (Li, Fig. 11, shows vehicles/targets in each lane from both directions; Para. 129, The digital representation may be displayed by a display device. A user may change a display angle of the digital representation by performing an operation on a display interface of the display device).
In regard to claim 4, Li teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the simulation unit displays adjacently a third template related to another lane different from the lane and the opposite lane and a fourth template related to another opposite lane of the another lane generated through the template generating unit (Li, Fig. 10; Para. 127, the digital representation can reflect a current traffic status of the road in real time (for example, a moving status of each target and traffic congestion at each traffic intersection in each intersection direction).
In regard to claim 6, Li teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the template generating unit generates the first template and the second template by converting an object in a figure type based on the object information (LI, Para. 120, for a target to be modeled targeted, an analyzed target ID of the target obtained in the step S305 is 001, a target type corresponding to the analyzed target ID is a motor vehicle, and a color in attribute information data is red. Therefore, for the target, a three-dimensional modeled target whose type is a motor vehicle and whose color is red is searched for in the preset database, and the three-dimensional modeled target associated with the target may be obtained by entering or selecting the motor vehicle and the red. The obtained three-dimensional modeled target corresponding to the target is set to be associated with the analyzed target ID of the target).
In regard to claim 8, Li teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the simulation unit marks at least one of a waiting order, traffic volume or accumulation capacity of each of objects on the first template and the second template (Li, Para. 127, the digital representation can reflect a current traffic status of the road in real time (for example, a moving status of each target and traffic congestion at each traffic intersection in each intersection direction; Para. 135, When the digital representation system detects a motor vehicle, in a direction of a traffic intersection, whose stay time exceeds a threshold, the digital representation system sends a request message to the traffic signal light management system).
In regard to claim 19, Li 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 (Li, Fig. 11, shows vehicles/targets in each lane from both directions; Para. 127, the digital representation can reflect a current traffic status of the road in real time (for example, a moving status of each target and traffic congestion at each traffic intersection in each intersection direction).
In regard to claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1 as stated above.
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20220044558 A1) in view of Kenig et al. (US 20240355200 A1).
In regard to claim 9, Li does not specifically teach the system of claim 1, wherein the simulation unit marks at least one of the number of objects or accumulation capacity of every lane on each of lanes in the first template and the second template.
However, Kenig teaches wherein the simulation unit marks at least one of the number of objects or accumulation capacity of every lane on each of lanes in the first template and the second template (Kenig, Para. 190, The TC engine 220 may simulate (512) traffic flows based on the current and predicted traffic patterns and may further apply L control plans (512) to regulate the simulated traffic flow; Para. 131, The lane parameters of each lane may include, for example, a number of vehicles in the respective lane, a type of vehicles in the respective lane, an order of the vehicles in a queue in the respective lane, a length of the queue, a lane crossing time duration and/or the like).
Li and Kenig are analogous art because they both pertain to simulating traffic flow information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display number of vehicles in each respective lane (as taught by Kenig) resulting in predictable result of generating instructions for controlling the traffic light based on the simulation of the traffic flow.
In regard to claim 10, Combination of Li and Kenig teach the system of claim 8, further comprising: a capacity calculating unit configured to calculate the accumulation capacity based on the traffic volume of each of objects (Li, Para. 55, the time-series movement pattern(s) of the tracked vehicles may be than converted to create one or more traffic dataset descriptive of the flow of traffic through the intersection(s). The traffic datasets may comprise one or more vehicle parameters of the tracked vehicles and/or one or more lane parameters of the lanes in the intersection(s). The vehicle parameters may include, for example, a vehicle type (e.g. car, truck, bus, motorcycle, etc.), a lane(s) in which the respective vehicle is moving, a position in the lane, a position in a queue in the lane, a location, a relative location with respect to one or more other vehicles, a type of one or more adjacent vehicles, a speed, an acceleration, a wait time at the intersection, a distance form a stop line, an overall tracking time and/or the like). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to convert raw image data to create one or more traffic dataset (as taught by Kenig) resulting in predictable result of simulating the map of the traffic flow based on the traffic datasets.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5, 7, 11-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and 101 rejection is resolved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARMIN AKHTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9365. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm 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, Davetta W Goins can be reached on (571) 272.2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHARMIN AKHTER/
Examiner, Art Unit 2689