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 .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 5/13/2026. Applicant amended claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 11 and 16-21. Claims 1-25 are pending and are examined below.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
In regard to the claim objections, Applicant’s amendments filed on 5/13/2026 obviate said objections — accordingly, the claim objections are withdrawn.
In regard to the claim interpretation under § 112(f), Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 5/13/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 21 obviate the associated claim interpretation for “road stud device configured to” – accordingly, the associated claim interpretation under § 112(f) is withdrawn.
As to claim 16, claim limitation “receiving, via the communication component, sensor data from a proximity sensor of a first road stud sensor” still invokes interpretation under § 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses 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. While the limitation recites structure in the form of a proximity sensor, the proximity sensor is not recited as performing the functional language of “receiving”; therefore, the proximity sensor does not constitute sufficient structure for performing the recited function. Accordingly, the associated claim interpretation under § 112(f) is maintained.
In regard to the claim rejection under § 101, Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 5/13/2026 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant provides the following arguments.
Step 2A, Prong one
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite mental processes. Applicant argues, inter alia, that a human mind cannot mentally define a dynamic region around a detected event and cannot mentally identify which road stud sensors fall within that region from an array of sensors.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Applicant argues that the claims are directed toward an improvement in road safety technology. Applicant points to para. [0010] of the specification (although the correct citation appears to be [0001]) as outlining a specific technological problem which the claims address. Applicant additionally argues that the claims do not merely recite generic computer components applying an abstract idea, but rather recite a specific combination of physical devices (proximity sensors, road stud sensors and light sources) performing specific functions in a coordinate manner to coordinate physical road stud sensors to visually warn and divert traffic, thereby improving function of a road safety system itself, not merely the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Applicant argues that the claimed invention’s specific combination of elements is not well-understood, routine or conventional and amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.
Addressing Step 2A, Prong one, Examiner respectfully disagrees. A human mind is capable of performing evaluations/judgments – the MPEP has explicitly outlined such activities as examples of mental processes. Regarding the other limitations addressed in the argument (e.g., receiving data, causing a light source to output a visual indicator), note well that Step 2A, Prong One only asks whether an abstract idea is recited in the claim, not whether each and every limitation is an abstract idea. As the claim does recite abstract ideas in the form of mental processes, analysis continues from Step 2A, Prong One.
Addressing Step 2A, Prong two, Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, “[I]f the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.” (MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). See also 2106.05(a).) Second, “the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.” (MPEP 2106.05(a).) Finally, “the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology.” (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II.)) Against this backdrop, the claimed invention does not improve technology. Applicant’s para. [0001] is a mere background description in which the claimed invention operations – it is not sufficient to convey an improvement in technology to a skilled artisan. Continuing, the identified “physical devices” — proximity sensors, road stud sensors and light sources — are merely generic computer components which carry out insignificant extra-solution activity. (Discussed in Step 2B.) Otherwise, the claim as a whole merely uses generic computer components — i.e., non-transitory computer-readable media, processors and computing device — that are recited at a high level of generality such that they cannot be considered more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Therefore, the claim does not improve technology, and thus the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Addressing Step 2B, Examiner respectfully disagrees. For the claimed invention to recite significantly more than the abstract idea, the additional elements need to add more than significant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. (See MPE 2106.05(g).) The MPEP defines extra-solution activity as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. (See id.) Indeed, the additional elements of the claim merely amount to:
Insignificant pre-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering:
receiving sensor data from a proximity sensor of a first road stud sensor
Here, the insignificant post-solution activity is performed through the generic computing components of a proximity sensor and a road stud sensor.
receiving, via the communications component, sensor data from a proximity sensor of a first road stud sensor
Here, the insignificant pre-solution activity is performed through the generic computing component of a communications component.
Insignificant post-solution activity in the form of well-understood and conventional activity:
configuring a message for a second road stud sensor, the message including an instruction to cause a light source of the second road stud sensor to output a visual indicator associated with the event
This limitation represents routine data processing for routine data transmission. Of note, the claim does not require that the second road stud sensor positively outputs a visual indicator via a light source – the BRI of the claim merely requires that a message containing an instruction for doing so is transmitted to the second road stud sensor. Nevertheless, positively causing a light source to output a visual indicator would still constitute an insignificant extra-solution activity as it represents a well-understood, conventional activity (activating a light) which is not integrated into the core of the claim of performing various determinations and identifications (i.e., mental processes).
transmitting the message
This limitation represents routine data transmission.
transmitting, via the communications component, the message
Here, the insignificant post-solution activity is performed through the generic computing component of a communications component.
transmit a message to the road stud sensor
Here, the insignificant post-solution activity is performed with the generic computing component of a road stud sensor.
Accordingly, the claim rejections under § 101 are maintained.
In regard to the claim rejections under §§ 102/103, Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 5/13/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s amendments and arguments against independent claims 1, 8 and 21, the arguments have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Applicant’s amendments and arguments against independent claim 16, the arguments have been fully considered.
Here, the arguments pertaining to the limitations of “determining a region associated with the event based at least in part on the type of the event and the location of the event” and “identifying a second road stud sensor at a second location with the region” are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
However, the arguments pertaining to the limitations of determining the presence of a static object on a road are unpersuasive because claim 16 never claims determining a presence of a “static object.” That is, the argument hinges on claim language that is not present in claim 16. Langford still reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “receiving … sensor data” and “determining … an occurrence of an event” limitations as will be mapped below. Accordingly, the mapping of Langford to the claim limitations at issue is maintained.
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.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses 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: “receiving, via the communication component, sensor data from a proximity sensor of a first road stud sensor” in claim 16 (with dependent claims 17-20).
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function at least includes: radio frequency (RF) transmitter, receiver and/or transceiver (¶ 27.)
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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 limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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(s) 1-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims fail to pass the Alice/Mayo test for determining patent eligibility.
The patent eligibility test is performed below for independent claim(s) 1, 8, 16 and 21.
Step 1—Does the claim fall within a statutory category?
Claim 1: Yes, the claim recites a process.
Claim 8: Yes, the claim recites a machine or manufacture.
Claim 16: Yes, the claim recites a machine or manufacture.
Claim 21: Yes, the claim recites a machine or manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One—Is a judicial exception recited?
Claims 1, 8, 16 and 21 are provided below with the abstract idea indicated in bold and additional elements without bold.
1. A method, comprising:
receiving sensor data from a proximity sensor of a first road stud sensor at a first location in an environment, the sensor data indicating a presence of an object proximate the first road stud sensor;
determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, that the object is a static object on a road in the environment;
determining a type of an event associated with the static object and a location of the event;
determining a region associated with the event based at least in part on the type of the event and the location of the event;
identifying a second road stud sensor at a second location within the region;
configuring a message for the second road stud sensor, the message including an instruction to cause a light source of the second road stud sensor to output a visual indicator associated with the event; and
transmitting the message to the second road stud sensor.
8. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving sensor data from a proximity sensor of a first road stud sensor at a first location in an environment, the sensor data indicating a presence of an object proximate the first road stud sensor;
determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, that the object is a static object on a road in the environment;
determining a type of an event associated with the static object and a location of the event;
determining a region associated with the event based at least in part on the type of the event and the location of the event;
identifying a second road stud sensor at a second location within the region;
configuring a message for the second road stud sensor, the message including an instruction to cause a light source of the second road stud sensor to output a visual indicator associated with the event; and
transmitting the message to the second road stud sensor.
16. A computing device, comprising:
one or more processors;
a communication component;
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the computing device to perform operations comprising:
receiving, via the communications component, sensor data from a proximity sensor of a first road stud sensor at a first location in an environment;
determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, an occurrence of an event in the environment;
determining a type of the event and a location of the event;
determining a region associated with the event based at least in part on the type of the event and the location of the event;
identifying a second road stud sensor at a second location within the region;
configuring a message for the second road stud sensor, the message including an instruction to cause a light source of the second road stud sensor to output a visual indicator associated with the event; and
transmitting the message to the second road stud sensor.
21. A system comprising:
a computing device comprising one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media; and
a road stud sensor comprising a proximity sensor, the road stud sensor communicatively coupled to the computing device, the road stud device configured to:
receive sensor data from the proximity sensor, the sensor data indicating a presence of an object at a location in an environment; and
send the sensor data to the computing device; and
wherein the computing device comprises instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the computing device to:
receive the sensor data;
determine, based at least in part on the sensor data, that the object is a static object on a road in the environment;
determine a type of an event associated with the static object and the location;
determine a region associated with the event based at least in part on the type of the event and the location;
configure a message for the road stud sensor, the message including an instruction to cause a light source of the road stud sensor to output a visual indicator associated with the event; and
transmit the message to the road stud sensor.
The above shows: yes, a judicial exception is recited. But for the additional elements, the claim limitations pertaining to performing determinations are processing which can practically be performed in the human mind with or without the use of a physical aid. Specifically, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim encompasses performing judgments over obtained data. The courts have held such forms of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion to represent the abstract idea of a mental process. As a result, the bolded limitations represent a mental process. Hence, the claim recites an abstract idea. (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(III).)
Step 2A, Prong Two—Is the abstract idea integrated into a practical application?
No. The claims as a whole merely use generic computer components—i.e., non-transitory computer-readable media, processors and computing device—that are recited at a high level of generality such that they cannot be considered more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B—Does the claim provide an inventive concept?
No. The additional elements of the claims amount to either:
Insignificant pre-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering:
receiving sensor data from a proximity sensor of a first road stud sensor
Here, the insignificant post-solution activity is performed through the generic computing components of a proximity sensor and a road stud sensor.
receiving, via the communications component, sensor data from a proximity sensor of a first road stud sensor
Here, the insignificant pre-solution activity is performed through the generic computing component of a communications component.
Insignificant post-solution activity in the form of well-understood and conventional activity:
configuring a message for a second road stud sensor, the message including an instruction to cause a light source of the second road stud sensor to output a visual indicator associated with the event
This limitation represents routine data processing for routine data transmission. Of note, the claim does not require that the second road stud sensor positively outputs a visual indicator via a light source – the BRI of the claim merely requires that a message containing an instruction for doing so is transmitted to the second road stud sensor. Nevertheless, positively causing a light source to output a visual indicator would still constitute an insignificant extra-solution activity as it represents a well-understood, conventional activity (activating a light) which is not integrated into the core of the claim of performing various determinations and identifications (i.e., mental processes).
transmitting the message
This limitation represents routine data transmission.
transmitting, via the communications component, the message
Here, the insignificant post-solution activity is performed through the generic computing component of a communications component.
transmit a message to the road stud sensor
Here, the insignificant post-solution activity is performed with the generic computing component of a road stud sensor.
Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 but do not render the claimed invention patent eligible because they are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., gathering data):
display a color,
divert traffic away from the event,
The BRI of this claim limitation encompasses the insignificant extra-solution activity of displaying a color
divert traffic via one or more light sources,
communicate with a distributed computing resource,
receiving instructions for executing a navigation plan
The BRI of this claim limitation encompasses the insignificant extra-solution activity of displaying a color
Claims 19 and 20 depend from claim 16 but do not render the claimed invention patent eligible because they are directed to:
Mental processes
Determine the event
insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., gathering data):
communicating with one or more nearby road stud sensors
cause the one or more nearby road stud sensors to output the visual indicator
Claims 9-15 depend on claim 8, claims 17 and 18 depend on claim 16 and claims 22-25 depend on claim 21, but they do not render the claimed invention as patent eligible for at least the same reasons as claims 2-7.
Claims 1-25 do not pass the patent eligibility test. Accordingly, claims 1-25 are rejected under § 101.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 103
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 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 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) 1, 5, 8, 10, 13, 21 and 25 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Safar (US20050238425A1; “Safar”) in view of Oikawa et al. (US20230169866A1; “Oikawa”).
As to independent claim 1, Safar discloses a method, comprising:
receiving sensor data from a proximity sensor of a first road stud sensor at a first location in an environment, the sensor data indicating a presence of an object proximate the first road stud sensor (“FIGS. 1-7 of the drawings show various aspects of a pavement marker 10 constructed according to the invention.” ¶ 22. “The proximity sensor value (the voltage of the sensor signal from the sensor 39) is read by the microcontroller 31 approximately three times per second (block 46). The proximity sensor sends the sensor valve as an analog voltage value to one of the pins of the microcontroller 31. The microcontroller 31 reads that value and compares it to a fixed value to determine if an object is within predetermined range specifications.” ¶ 35. See also FIGS. 2-4.);
determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, that the object is a static object on a road in the environment (“Operation is preferably similar in the case of a stopped vehicle. The electronic circuit is adapted to respond to the sensor detecting an occurrence of the presence of a nearby vehicle for more than a second predetermined period of time (e.g., 90 seconds) by activating the light-emitting circuit and transmitting an INITIAL OUTGOING STOPPED-VEHICLE signal to the second companion pavement marker.” ¶ 11.);
determining a type of an event associated with the static object (“A transmitter is provided in addition for transmitting an outgoing signal to a second companion pavement marker that is mounted on the highway pavement less distant from the oncoming traffic in order to transmit outgoing information related to traffic conditions. A battery-powered, solar-charged circuit on the support structure controls operation of the light-emitting circuit and the transmitter according to information obtained from the sensor and the receiver in order to provide advance warning of traffic conditions to the oncoming traffic via multiple pavement markers.” ¶ 8. “Operation is preferably similar in the case of a stopped vehicle. The electronic circuit is adapted to respond to the sensor detecting an occurrence of the presence of a nearby vehicle for more than a second predetermined period of time (e.g., 90 seconds) by activating the light-emitting circuit and transmitting an INITIAL OUTGOING STOPPED-VEHICLE signal to the second companion pavement marker.” ¶ 11.);
identifying a second road stud sensor at the second location (S: “If the vehicle 83 is sensed for more than 90 seconds, the yellow light is turned off, the red light is turned on and an INITIAL OUTGOING STOPPED-VEHICLE signal is transmitted to the second companion pavement marker 73D for relay to pavement markers 73E and 73F, and onward down-line toward oncoming traffic between the predetermined number of companion pavement markers in a manner similar to that described above for slowed traffic. The pavement marker 73D receives that signal as an INCOMING STOPPED-VEHICLE signal and it responds by disregarding the sensor signal from its own sensor, activating its red light, incrementing a counter valve to produce a new counter valve, and transmitting a RELAYED OUTGOING STOPPED-VEHICLE signal indicative of the new counter valve to the next down-line companion pavement marker 73E. The pavement marker 73F receives the RELAYED OUTGOING STOPPED-VEHICLE signal as an INCOMING STOPPED-VEHICLE signal and responds in much the same way. The red-light-on state is depicted in FIG. 8 by a black fill for the pavement markers 73C, 73D, 73E, and 73F.” ¶ 48.);
configuring a message for the second road stud sensor at a second location in the environment, the message including an instruction to cause a light source of the second road stud sensor to output a visual indicator associated with the event (See at least ¶ 48.); and
transmitting the message to the second road stud sensor (See at least ¶ 48.).
Safar fails to explicitly disclose:
determining a location of the event;
determining a region associated with the event based at least in part on the type of the event and the location of the event; and
identifying a second road stud sensor at a second location within the region.
Nevertheless, Oikawa teaches:
determining a location of the event (“The estimation unit 310 receives detection signals supplied from the road studs 10 via the group control apparatus 20. The estimation unit 310 estimates that a moving body is present from a received detection signal and the fixed position information of the road stud 10 that has transmitted the detection signal.” ¶ 71.);
determining a region associated with the event based at least in part on the type of the event and the location of the event (“The estimation unit 310 receives detection signals supplied from the road studs 10 via the group control apparatus 20. The estimation unit 310 estimates that a moving body is present from a received detection signal and the fixed position information of the road stud 10 that has transmitted the detection signal.” ¶ 71. “Once the estimation unit 310 estimates the moving bodies, the estimation unit 310 is able to further estimate the type of a pedestrian or an automobile from the positions and the speeds of the respective moving bodies. As a result of the aforementioned estimation, the estimation unit 310 further estimates that the automobile V1 is approaching the area where the pedestrian P1 is moving. Upon receiving the results of the estimation, the instruction unit 311 of the overall control unit 31 transmits an instruction signal for instructing an operation of the light emission unit 13 to the road studs 10 in the area where the automobile V1 is travelling. The instruction signal includes an instruction for lighting an LED of the light emission unit 13 on the west side red.” Emphasis added; ¶ 84. “The area 300 shown in the streets shown in FIG. 10 is an area that the instruction unit 311 has set in order to instruct a light emission operation of the road studs 10. The instruction unit 311 instructs, for example, the light emission units 13 of the road studs 10 located in the area 300 to emit blue light. In this case, the instruction unit 311 is able to compare the position information of the area 300 with the fixed position information of the plurality of road studs 10 and extract road studs 10 included in the area 300.” ¶ 87 and FIG. 3.); and
identifying a second road stud sensor at a second location within the region (See at least ¶¶ 71, 84 and 87.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Safar to include the features of: determining a location of the event; determining a region associated with the event based at least in part on the type of the event and the location of the event; and identifying a second road stud sensor at a second location within the region, as taught by Oikawa, with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful for developing a more effective road stud system. (See Oikawa, ¶¶ 4-5.) More specifically, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate Oikawa’s teaching to improve the accuracy and efficacy of Safar’s road stud system.
Independent claim 8 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1 as the claims recite similar subject matter but for minor differences.
As to independent claim 21, Safar discloses:
a computing device comprising one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (“programmable microcontroller 31” - ¶ 29 and FIG. 4.); and
a road stud sensor comprising a proximity sensor, the road stud sensor communicatively coupled to the computing device (“FIGS. 1-7 of the drawings show various aspects of a pavement marker 10 constructed according to the invention.” ¶ 22. “The proximity sensor value (the voltage of the sensor signal from the sensor 39) is read by the microcontroller 31 approximately three times per second (block 46). The proximity sensor sends the sensor valve as an analog voltage value to one of the pins of the microcontroller 31. The microcontroller 31 reads that value and compares it to a fixed value to determine if an object is within predetermined range specifications.” ¶ 35. See also FIGS. 2-4.), the road stud device configured to:
receive sensor data from the proximity sensor, the sensor data indicating a presence of an object at a location in an environment (“The proximity sensor value (the voltage of the sensor signal from the sensor 39) is read by the microcontroller 31 approximately three times per second (block 46). The proximity sensor sends the sensor valve as an analog voltage value to one of the pins of the microcontroller 31. The microcontroller 31 reads that value and compares it to a fixed value to determine if an object is within predetermined range specifications.” ¶ 35. See also FIGS. 2-4.; and
send the sensor data to the computing device (See at least ¶ 35 and FIGS. 2-4.); and
wherein the computing device comprises instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the computing device to:
receive the sensor data (See at least ¶ 35.);
determine, based at least in part on the sensor data, that the object is a static object on a road in the environment (“Operation is preferably similar in the case of a stopped vehicle. The electronic circuit is adapted to respond to the sensor detecting an occurrence of the presence of a nearby vehicle for more than a second predetermined period of time (e.g., 90 seconds) by activating the light-emitting circuit and transmitting an INITIAL OUTGOING STOPPED-VEHICLE signal to the second companion pavement marker.” ¶ 11.);
determine a type of an event associated with the static object (“A transmitter is provided in addition for transmitting an outgoing signal to a second companion pavement marker that is mounted on the highway pavement less distant from the oncoming traffic in order to transmit outgoing information related to traffic conditions. A battery-powered, solar-charged circuit on the support structure controls operation of the light-emitting circuit and the transmitter according to information obtained from the sensor and the receiver in order to provide advance warning of traffic conditions to the oncoming traffic via multiple pavement markers.” ¶ 8. “Operation is preferably similar in the case of a stopped vehicle. The electronic circuit is adapted to respond to the sensor detecting an occurrence of the presence of a nearby vehicle for more than a second predetermined period of time (e.g., 90 seconds) by activating the light-emitting circuit and transmitting an INITIAL OUTGOING STOPPED-VEHICLE signal to the second companion pavement marker.” ¶ 11.);
configure a message for the road stud sensor, the message including an instruction to cause a light source of the road stud sensor to output a visual indicator associated with the event (“If the vehicle 83 is sensed for more than 90 seconds, the yellow light is turned off, the red light is turned on and an INITIAL OUTGOING STOPPED-VEHICLE signal is transmitted to the second companion pavement marker 73D for relay to pavement markers 73E and 73F, and onward down-line toward oncoming traffic between the predetermined number of companion pavement markers in a manner similar to that described above for slowed traffic. The pavement marker 73D receives that signal as an INCOMING STOPPED-VEHICLE signal and it responds by disregarding the sensor signal from its own sensor, activating its red light, incrementing a counter valve to produce a new counter valve, and transmitting a RELAYED OUTGOING STOPPED-VEHICLE signal indicative of the new counter valve to the next down-line companion pavement marker 73E. The pavement marker 73F receives the RELAYED OUTGOING STOPPED-VEHICLE signal as an INCOMING STOPPED-VEHICLE signal and responds in much the same way. The red-light-on state is depicted in FIG. 8 by a black fill for the pavement markers 73C, 73D, 73E, and 73F.” ¶ 48.); and
transmit the message to the road stud sensor (See at least ¶ 48.).
Safar fails to explicitly disclose:
determine a type of an event associated with the static object and the location;
determining a region associated with the event based at least in part on the type of the event and the location of the event.
Nevertheless, Oikawa teaches:
determining type of event associated with the object and the location (“The estimation unit 310 receives detection signals supplied from the road studs 10 via the group control apparatus 20. The estimation unit 310 estimates that a moving body is present from a received detection signal and the fixed position information of the road stud 10 that has transmitted the detection signal.” ¶ 71.); and
determining a region associated with the event based at least in part on the type of the event and the location of the event (“The estimation unit 310 receives detection signals supplied from the road studs 10 via the group control apparatus 20. The estimation unit 310 estimates that a moving body is present from a received detection signal and the fixed position information of the road stud 10 that has transmitted the detection signal.” ¶ 71. “Once the estimation unit 310 estimates the moving bodies, the estimation unit 310 is able to further estimate the type of a pedestrian or an automobile from the positions and the speeds of the respective moving bodies. As a result of the aforementioned estimation, the estimation unit 310 further estimates that the automobile V1 is approaching the area where the pedestrian P1 is moving. Upon receiving the results of the estimation, the instruction unit 311 of the overall control unit 31 transmits an instruction signal for instructing an operation of the light emission unit 13 to the road studs 10 in the area where the automobile V1 is travelling. The instruction signal includes an instruction for lighting an LED of the light emission unit 13 on the west side red.” Emphasis added; ¶ 84. “The area 300 shown in the streets shown in FIG. 10 is an area that the instruction unit 311 has set in order to instruct a light emission operation of the road studs 10. The instruction unit 311 instructs, for example, the light emission units 13 of the road studs 10 located in the area 300 to emit blue light. In this case, the instruction unit 311 is able to compare the position information of the area 300 with the fixed position information of the plurality of road studs 10 and extract road studs 10 included in the area 300.” ¶ 87 and FIG. 3.); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Safar to include the features of: determining type of event associated with the object and the location; and determining a region associated with the event based at least in part on the type of the event and the location of the event, as taught by Oikawa, with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful for developing a more effective road stud system. (See Oikawa, ¶¶ 4-5.) More specifically, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate Oikawa’s teaching to improve the accuracy and efficacy of Safar’s road stud system.
As to claims 5, 13 and 25, Safar discloses: wherein the first road stud sensor and the second road stud sensor are a part of an array of road stud sensors in the environment configurable to divert traffic via one or more light sources coupled to each of the road stud sensors (“Pavement markers 73A through 73F are mounted on the highway pavement at uniformly spaced-apart intervals on the first lane divider line 72. Pavement markers 74A through 74F are mounted on the highway pavement at uniformly spaced-apart intervals on the second lane divider line 74. The resulting lines of spaced-apart pavement markers continues in both directions with additional pavement markers (not shown).” ¶ 45 and FIGS. 6-8. “The pavement marker 73D receives that signal as an INCOMING STOPPED-VEHICLE signal and it responds by disregarding the sensor signal from its own sensor, activating its red light, incrementing a counter valve to produce a new counter valve, and transmitting a RELAYED OUTGOING STOPPED-VEHICLE signal indicative of the new counter valve to the next down-line companion pavement marker 73E. The pavement marker 73F receives the RELAYED OUTGOING STOPPED-VEHICLE signal as an INCOMING STOPPED-VEHICLE signal and responds in much the same way. The red-light-on state is depicted in FIG. 8 by a black fill for the pavement markers 73C, 73D, 73E, and 73F.” ¶ 48.)
As to claim 10, Safar discloses: wherein the sensor data indicates a presence of a static object and the event includes the static object blocking a road in the environment (“Operation is preferably similar in the case of a stopped vehicle. The electronic circuit is adapted to respond to the sensor detecting an occurrence of the presence of a nearby vehicle for more than a second predetermined period of time (e.g., 90 seconds) by activating the light-emitting circuit and transmitting an INITIAL OUTGOING STOPPED-VEHICLE signal to the second companion pavement marker.” ¶ 11. “The invention provides immediate warning, miles ahead, to incoming traffic that there is a hazard on the road or a blocked lane ahead. It keeps the traffic flowing more smoothly by indicating to the incoming traffic which lane is blocked due to a stalled vehicle, accident, or other problem affecting the flow of traffic in a particular lane.” Emphasis added; ¶ 13.).
Claim(s) 2-4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 22-24 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Safar in view of Oikawa as applied to claim 1 – further in view of Langford et al. (US20180305876A1; “Langford”)
As to claims 2 and 11, the combination of Safar and Oikawa fails to explicitly disclose: wherein at least one of the first road stud sensor or the second road stud sensor comprises at least one of a passive infrared (PIR) sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, an inductive sensor, a lidar sensor, or a radar sensor.
Nevertheless, Langford discloses: wherein at least one of the first road stud sensor or the second road stud sensor comprises at least one of a passive infrared (PIR) sensor (“The vehicle sensor 218 can be … [a] passive infrared detector.” ¶ 71.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Safar and Oikawa to include the feature of: wherein at least one of the first road stud sensor or the second road stud sensor comprises at least one of a passive infrared (PIR) sensor, as taught by Langford, with a reasonable expectation of success because such is a well-known sensor in the art utilized by road stud sensors to detect proximate objects.
As to claims 3, 12 and 24, the combination of Safar and Oikawa fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the message includes a navigation plan and an instruction to display a color based at least in part on the navigation plan.
Nevertheless, Langford teaches: wherein the message includes a navigation plan and an instruction to display a color based at least in part on the navigation plan (“At block 828, the one or more processors 402 of the local stud control system 114 or the remote stud control system 118 can generate an activation signal and can transmit the activation signal to each of the smart road studs 110 identified as in a position where it would be unsafe for the first vehicle to cross lane boundaries. … In one example, the activation signal can include an illumination color to illuminate the LEDs of the LED panels 212, 214 and a period of activation identifying how long to activate the LEDs for that particular smart road stud 110.” ¶ 135 and FIG. 8. “At block 830, the activation signal can be received at each of the smart road studs 110 identified as in a position where it would be unsafe for the first vehicle 108 to cross lane boundaries. In one example, the activation signal can be received by the one or more processors 204 of each respective smart road stud 110. The one or more processors 204 can then activate the LEDs of the LED panels 212, 214 to emit light in a first color for the identified time at each of the smart road studs 110 identified as in a position where it would be unsafe for the first vehicle 108 to cross lane boundaries at block 832.” ¶ 136 and FIG. 8. Note: Routing a vehicle to avoid crossing lane boundaries meets the BRI of implementing a navigation plan because the colored road studs navigate the vehicle to not cross certain lane boundaries.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Safar and Oikawa to include the feature of: wherein the message includes a navigation plan and an instruction to display a color based at least in part on the navigation plan, as taught by Langford, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for expanding Safar’s road stud sensor utility to aid in traffic management.
As to claim 4, the combination of Safar and Oikawa fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the navigation plan is configured to divert traffic away from the event.
Nevertheless, Langford teaches: wherein the navigation plan is configured to divert traffic away from the event (“At block 828, the one or more processors 402 of the local stud control system 114 or the remote stud control system 118 can generate an activation signal and can transmit the activation signal to each of the smart road studs 110 identified as in a position where it would be unsafe for the first vehicle to cross lane boundaries. … In one example, the activation signal can include an illumination color to illuminate the LEDs of the LED panels 212, 214 and a period of activation identifying how long to activate the LEDs for that particular smart road stud 110.” ¶ 135 and FIG. 8. “At block 830, the activation signal can be received at each of the smart road studs 110 identified as in a position where it would be unsafe for the first vehicle 108 to cross lane boundaries. In one example, the activation signal can be received by the one or more processors 204 of each respective smart road stud 110. The one or more processors 204 can then activate the LEDs of the LED panels 212, 214 to emit light in a first color for the identified time at each of the smart road studs 110 identified as in a position where it would be unsafe for the first vehicle 108 to cross lane boundaries at block 832.” ¶ 136 and FIG. 8. Note: Routing a vehicle to avoid crossing lane boundaries meets the BRI of implementing a navigation plan because the colored road studs navigate the vehicle to not cross certain lane boundaries. Furthermore, the foregoing necessarily diverts traffic from an event (i.e., an unsafe position on the road).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Safar and Oikawa to include the feature of: wherein the navigation plan is configured to divert traffic away from the event, as taught by Langford, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for expanding Safar’s road stud sensor utility to aid in traffic management.
As to claim 6, the combination of Safar and Oikawa fails to explicitly disclose: sending the sensor data to an edge device configured to communicate with a distributed computing resource.
Nevertheless, Langford teaches: sending the sensor data to an edge device configured to communicate with a distributed computing resource (“The remote stud control system 118 [i.e., edge device] can send and receive data and instructions to multiple local stud control systems 114 simultaneously or substantially simultaneously. For example, the remote stud control system 118 can receive data from and transmit smart road stud control signals to a number of local stud control systems 114 in the range of 1-5000 systems. In one example, the remote stud control system 118 can include a server [i.e., a distributed computing resource] or mainframe type computing system specifically designed for smart road stud control and traffic management.” Emphases added; ¶ 54. “The computer may include … one or more servers used to implement cloud services.” Emphasis added; ¶ 162. Note: That is, the server may indeed be part of a distributed computing system and therefore constitute a distributed computing resource.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Safar and Oikawa to include the feature of: sending the sensor data to an edge device configured to communicate with a distributed computing resource, as taught by Langford, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for exploiting enhanced computational capabilities of a distributed computing resource in a road stud sensor environment.
As to claims 7 and 15, the combination of Safar and Oikawa fails to explicitly disclose: receiving, from an edge device, instructions for executing a navigation plan via at least one of the first road stud sensor or the second road stud sensor, wherein the navigation plan is configured to divert traffic away from the event.
Nevertheless, Langford discloses: receiving, from an edge device, instructions for executing a navigation plan via at least one of the first road stud sensor or the second road stud sensor, wherein the navigation plan is configured to divert traffic away from the event (“At block 828, the one or more processors 402 of the local stud control system 114 or the remote stud control system 118 can generate an activation signal and can transmit the activation signal to each of the smart road studs 110 identified as in a position where it would be unsafe for the first vehicle to cross lane boundaries. … In one example, the activation signal can include an illumination color to illuminate the LEDs of the LED panels 212, 214 and a period of activation identifying how long to activate the LEDs for that particular smart road stud 110.” ¶ 135 and FIG. 8. “At block 830, the activation signal can be received at each of the smart road studs 110 identified as in a position where it would be unsafe for the first vehicle 108 to cross lane boundaries. In one example, the activation signal can be received by the one or more processors 204 of each respective smart road stud 110. The one or more processors 204 can then activate the LEDs of the LED panels 212, 214 to emit light in a first color for the identified time at each of the smart road studs 110 identified as in a position where it would be unsafe for the first vehicle 108 to cross lane boundaries at block 832.” ¶ 136 and FIG. 8. Note: Routing a vehicle to avoid crossing lane boundaries meets the BRI of implementing a navigation plan because the colored road studs navigate the vehicle to not cross certain lane boundaries. Furthermore, the foregoing necessarily diverts traffic from an event (i.e., an unsafe position on the road).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Safar and Oikawa to include the feature of: receiving, from an edge device, instructions for executing a navigation plan via at least one of the first road stud sensor or the second road stud sensor, wherein the navigation plan is configured to divert traffic away from the event, as taught by Langford, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for exploiting enhanced computational capabilities of a distributed computing resource in a road stud sensor environment, and this feature is useful for expanding Safar’s road stud sensor utility to aid in traffic management.
As to claim 14, the combination of Safar and Oikawa fails to explicitly disclose: sending the sensor data to an edge device configured to communicate with a central office server.
Nevertheless, Langford teaches: sending the sensor data to an edge device configured to communicate with a central office server (“The remote stud control system 118 [i.e., edge device] can send and receive data and instructions to multiple local stud control systems 114 simultaneously or substantially simultaneously. For example, the remote stud control system 118 can receive data from and transmit smart road stud control signals to a number of local stud control systems 114 in the range of 1-5000 systems. In one example, the remote stud control system 118 can include a server or mainframe type computing system specifically designed for smart road stud control and traffic management.” Emphases added; ¶ 54.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Safar and Oikawa to include the feature of: sending the sensor data to an edge device configured to communicate with a central office server, as taught by Langford, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for exploiting enhanced computational capabilities of a central office server in a road stud sensor environment.
As to claim 22, the combination of Safar and Oikawa fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the computing device comprises at least one of an edge device located in the environment or a distributed computing resource.
Nevertheless, Langford teaches: wherein the computing device comprises at least one of an edge device located in the environment or a distributed computing resource (“The remote stud control system 118 [i.e., edge device] can send and receive data and instructions to multiple local stud control systems 114 simultaneously or substantially simultaneously. For example, the remote stud control system 118 can receive data from and transmit smart road stud control signals to a number of local stud control systems 114 in the range of 1-5000 systems. In one example, the remote stud control system 118 can include a server [i.e., a distributed computing resource] or mainframe type computing system specifically designed for smart road stud control and traffic management.” Emphases added; ¶ 54. “The computer may include … one or more servers used to implement cloud services.” Emphasis added; ¶ 162. Note: That is, the server may indeed be part of a distributed computing system and therefore constitute a distributed computing resource.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Safar and Oikawa to include the feature of: wherein the computing device comprises at least one of an edge device located in the environment or a distributed computing resource, as taught by Langford, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for exploiting enhanced computational capabilities of an edge device/distributed computing resource in a road stud sensor environment.
As to claim 23, the combination of Safar and Oikawa fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the computing device comprises an edge device located in the environment and the message comprises a first message, the system further comprising a remote distributed resource configured to:
receive the sensor data from the computing device;
determine the type of the event at the location;
configure a second message for the edge device; and
transmit the second message to the edge device.
Nevertheless, Langford teaches:
wherein the computing device comprises an edge device located in the environment (“The remote stud control system 118 [i.e., edge device] can send and receive data and instructions to multiple local stud control systems 114 simultaneously or substantially simultaneously. Emphasis added; ¶ 54.) and the message comprises a first message (“At block 828, the one or more processors 402 of the local stud control system 114 or the remote stud control system 118 can generate an activation signal and can transmit the activation signal to each of the smart road studs 110 identified as in a position where it would be unsafe for the first vehicle to cross lane boundaries.” ¶ 135 and FIG. 8.), the system further comprising a remote distributed resource (“In one example, the remote stud control system 118 can include a server [i.e., a distributed computing resource] or mainframe type computing system specifically designed for smart road stud control and traffic management.” Emphases added; ¶ 54. “The computer may include … one or more servers used to implement cloud services.” Emphasis added; ¶ 162. Note: That is, the server may indeed be part of a distributed computing system and therefore constitute a distributed computing resource.). configured to:
receive the sensor data from the computing device (“The local stud control system 114 can be communicably coupled to multiple smart roadway studs 110 and can be configured to transmit and receive data to and from the smart roadway studs 110 associated with (i.e. communicating with) the particular local stud control system 114.” ¶ 49. “The smart road stud 110 can also include a vehicle sensor 218.” ¶ 71. “The event data collected by the magnetic sensor 218 can be passed to the one or more processors 204. The one or more processors can conduct initial analysis on the event data to generate an event vector for the vehicle 108. …. This event vector data can then be transmitted from the smart road stud 110 to the local stud control system 114 associated with the particular smart road stud 110.” ¶ 74. See also ¶ 129.);
determine the type of the event at the location (“The event vector can include the event duration, the event magnitude, and the event orientation. A time stamp and smart road stud identifier (a unique identifier string that designates the smart road stud different from other smart road studs) can be included with the event vector data so that elements such as vehicle speed can be calculated based on the event vector data and the distance between corresponding smart road studs (determined at least in part based on the smart road stud identifier).” ¶ 74. “The one or more processors 402 of the local stud control system 114 uses the combined event vectors to deconvolve the vehicle position, size, and speed for each vehicle 108 on the roadway 102.” Emphasis added; ¶ 130. See also ¶ 75 talking about determining weather events. See also ¶ 117 wherein a safe travel speed is determined based on “traffic, environmental factors, accidents, construction, or other issues on the roadway 102.” Note: The properties of the event vector data necessarily represent a type of event because said properties categorize the event as to distinguish it from other events. Continuing, the event data necessarily represents the location of the event as otherwise the distance.);
configure a second message for the edge device (“At block 828, the one or more processors 402 of the local stud control system 114 or the remote stud control system 118 can generate an activation signal and can transmit the activation signal to each of the smart road studs 110 identified as in a position where it would be unsafe for the first vehicle to cross lane boundaries. … In one example, the activation signal can include an illumination color to illuminate the LEDs of the LED panels 212, 214 and a period of activation identifying how long to activate the LEDs for that particular smart road stud 110.” ¶ 135 and FIG. 8. “At block 830, the activation signal can be received at each of the smart road studs 110 identified as in a position where it would be unsafe for the first vehicle 108 to cross lane boundaries. In one example, the activation signal can be received by the one or more processors 204 of each respective smart road stud 110. The one or more processors 204 can then activate the LEDs of the LED panels 212, 214 to emit light in a first color for the identified time at each of the smart road studs 110 identified as in a position where it would be unsafe for the first vehicle 108 to cross lane boundaries at block 832.” ¶ 136 and FIG. 8.); and
transmit the second message to the edge device (See at least ¶¶ 135 and 136.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Safar and Oikawa to include the above features taught by Langford with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful for exploiting enhanced computational capabilities of an edge device in a road stud sensor environment.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Safar in view of Oikawa as applied to claim 1 – further in view of Langford and in view of Aman Kaushik (KR20210030655A; “Kaushik”).
As to claim 9, the combination of Safar and Oikawa fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the sensor data includes directional data.
Langford discloses: wherein the sensor data includes directional data (“The smart road stud 110 can also include a vehicle sensor 218. The vehicle sensor 218 can be configured to sense and determine when a vehicle passes by and/or over the smart road stud 110. In one example, the vehicle sensor 218 is a magnetic sensor 218. … The magnetic sensor 218 can be a multi-axis magnetic sensor that can determine the direction of travel of the vehicle and the lane of travel of the vehicle to be determined based on data from the magnetic sensor 218.” ¶ 71.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Safar and Oikawa to include the feature of: wherein the sensor data includes directional data, as taught by Langford, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for accurately determining an event in a road stud sensor environment.
The combination of Safar, Oikawa and Langford fails to explicitly disclose: the event includes at least one of a predicted vehicle collision or a vehicle collision.
Nevertheless, Kaushik teaches: an event includes a predicted vehicle collision (“A receiving module for receiving information on another vehicle from a road sign; and a controller communicatively connected to the receiving module, wherein the controller determines whether or not a collision has occurred based on the information on the other vehicle, and, if a collision with the other vehicle is expected, an alarm unit generates an alarm to warn of an expected collision.” ¶ 8. See also Abstract which explicitly references a “road stud,” and FIG. 1 which illustrate that the road signs 201-20n are road studs.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Safar, Oikawa and Langford to include the feature of: an event includes a predicted vehicle collision, as taught by Kaushik, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for preventing collisions through smart road studs. (See Kaushik, ¶ 4.)
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Langford et al. (US20180305876A1; “Langford”) in view of Oikawa.
As to independent claim 16, Langford discloses a computing device, comprising:
one or more processors (“The local stud control system 114 can also include one or more processors 402.” ¶ 84 and FIG. 4.);
a communication component (“The local stud control system 114 may include a radio and/or transceiver 406 communicably coupled to the one or more processors 402 and an antenna 310 and electrically coupled to a battery 404 to conduct its wireless communication with the smart road studs 110 associated with the particular local stud control system 114 and the remote stud control system 118.” ¶ 85 and FIG. 4.);
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors (“Computer readable storage medium may be any tangible medium that can contain, or store a program for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device.” ¶ 156.), wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the computing device to perform operations comprising:
receiving, via the communications component, sensor data from a proximity sensor of a first road stud sensor at a first location in an environment (“The local stud control system 114 can be communicably coupled to multiple smart roadway studs 110 and can be configured to transmit and receive data to and from the smart roadway studs 110 associated with (i.e. communicating with) the particular local stud control system 114.” ¶ 49. “The smart road stud 110 can also include a vehicle sensor 218.” ¶ 71. “The event data collected by the magnetic sensor 218 can be passed to the one or more processors 204. The one or more processors can conduct initial analysis on the event data to generate an event vector for the vehicle 108. …. This event vector data can then be transmitted from the smart road stud 110 to the local stud control system 114 associated with the particular smart road stud 110.” ¶ 74. See also ¶ 129.);
determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, an occurrence of an event in the environment (“The event vector can include the event duration, the event magnitude, and the event orientation. A time stamp and smart road stud identifier (a unique identifier string that designates the smart road stud different from other smart road studs) can be included with the event vector data so that elements such as vehicle speed can be calculated based on the event vector data and the distance between corresponding smart road studs (determined at least in part based on the smart road stud identifier).” ¶ 74. “In one example, the current safe travel speed can be more than one vehicle speed. In this example, the current safe travel speed can be reduced or increased over one or more distances based on traffic, environmental factors, accidents, construction, or other issues on the roadway 102. The current safe travel speed can be received or determined by the one or more processors of the remote stud control system 118.” ¶ 117 and FIG. 7. Note: Determining a safe travel speed necessarily requires determining an occurrence of an event in the environment that impacts safety as the safe travel speed is necessarily linked to such events like environmental factors, accidents, etc. which affect safety.);
determining a type of the event and a location of the event (“The event vector can include the event duration, the event magnitude, and the event orientation. A time stamp and smart road stud identifier (a unique identifier string that designates the smart road stud different from other smart road studs) can be included with the event vector data so that elements such as vehicle speed can be calculated based on the event vector data and the distance between corresponding smart road studs (determined at least in part based on the smart road stud identifier).” ¶ 74. “The one or more processors 402 of the local stud control system 114 uses the combined event vectors to deconvolve the vehicle position, size, and speed for each vehicle 108 on the roadway 102.” Emphasis added; ¶ 130. See also ¶ 75 talking about determining weather events. See also ¶ 117 wherein a safe travel speed is determined based on “traffic, environmental factors, accidents, construction, or other issues on the roadway 102.” Note: The properties of the event vector data necessarily represent a type of event because said properties categorize the event as to distinguish it from other events. Continuing, the event data necessarily represents the location of the event as otherwise the distance.);
configuring a message for the road stud sensor, the message including an instruction to cause a light source of the second road stud sensor to output a visual indicator associated with the event (“At block 828, the one or more processors 402 of the local stud control system 114 or the remote stud control system 118 can generate an activation signal and can transmit the activation signal to each of the smart road studs 110 identified as in a position where it would be unsafe for the first vehicle to cross lane boundaries. … In one example, the activation signal can include an illumination color to illuminate the LEDs of the LED panels 212, 214 and a period of activation identifying how long to activate the LEDs for that particular smart road stud 110.” ¶ 135 and FIG. 8. “At block 830, the activation signal can be received at each of the smart road studs 110 identified as in a position where it would be unsafe for the first vehicle 108 to cross lane boundaries. In one example, the activation signal can be received by the one or more processors 204 of each respective smart road stud 110. The one or more processors 204 can then activate the LEDs of the LED panels 212, 214 to emit light in a first color for the identified time at each of the smart road studs 110 identified as in a position where it would be unsafe for the first vehicle 108 to cross lane boundaries at block 832.” ¶ 136 and FIG. 8.); and
transmitting, via the communications component, the message to the road stud sensor (See at least ¶¶ 135 and 136.).
Langford fails to explicitly disclose:
determining a region associated with the event based at least in part on the type of the event and the location of the event;
identifying a second road stud sensor at a second location within the region;
Nevertheless, Oikawa teaches:
determining a region associated with the event based at least in part on the type of the event and the location of the event (“The estimation unit 310 receives detection signals supplied from the road studs 10 via the group control apparatus 20. The estimation unit 310 estimates that a moving body is present from a received detection signal and the fixed position information of the road stud 10 that has transmitted the detection signal.” ¶ 71. “Once the estimation unit 310 estimates the moving bodies, the estimation unit 310 is able to further estimate the type of a pedestrian or an automobile from the positions and the speeds of the respective moving bodies. As a result of the aforementioned estimation, the estimation unit 310 further estimates that the automobile V1 is approaching the area where the pedestrian P1 is moving. Upon receiving the results of the estimation, the instruction unit 311 of the overall control unit 31 transmits an instruction signal for instructing an operation of the light emission unit 13 to the road studs 10 in the area where the automobile V1 is travelling. The instruction signal includes an instruction for lighting an LED of the light emission unit 13 on the west side red.” Emphasis added; ¶ 84. “The area 300 shown in the streets shown in FIG. 10 is an area that the instruction unit 311 has set in order to instruct a light emission operation of the road studs 10. The instruction unit 311 instructs, for example, the light emission units 13 of the road studs 10 located in the area 300 to emit blue light. In this case, the instruction unit 311 is able to compare the position information of the area 300 with the fixed position information of the plurality of road studs 10 and extract road studs 10 included in the area 300.” ¶ 87 and FIG. 3.); and
identifying a second road stud sensor at a second location within the region (See at least ¶¶ 71, 84 and 87.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Langford to include the features of: determining a region associated with the event based at least in part on the type of the event and the location of the event; and identifying a second road stud sensor at a second location within the region, as taught by Oikawa, with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful for developing a more effective road stud system. (See Oikawa, ¶¶ 4-5.) More specifically, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate Oikawa’s teaching to improve the accuracy and efficacy of Langford’s road stud system.
As to claim 17, Langford discloses: wherein the computing device is remotely located with respect to the road stud sensor (“The local stud control system 114 can be communicably coupled to multiple smart roadway studs 110 and can be configured to transmit and receive data to and from the smart roadway studs 110 associated with (i.e. communicating with) the particular local stud control system 114.” ¶ 49 and FIG. 1.).
As to claim 18, Langford discloses: wherein the sensor data is received from an edge device configured to communicate with the computing device and the first road stud sensor (“The remote stud control system 118 [i.e., edge device] can send and receive data and instructions to multiple local stud control systems 114 simultaneously or substantially simultaneously. For example, the remote stud control system 118 can receive data from and transmit smart road stud control signals to a number of local stud control systems 114 in the range of 1-5000 systems. In one example, the remote stud control system 118 can include a server or mainframe type computing system specifically designed for smart road stud control and traffic management.” Emphasis added; ¶ 54.).
As to claim 19, Langford fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the region varies over time based on a change in an area impacted by the event.
Nevertheless, Oikawa teaches: wherein the region varies over time based on a change in an area impacted by the event (“The estimation unit 310 receives detection signals supplied from the road studs 10 via the group control apparatus 20. The estimation unit 310 estimates that a moving body is present from a received detection signal and the fixed position information of the road stud 10 that has transmitted the detection signal.” ¶ 71. “Of the whole group information, the state of the light emission unit 13 and the state of the detection signal may constantly change. These information items are updated, for example, every second.” ¶ 80. Upon receiving the results of the estimation, the instruction unit 311 of the overall control unit 31 transmits an instruction signal for instructing an operation of the light emission unit 13 to the road studs 10 in the area where the automobile V1 is travelling. The instruction signal includes an instruction for lighting an LED of the light emission unit 13 on the west side red.” Emphasis added; ¶ 84. Note: For the successful operation of the invention, as detection signals are changed over time, the estimation unit updates its estimation of a position of a moving body over time and subsequently updates the region for activating road stud sensors based on a change in area where the moving body has moved to (i.e., a change in an area impacted by an event). Otherwise, the invention would be inoperable to account for a change in a moving body’s position.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Langford to include the feature of: wherein the region varies over time based on a change in an area impacted by the event, as taught by Oikawa, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for developing a more effective road stud system. (See Oikawa, ¶¶ 4-5.) More specifically, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate Oikawa’s teaching to improve the accuracy and efficacy of Langford’s road stud system.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if (1) rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and intervening claims; and (2) the 101 issues are resolved.
The following is a statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter.
The closest prior art, Langford, discloses that processing may be performed either locally in a road stud sensor or externally through a computing device (“While the example above describes the determination of fog, smoke, or other environmental situations being made at the one or more processors 204, in other example embodiments, the determination can be made at the local stud control system 114 and/or at the remote stud control system 118 based on data being wirelessly transmitted to the local stud control system 114 by the smart road stud 110.” ¶ 79 and FIG. 1).
However, neither Langford nor the rest of the cited prior art discloses initiating the claimed local decision algorithm responsive to not receiving a response from the computing device within a pre-defined time frame. That is, the cited prior art is silent as to performing operations locally on a road stud sensor based on the claimed time frame being met.
CONCLUSION
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, this action is 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/M.C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/LAIL A KLEINMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights