DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response / amendments filed on 28 February 2026. As of the date of this communication no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed on behalf of this case. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 2, 6, 15-16, and 19-20 have been amended.
Claims 3-5, 7-14, and 17-18 are original / previously presented.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous objection of the drawings, the Applicant has successfully amended the drawings, and accordingly the objection is rescinded.
Regarding the previous objection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 15, 16, 19, and 20, the Applicant has successfully amended the claims, and accordingly the objection is rescinded.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 19-20, the Applicant has successfully amended the claims, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-20, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “the recited claim elements can improve traffic flow, traffic navigation times, commercial activity and traffic safety, and can reduce pollution” (Remarks pg. 9). Examiner disagrees. First, the independent claims are directed to a judicial exception (certain methods of organizing human activities: managing personal behavior, teaching, following rules or instructions) without additional elements that provide a practical application. Second, the argued benefit of improved traffic navigation times is inherent of implementing a judicial exception on a computer, which is not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f) citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept”. See Rencentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp (Fed. Cir 2025) stating “claimed methods are not rendered patent eligible by the fact that (using existing machine learning technology) they perform a task previously undertaken by humans with greater speed and efficiency than could previously be achieved”. Third, the argued benefits of improved traffic flow, commercial activity and traffic safety at best are entrepreneurial benefits representative of implementing the judicial exception / abstract idea, which is not an improvement that is a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(a) citing Diamond v. Diehr (1981) “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements”; and MPEP 2106.05(f) citing Affinity Labs v. DirectTV (2019) “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general purpose computer after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g. a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”. Fourth, regarding the argued benefit of reducing pollution, the claims do not improve the technology of how a vehicle physically emits greenhouse gases / pollutants since reduced pollution may merely be a result associated with a computed route (or alternatively increased pollution is a result of a computed route). The vehicle is unchanged regarding how it produces pollution. Since the computer is relied upon as a tool (i.e. ‘apply it) to implement the judicial exception steps associated with routing and these argued benefits, this does not improve a technology / technical field beyond the judicial exception, and these benefits do not provide a practical application. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “the recited claim elements can improve the function of a computer, such as a computer that implements a traffic-management system in an environment (e.g., a municipality) and/or a second computer that implements traffic-mapping software. Notably, by determining the instructions provided to a non-municipal vehicle (such as a vehicle that uses the traffic-mapping software) based at least in part on information from municipal vehicles (such as vehicles that use a traffic-management system) and information from the non-municipal vehicle (such as a vehicle that uses the traffic-mapping software), the computer may be able to provide situational awareness/coordination to multiple non-municipal vehicles and to determine more-efficient routes through traffic in the environment (e.g., from a current location to a destination) with fewer computations (and, thus, reduced processor cycles, use of memory or network bandwidth for communication among components in the computer and with remotely located electronic device (e.g., in the non-municipal vehicle). Consequently, the recited claim elements significantly improve the function of the computer and the second computer” (Remarks pg. 9). Examiner disagrees. The claims do not improve a computer itself. First, Applicant’s claims do not focus on an improvement to computer functionality itself. Instead, the Applicant’s claims use computers as a tool to implement certain methods of organizing human activities, i.e. implementing economic or other tasks which the computer is used in its ordinary capacity. This type of improvement is more directed towards improving a business process in association with a computer, rather than improving a computer or computers themselves, and is not representative of a practical application or significantly more. Second, the Applicant specification does not discuss the argued fewer computations, reduced processor cycles and use of memory or network bandwidth regarding computer functions outside of business process. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in view of Amdocs and “Notably, an improvement in efficiency of the computer (and, thus, an improvement in the function of the computer) provides support for patent eligibly under Step 2A, Prong 1 and, therefore, obviates the need for the remainder of the analysis” (Remarks pg. 9-10). Examiner disagrees. Unlike the field enhancement in a distributed network in Amdocs, the Applicant claims do not achieve an improvement to computer functionality itself, and do not present a technological solution to a technological problem. The claims in Amdocs necessarily required the generic components to operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality. However this is in contrast to the Applicant’s claims where the generic components (e.g. a processor, interface circuit, traffic-management system, traffic mapping software, computer system, non-transitory computer readable medium, and electronic device) (1) represent merely applying a judicial exception of certain methods of organizing human activities: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, teaching, following rules or instructions on computers where the claims could otherwise represent activities performed by people; (2) represent using generic computers / general computer components performing routine, well-known, and conventional activities such as data gathering, and transmitting data. Therefore, the claims do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea like the claims in Amdocs, and the claims are not eligible. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “The Applicant notes that the Examiner’s assertion that the use of generic components do not integrate the invention into a practical application. With respect, the Examiner’s assertion is incorrect. The recited claim elements integrate the invention into the practical application of traffic management. The Applicant notes that the use of a generic computer system performing conventional computer operations do not doom the claims” (Remarks pg. 10). Examiner disagrees. In the Applicant’s claims, the computer elements of a processor, interface circuit, traffic-management system, traffic mapping software, computer system, non-transitory computer readable medium, and electronic device are recited at a high-level of generality and are either (1) merely invoked as tools to perform the judicial exception (e.g. manag[ing] navigation of vehicles associated with a municipality, manag[ing] navigation of a vehicle associated the user… not associated with the municipality, computing a route…, providing one or more instructions…; teaching includes providing one or more instructions…), which is not a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); or (2) using computers as a tool in their ordinary capacity to perform high level extra-solution activities including transmitting data / data gathering (e.g. communicat[ing]…, receiving first / second information…), which is not a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). For these reasons, the high level computer components do not provide a practical application of the judicial exception. This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-20, the arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection (Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan).
Priority
The application 18/916,622 filed on 15 October 2024 claims priority from US provisional application 63/544,434 filed on 16 October 2023.
Claim Interpretation
The term “proximate” in the claim 17 limitation “wherein the computed route is based at least in part on transit times of multiple vehicles that are proximate to the vehicle in the environment” is a relative term. While ‘proximate’ is not defined in the claim, the Applicant specification provides a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree so that one of ordinary skill in the art would be apprised of the scope of the invention, stating in ¶[0122] “In some embodiments, the proximate vehicles may be located in a same region in the environment as the vehicle”. Therefore, ‘proximate’ is interpreted as being in the same region in the environment as the vehicle.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 28 February 2026 have been acknowledged by the Office.
Specification
The amendment to the Specification (removing ¶[0047]) on 28 February 2026 has been acknowledged by the Office.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20:
Step 1:
Claims 1-18 recite a system; claim 19 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium; and claim 20 recites a method. Since the claims recite either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG). Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A – Prong One:
Claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea. Independent claims 1, 19, and 20 recite manag[ing] navigation of vehicles associated with a municipality, manag[ing] navigation of a vehicle associated with the user and conveying the [user], and the vehicle is not associated with the municipality; computing a route, for at least the vehicle from a current location associated with [the user] to a destination based at least in part on the first information and the second information; and providing one or more instructions addressed to the [user], wherein the one or more instructions specify the computed route. The claims as a whole recite certain methods of organizing human activities.
First, the limitations of manag[ing] navigation of vehicles associated with a municipality, manag[ing] navigation of a vehicle associated with the user and conveying the [user], and the vehicle is not associated with the municipality; computing a route, for at least the vehicle from a current location associated with [the user] to a destination based at least in part on the first information and the second information; and providing one or more instructions addressed to the [user], wherein the one or more instructions specify the computed route are certain methods of organizing human activities. For instance these limitations represent the sub-groupings of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, teaching, and following rules or instructions. For example, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes manag[ing] navigation of vehicles associated with a municipality, manag[ing] navigation of a vehicle associated the user… not associated with the municipality, computing a route…, providing one or more instructions…; teaching includes providing one or more instructions…; and following rules or instructions includes manag[ing] navigation of vehicles associated with a municipality, manag[ing] navigation of a vehicle associated the user… not associated with the municipality, computing a route…, providing one or more instructions.
The presence of generic computer components such as a processor, interface circuit, traffic-management system, traffic mapping software, computer system, non-transitory computer readable medium, and electronic device does not preclude the steps from reciting certain methods of organizing human activities, since the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, teaching, following rules or instructions) regardless of the recitation of generic computer components or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, then it falls within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. First, claims 1-20 as a whole merely describes how to generally ‘apply’ the concept of certain methods of organizing human activities in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (i.e. processor, interface circuit, traffic-management system, traffic mapping software, computer system, non-transitory computer readable medium, electronic device) are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform existing manual processes. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2016.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of (claim 1) communicating and its step of an interface circuit configured to communicate with electronic devices is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data for subsequent providing), and amounts to mere transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, electronic device, the interface circuit (generic computer, general computer component) are only being used as a tool in the communicating, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding communicating more than using computers as a tool in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to transmit data). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of receiving and its step of receiving first information from a traffic-management system of an environment and second information from at least an instance of traffic-mapping software associated with the electronic device of a user are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering / transmitting data for subsequent computing), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the traffic management system, traffic-mapping software, electronic device (generic computers / general computer components) are each recited at a high level of detail only being used as a tool in the receiving, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding receiving more than using computers as a tool in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive data). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (processor, interface circuit, traffic-management system, traffic mapping software, computer system, non-transitory computer readable medium, electronic device); and adding high-level extra-solution and/or post-solution activities (transmitting data, data gathering) implemented by computers / computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using processor, interface circuit, traffic-management system, traffic mapping software, computer system, non-transitory computer readable medium, electronic device to perform manag[ing] navigation of vehicles associated with a municipality, manag[ing] navigation of a vehicle associated the user… not associated with the municipality, computing a route…, providing one or more instructions… amounts to no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ the exception using generic computers. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the (claim 1) communicating are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data for subsequent providing), and amounts to mere transmitting data , which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. interface circuit, processor) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, this communicating step is also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. transmitting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the receiving are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent computing), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. traffic management system, traffic-mapping software, electronic device) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these receiving steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering, transmitting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network, using the Internet to gather data (Symantec), using a telephone for image transmission (TLI Communications), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0045], ¶[0060], ¶[0076], ¶[0115] describing the additional element of receiving first information from a traffic-management system, and ¶[0085], ¶[0110] describing receiving municipal vehicle data and the traffic management system installed in a given city or municipality at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0076], ¶[0115] describing the additional element of receiving information from navigation / mapping software on a telephone device, and receiving information from traffic-mapping software associated with an electronic device of a user at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Also note that the background discusses traffic-mapping software, demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of this additional element (see Applicant specification background ¶[0003] detailing traffic-mapping software also referred to as navigation software typically providing instructions such as driving directions, estimated time of arrival, interactive map, alerts for events on a planned route, alternative routes). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
The claims do not improve another technology or technical field. Instead the claims represent a generic implementation of organizing human activities ‘applied’ by generic / general purpose computers, and using general computer components in extra-solution capacities such as data gathering / transmitting data. The claims do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. At best, the claims are more directed towards solving a business / economic / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how to compute a route based on multiple information sources), that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. computers), rather than solving a technology based problem. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer itself. The claims are more directed towards improving a business / economic / entrepreneurial process rather than improving a computer outside of a business use, i.e. using computers a tool. The claims do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction to a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional in a way that confines the claim to a particular useful application.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually, both with respect to the independent claims 1, 19, 20, and further considering the addition of dependent claims 2-18. Note that the combination of limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components, see Alice (2014), and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components to achieve a technical improvement, see BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC (2016). Hence, the ordered combination of elements does not provide significantly more. With respect to the dependent claims:
Dependent claim 2: The limitations wherein the first information comprises traffic conditions in the environment; and wherein the first information is associated with different types of data sources distributed in the environment, and the environment comprises multiple intersections and roadways merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3: The limitation wherein the types of data sources comprise data associated with one or more of: an emergency medical system (EMS), EMS vehicles, waste-removal vehicles, municipal vehicles, public-works vehicles, vehicles associated with another municipal agency, navigation software, a mass transit system, mass-transit vehicles, trains, buses, rideshare software, rideshare vehicles, calendar software that planned or plans a future schedule of one or more individuals or organizations, parking meters, or parking lots represents an additional element that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. These data sources are each claimed at a high level of detail without any technical features or limitations and represent a general linkage of the judicial exception to a field of use (i.e. emergency services, waste removal, municipal / public services, navigation, public / mass transportation, ridesharing, scheduling, parking). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0069] describing the additional element of receiving data from emergency services / vehicles, municipal / private / waste-removal / public vehicles, navigation software, mass transit systems, rideshare software / vehicles, calendar software, parking meters / lots at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4: The limitation wherein the second information comprises a location of the electronic device merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations (e.g. computing a route…) and narrows the extra-solution data gathering limitations (e.g. receiving information…), with the electronic device as no more than a general linkage to technology / field of use (i.e. computers); which at this claimed high level of detail does not provide a practical application or significantly more. See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0131], ¶[0142] describing the additional element of receiving location information of an electronic device at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5: The limitation wherein the operations comprise identifying an event in at least a portion of the environment based at least in part on the first information, the second information, or both is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6: The limitation wherein the operations comprise performing a remedial action based at least in part on the identified event is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7: The limitations wherein the remedial action comprises: dynamically recomputing the route based at least in part on the identified event; or providing an alert about the event are further directed to methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8: The limitation wherein the identifying of the event is based at least in part on historical traffic conditions in the environment merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9: The limitation wherein the identifying of the event comprises predicting a change in a traffic condition in the environment in a subsequent time interval is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10: The limitation wherein the identifying of the event comprises determining a change in the traffic conditions after the change has occurred is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11: The limitation wherein the identifying of the event comprises comparing the traffic conditions to predefined signatures of different types of events is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12: The limitation wherein the identifying of the event uses a pretrained predictive model merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations (e.g. identifying the event…), with a pretrained predictive model as no more than a general linkage to technology / field of use (i.e. machine learning); which at this claimed high level of detail does not provide a practical application or significantly more. Without specifying any details regarding the training or technical algorithm steps involved, this is the same as ‘applying’ the judicial exception on a general purpose computer. See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0070], ¶[0086], ¶[0091], ¶[0107], ¶[0124] describing the additional element of using a pre-trained predictive model such as a machine-learning model or a neural network to identify an event, and identify deviations / comparisons and produce outputs at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13: The limitation wherein the event is other than a traffic event and impacts the traffic conditions merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14: The limitation wherein the environment comprises at least a portion of a city or a municipality merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 15: The limitation wherein at least some of the first information comprises real-time information that is received as it is acquired by a given type of source represents an additional element (extra-solution data gathering) that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. Claiming ‘real time’ information does not provide a practical application or significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir 2015) stating “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept”. Furthermore, the receiving / acquiring here is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 16: The limitations wherein receiving the first information comprises: accessing the information in memory associated with the computer system; or receiving the first information from the different types of sources represent additional elements (extra-solution data gathering / retrieving data) that are not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. The recitation of memory is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to store data). Furthermore, the accessing and receiving here are claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 17: The limitation wherein the computed route is based at least in part on transit times of multiple vehicles that are proximate to the vehicle in the environment merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 18: The limitation wherein the computed route: minimizes transit times of the vehicle and the vehicles to destinations; or minimize transit times of second vehicles having a higher priority than the vehicle in the environment merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Therefore claims 1, 19-20, and the dependent claims 2-18 and all limitations taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2014/0249735 A1 to Levine et al. in view of US patent application publication 2015/0319093 A1 to Stolfus in view of US patent application publication 2017/0276495 A1 to Krishnan et al.
Claim 1:
Levine, as shown, teaches the following:
A computer system (Levine Fig 2-3, ¶[0025-26] details a computer system with servers and electronic devices), comprising:
With respect to the following:
an interface circuit configured to communicate with electronic devices;
a processor, coupled to the interface circuit, configured to execute program instructions; and
memory, coupled to the processor, storing the program instructions, wherein, when executed by the processor, the program instructions cause the computer system to perform operations comprising:
Levine, as shown in Fig 2-3, ¶[0025], ¶[0028], ¶[0032], claim 1 details a plurality of mobile phones / personal navigation devices, the devices are in communication with servers (e.g. real time server, tile map server) through a cellular network / wireless network / any other mobile communication means, and the servers of the system (e.g. real time server, routing server, tile map server) are configured to execute the functions of the invention. However, Levine does not explicitly state an interface circuit configured to communicate with electronic devices; the processor coupled to the interface circuit, configured to execute program instructions; and memory coupled to the processor storing the program instructions. However, Stolfus teaches these limitations of an interface circuit configured to communicate with electronic devices (Stolfus Fig 1, ¶[0058-60], ¶[0120], ¶[0124] details any type of circuit-switched network known in the art for communication between the communication devices and traffic management module, or executed in conjunction with peripheral integrated circuit elements; and the communication devices are personal computing devices / navigation systems / cellular phones / smart phones); a processor, coupled to the interface circuit, configured to execute program instructions (Stolfus Fig 1, ¶[0058-59], ¶[0061], ¶[0124] details the traffic management module is contained in memory and executed by the a processor of a server, and the system includes any type of circuit-switched network known in the art for communication between the communication devices and traffic management module (i.e. interface circuit coupled to processor), and the system may be executed in conjunction with peripheral integrated circuit elements); and memory, coupled to the processor, storing the program instructions, wherein, when executed by the processor, the program instructions cause the computer system to perform operations (Stolfus ¶[0061] details the traffic management module stored in memory and executed by a processor of a server which receives traffic data and determines routes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an interface circuit configured to communicate with electronic devices; a processor, coupled to the interface circuit, configured to execute program instructions; and memory, coupled to the processor, storing the program instructions, wherein, when executed by the processor, the program instructions cause the computer system to perform operations as taught by Stolfus with the teachings of Levine, with the motivation to provide “dynamic traffic route alternatives… to one or more entities based on determined traffic conditions” (Stolfus ¶[0005]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an interface circuit configured to communicate with electronic devices; a processor, coupled to the interface circuit, configured to execute program instructions; and memory, coupled to the processor, storing the program instructions, wherein, when executed by the processor, the program instructions cause the computer system to perform operations as taught by Stolfus in the system of Levine, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Levine (in view of Stolfus) also teaches the following:
receiving first information from a traffic-management system of an environment (Levine ¶[0017-18], claim 36 details the RTS receiving from other members of the service other traffic data in addition to their location data including alerts/notifications on traffic jams, long periods of red traffic lights, accidents, blocked lanes, or any other information that may be of assistance for a traveler) and second information from at least an instance of traffic-mapping software associated with the electronic device of a user (Levine ¶[0019], ¶[0023], ¶[0025], claim 36 details the RTS obtaining the current location and speed data of the registered member / navigation device automatically using the software installed on the device upon registration as a member of the traffic mapping service),
Levine does not explicitly state but Krishnan teaches the following:
wherein the traffic-management system manages navigation of vehicles associated with a municipality (Krishnan Fig 1, Fig 9, ¶[0002], ¶[0017], ¶[0098-99], claim 9 details public safety access points (PSAPs) determine the best emergency vehicle to respond to an event and provide the best route for that emergency vehicle, in a cityscape in which the emergency vehicle may travel; and the PSAPs provide the emergency vehicle position and route information to the map server, i.e. first information from the traffic-management system),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the traffic-management system manages navigation of vehicles associated with a municipality as taught by Krishnan with the teachings of Levine in view of Stolfus, with the motivation for “managing traffic that may interfere with the travel of emergency vehicles” (Krishnan ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the traffic-management system manages navigation of vehicles associated with a municipality as taught by Krishnan in the system of Levine in view of Stolfus, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Levine (in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan) also teaches the following:
the instance of the traffic mapping software manages navigation of a vehicle associated with the user and conveying the electronic device (Levine ¶[0014], ¶[0017], ¶[0022] details each member may have a navigation device in communication with the RTS that transmits his/her location, receives traffic map information, and requests / advises on a route from a starting point to destination; see also/alternatively in further view of obviousness Krishnan Fig 5, ¶[0019], ¶[0042], ¶[0052-54], ¶[0110], ¶[0136], claim 8 details a navigation subsystem with user interaction hardware and/or software to provide information to the user regarding routes and maps, and locating the user’s vehicle using GPS and the road database and giving directions using an Internet-enabled mobile telephone displaying navigating web pages, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature as taught by Krishnan in the system of Levine in view of Stolfus (in view of Krishnan), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable), and
Krishnan (of Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan) also teaches the following:
the vehicle is not associated with the municipality (Krishnan title, ¶[0019-20] details the mapping service notifies and re-routes users in vehicles that are non-emergency operation vehicles (e.g. not police, fire fighters, ambulances), i.e. not associated with the municipality);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the vehicle is not associated with the municipality as taught by Krishnan with the teachings of Levine in view of Stolfus (in view of Krishnan), with the motivation for “managing traffic that may interfere with the travel of emergency vehicles” (Krishnan ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the vehicle is not associated with the municipality as taught by Krishnan in the system of Levine in view of Stolfus (in view of Krishnan), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Levine (in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan, applying the first information includes municipality emergency vehicle information, per Krishnan above) also teaches the following:
computing a route, for at least the vehicle, from a current location associated with the electronic device to a destination based at least in part on the first information and the second information (Levine Fig 5, ¶[0011-12], ¶[0018-19], ¶[0032] details calculating preferred routes based on real time data including transmitted location data of the current member and other members, traffic conditions obtained including alerts (i.e. first information including emergency vehicle position and routes, per Krishnan) / traffic information / accidents / messages from members, and destinations/origins (second information); and calculating / recalculating the member preferred route to reach a destination upon their request or a change in traffic conditions / circumstances, i.e. receiving first information / emergency vehicle location and route information per Krishnan above; see also/alternatively in further view of obviousness Krishnan Fig 9, ¶[0098-101] claim 8 details obtaining the location and route of an emergency vehicle (first information), and the location and route of the vehicle with a maps database (second information), and then changing the route of the vehicle to avoid the emergency vehicle, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature as taught by Krishnan in the system of Levine in view of Stolfus (in view of Krishnan), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable); and
providing one or more instructions addressed to the electronic device, wherein the one or more instructions specify the computed route (Levine Fig 5, ¶[0019], ¶[0028] details displaying the preferred route on the member’s device with or without the map-associated data such as a geographical map / road map / streets map, receiving vocal navigation instructions by speaker of the device, and notifying / displaying a member of the updated preferred route; see also/alternatively in further view of obviousness Krishnan ¶[0110], claim 8, claim 16 details communicating the change in the route of the non-emergency vehicle to the non-emergency vehicle, displaying the change on a display / navigating web pages on Internet-enabled mobile phone of the user, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature as taught by Krishnan in the system of Levine in view of Stolfus (in view of Krishnan), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable).
Claim 2:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Levine also teaches the following:
wherein the first information comprises traffic conditions in the environment (Krishnan ¶[0026-27] details receiving an emergency event and information that requires an emergency vehicle to respond to a destination or location, the event is for the fire department, police assistance, an ambulance, or an emergency vehicle to clear a route to a hospital or other emergency facility); and
wherein the first information is associated with different types of data sources distributed in the environment (Krishnan ¶[0026] details receiving emergency event information that requires an emergency vehicle to respond to a destination or location, the event is for either the fire department, police assistance, or an ambulance (medical), and the traffic patterns or current levels of congestion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the first information comprises traffic conditions in the environment; and wherein the first information is associated with different types of data sources distributed in the environment as taught by Krishnan in the system of Levine in view of Stolfus (in view of Krishnan), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 3:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 2. Krishnan also teaches the following:
wherein the types of data sources comprise data associated with one or more of: an emergency medical system (EMS), EMS vehicles, waste-removal vehicles, municipal vehicles, public-works vehicles, vehicles associated with another municipal agency, navigation software, a mass transit system, mass-transit vehicles, trains, buses, rideshare software, rideshare vehicles, calendar software that planned or plans a future schedule of one or more individuals or organizations, parking meters, or parking lots (Krishnan ¶[0026-27] details receiving requests for the fire department, police assistance, ambulance, or requests from an emergency vehicle to clear a route to a hospital, and metadata including the location of the emergency vehicles and traffic patterns / levels of congestion, i.e. data associated with municipal services, EMS vehicles / municipal vehicles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the types of data sources comprise data associated with one or more of: an emergency medical system (EMS), EMS vehicles, waste-removal vehicles, municipal vehicles, public-works vehicles, vehicles associated with another municipal agency, navigation software, a mass transit system, mass-transit vehicles, trains, buses, rideshare software, rideshare vehicles, calendar software that planned or plans a future schedule of one or more individuals or organizations, parking meters, or parking lots as taught by Krishnan in the system of Levine in view of Stolfus (in view of Krishnan), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 4:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Levine also teaches the following:
wherein the second information comprises a location of the electronic device (Levine ¶[0023], ¶[0027], claim 36 details obtaining a beginning point which may be the current location of the user member, and reporting the location from the navigation software installed on the member’s navigation device).
Claim 5:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Levine also teaches the following:
wherein the operations comprise identifying an event in at least a portion of the environment based at least in part on the first information, the second information, or both (Levine ¶[0020-21] details identifying an event based on receiving notifications and/or alerts on traffic events reported by members observed in the area, e.g. traffic light is out of order at a junction, blocked lane at a location, accidents, special events; and identifying a traffic jam zone based on the average velocity observed of the members located in the jam zone or proceeding jam zone; see also/alternatively in further view of obviousness Krishnan ¶[0026-27] details identifying an emergency event based on the public safety answering point (PSAP) system and information regarding a request of the fire department, police assistance, ambulance, or request from an emergency vehicle to clear a route to a hospital, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature as taught by Krishnan in the system of Levine in view of Stolfus (in view of Krishnan), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable).
Claim 6:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 5. Levine also teaches the following:
wherein the operations comprise performing a remedial action based at least in part on the identified event (Levine ¶[0020-21], ¶[0028], ¶[0032] details displaying a message on the personal navigation device of a member based on the relevance of the reported traffic notification, and also updating a member’s route displayed on the map display based on a change in the road and/or traffic conditions received from traffic information and members of the service).
Claim 7:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 6. Levine also teaches the following:
wherein the remedial action comprises:
dynamically recomputing the route based at least in part on the identified event (Levine ¶[0018], ¶[0028], ¶[0032] details dynamically updating the preferred route based on receiving a traffic information update (e.g. traffic jams, accidents, blocked lanes), or upon a significant change in the road and/or traffic conditions); or providing an alert about the event (Levine ¶[0029], ¶[0033] details receiving messages and/or alerts communicated by the RTS and/or members of the service that are displayed on the display or notified vocally by a speaker).
Claim 8:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 5. Stolfus also teaches the following:
wherein the identifying of the event is based at least in part on historical traffic conditions in the environment (Stolfus ¶[0114], ¶[0118] details collecting traffic condition information, and then then determining the severity of a traffic condition based comparing the information to predetermined baseline thresholds set in memory established from collected traffic condition information that was used to establish the baseline (i.e. historical traffic conditions), and identifying a reduction in traffic speeds from a first low-severity time to a now determined medium to high traffic condition severity; also Fig 7, ¶[0084] details measuring the average speed of entities drops from 56 mps (i.e. the historical condition) to 47 mps which indicates an impending / future / or existing traffic condition).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the identifying of the event is based at least in part on historical traffic conditions in the environment as taught by Stolfus with the teachings of Levine (in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan), with the motivation “to determine traffic conditions along a traffic path”, to solve the problem that “there is no intelligent management of traffic”, and to “provide a benefit to the entire system and the entities therein” (Stolfus Abstract, ¶[0003], ¶[0005]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the identifying of the event is based at least in part on historical traffic conditions in the environment as taught by Stolfus in the system of Levine (in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 9:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 5. Stolfus also teaches the following:
wherein the identifying of the event comprises predicting a change in a traffic condition in the environment in a subsequent time interval (Stolfus ¶[0026], ¶[0118] details using the collected information regarding the traffic conditions and change in severity to accurately predict future traffic conditions, e.g. a 9 mph drop may indicate an impending, future, or existing traffic condition).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the identifying of the event comprises predicting a change in a traffic condition in the environment in a subsequent time interval as taught by Stolfus with the teachings of Levine (in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan), with the motivation “to determine traffic conditions along a traffic path”, to solve the problem that “there is no intelligent management of traffic” and to “provide a benefit to the entire system and the entities therein” (Stolfus Abstract, ¶[0003], ¶[0005]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the identifying of the event comprises predicting a change in a traffic condition in the environment in a subsequent time interval as taught by Stolfus in the system of Levine (in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 10:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 5. Stolfus also teaches the following:
wherein the identifying of the event comprises determining a change in the traffic conditions after the change has occurred (Stolfus ¶[0026], ¶[0118] details using a decrease in travel speed from T1 to T2 by the traffic management module to predict a slowing of traffic, disruption, or a traffic incident in the area associated with one or more of T1 and T2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the identifying of the event comprises determining a change in the traffic conditions after the change has occurred as taught by Stolfus with the teachings of Levine (in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan), with the motivation “to determine traffic conditions along a traffic path”, to solve the problem that “there is no intelligent management of traffic” and to “provide a benefit to the entire system and the entities therein” (Stolfus Abstract, ¶[0003], ¶[0005]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the identifying of the event comprises determining a change in the traffic conditions after the change has occurred as taught by Stolfus in the system of Levine (in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 13:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 5. Stolfus also teaches the following:
wherein the event is other than a traffic event and impacts the traffic conditions (Stolfus ¶[0028] details a football game ending as an event, and the traffic management module recognizes routes that will be used by entities leaving the football game).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the event is other than a traffic event and impacts the traffic conditions as taught by Stolfus with the teachings of Levine (in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan), with the motivation “to determine traffic conditions along a traffic path”, to solve the problem that “there is no intelligent management of traffic” and to “provide a benefit to the entire system and the entities therein” (Stolfus Abstract, ¶[0003], ¶[0005]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the event is other than a traffic event and impacts the traffic conditions as taught by Stolfus in the system of Levine (in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 14:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Krishnan also teaches the following:
wherein the environment comprises at least a portion of a city or a municipality (Krishnan ¶[0021] details the environment may be any area where vehicles travel and where emergency vehicles are deployed, which may include a cityscape or streetscape).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the environment comprises at least a portion of a city or a municipality as taught by Krishnan in the system of Levine in view of Stolfus (in view of Krishnan), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 15:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Levine also teaches the following:
wherein at least some of the first information comprises real-time information that is received as it is acquired by a given type of source (Levine ¶[0025], ¶[0027], ¶[0032] details obtaining real-time information from the personal navigation devices (e.g. location, velocity / speed); and receiving traffic information updates from members in real time; see also/alternatively in further view of obviousness Krishnan ¶[0126] details real-time emergencies are identified for driversfirst , and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature as taught by Krishnan in the system of Levine in view of Stolfus (in view of Krishnan), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable).
Claim 16:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Levine also teaches the following:
wherein receiving the first information comprises:
accessing the first information in memory associated with the computer system; or
receiving the first information from the different types of sources (Krishnan ¶[0026-27] details receiving requests for the fire department, police assistance, ambulance, or requests from an emergency vehicle to clear a route to a hospital, and metadata including the location of the emergency vehicles and traffic patterns / levels of congestion, i.e. municipal services, EMS vehicles / municipal vehicles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include receiving the first information from the different types of sources as taught by Krishnan in the system of Levine in view of Stolfus (in view of Krishnan), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Alternatively, and in further support of obviousness, Stolfus also teaches the following:
wherein receiving the first information comprises:
accessing the first information in memory associated with the computer system (Stolfus ¶[0061-63], ¶[0098], ¶[0101] details storing the received / reported traffic information in memory, and accessing the reported data; also ¶[0014] details accessing the memory that includes the collected information); or
receiving the first information from the different types of sources (Stolfus ¶[0061-62] details receiving traffic information from traffic control devices, cameras, and other devices including GPS locators that provide information about one or more entities along a traffic path).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein receiving the information comprises: accessing the information in memory associated with the computer system; or receiving the information from the different types of sources as taught by Stolfus with the teachings of Levine (in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan), with the motivation “to determine traffic conditions along a traffic path”, to solve the problem that “there is no intelligent management of traffic” and to “provide a benefit to the entire system and the entities therein” (Stolfus Abstract, ¶[0003], ¶[0005]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein receiving the information comprises: accessing the information in memory associated with the computer system; or receiving the information from the different types of sources as taught by Stolfus in the system of Levine (in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 17:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Levine also teaches the following:
wherein the computed route is based at least in part on transit times of multiple vehicles that are proximate to the vehicle in the environment (Levine ¶[0013], ¶[0020], ¶[0032], ¶[0035], claim 37 details identifying the location of the first member device (which may be a car PC) traveling to a destination, creating a group of members based on members that are also traveling in the same direction of the member device destination along the possible routes between the current location of the member and the destination (i.e. proximate), obtaining the location and speed of the members for traffic information (e.g. identifying a traffic jam zone based on the average velocity of members located in the jam zone or proceeding jam zone), and then determining a preferred route to reach the destination according to the location data and/or traffic information received from the group members and inferred based on the information received from the group members).
Claim 18:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Levine also teaches the following:
wherein the computed route: minimizes transit times of the vehicle and the vehicles to destinations (Levine Abstract, ¶[0018] details calculating and advising the users of preferred roads to take in order to arrive at the requested location with minimum delay, and members defining characteristics of the preferred route, e.g. fastest route); or
minimize transit times of second vehicles having a higher priority than the vehicle in the environment.
Alternatively, and in further support of obviousness, Stolfus also teaches the following:
wherein the computed route: minimizes transit times of the vehicle and the vehicles to destinations (Stolfus ¶[0031], ¶[0103] details identifying at least one alternate route for one or more entities, shifting subsequent traffic path to path and as a path approaches congestion then shifting traffic to another adjacent path to determine optimal operational conditions for an entire system of paths, minimizing and/or eliminating the combination of traffic along the alternate routes; and generating a preferred alternative route that decreases the travel time and/or the travel distance when compared to other alternative routes); or
minimize transit times of second vehicles having a higher priority than the vehicle in the environment (Stolfus ¶[0018] details a subscription tier in which third tier users are given cost/time savings routes over other users, and alerts are made to third tier users before alerts are made to other lower tiered users).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the computed route: minimizes transit times of the vehicle and the vehicles to the destinations; or minimize transit times of second vehicles having a higher priority than the vehicle in the environment as taught by Stolfus with the teachings of Levine (in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan), with the motivation “to determine traffic conditions along a traffic path”, to solve the problem that “there is no intelligent management of traffic” and to “provide a benefit to the entire system and the entities therein” (Stolfus Abstract, ¶[0003], ¶[0005]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the computed route: minimizes transit times of the vehicle and the vehicles to the destinations; or minimize transit times of second vehicles having a higher priority than the vehicle in the environment as taught by Stolfus in the system of Levine (in view of Stolfus), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 19:
With respect to the following:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for use in conjunction with a computer system, the computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions, wherein, when executed by the computer system, the program instructions cause the computer system to perform operations comprising:
Levine, as shown in Fig 2, ¶[0025], claim 36 details a server-based computer system performing operations, but does not explicitly state a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for use in conjunction with a computer system, the computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions, wherein, when executed by the computer system, the program instructions cause the computer system to perform operations. However, Stolfus teaches this feature (Stolfus ¶[0005], ¶[0097], ¶[0107] details computer executable instructions executed by a computer system encoded / stored on a computer readable medium for traffic routing / traffic condition management).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for use in conjunction with a computer system, the computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions, wherein, when executed by the computer system, the program instructions cause the computer system to perform operations as taught by Stolfus with the teachings of Levine, with the motivation “to determine traffic conditions along a traffic path”, and to provide “dynamic traffic route alternatives… to one or more entities based on determined traffic conditions” (Stolfus Abstract, ¶[0005]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for use in conjunction with a computer system, the computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions, wherein, when executed by the computer system, the program instructions cause the computer system to perform operations as taught by Stolfus in the system of Levine, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Levine (in view of Stolfus) also teaches the following:
receiving first information from a traffic-management system of an environment (Levine ¶[0017-18], claim 36 details the RTS receiving from other members of the service other traffic data in addition to their location data including alerts/notifications on traffic jams, long periods of red traffic lights, accidents, blocked lanes, or any other information that may be of assistance for a traveler) and second information from at least an instance of traffic-mapping software associated with an electronic device of a user (Levine ¶[0019], ¶[0023], ¶[0025], claim 36 details the RTS obtaining the current location and speed data of the registered member / navigation device automatically using the software installed on the device upon registration as a member of the traffic mapping service),
Levine does not explicitly state but Krishnan teaches the following:
wherein the traffic-management system manages navigation of vehicles associated with a municipality (Krishnan Fig 1, Fig 9, ¶[0002], ¶[0017], ¶[0098-99], claim 9 details public safety access points (PSAPs) determine the best emergency vehicle to respond to an event and provide the best route for that emergency vehicle, in a cityscape in which the emergency vehicle may travel; and the PSAPs provide the emergency vehicle position and route information to the map server, i.e. first information from the traffic-management system),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the traffic-management system manages navigation of vehicles associated with a municipality as taught by Krishnan with the teachings of Levine in view of Stolfus, with the motivation for “managing traffic that may interfere with the travel of emergency vehicles” (Krishnan ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the traffic-management system manages navigation of vehicles associated with a municipality as taught by Krishnan in the system of Levine in view of Stolfus, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Levine (in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan) also teaches the following:
the instance of the traffic mapping software manages navigation of a vehicle associated with the user and conveying the electronic device (Levine ¶[0014], ¶[0017], ¶[0022] details each member may have a navigation device in communication with the RTS that transmits his/her location, receives traffic map information, and requests / advises on a route from a starting point to destination; see also/alternatively in further view of obviousness Krishnan Fig 5, ¶[0019], ¶[0042], ¶[0052-54], ¶[0110], ¶[0136], claim 8 details a navigation subsystem with user interaction hardware and/or software to provide information to the user regarding routes and maps, and locating the user’s vehicle using GPS and the road database and giving directions using an Internet-enabled mobile telephone displaying navigating web pages, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature as taught by Krishnan in the system of Levine in view of Stolfus (in view of Krishnan), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable), and
Krishnan (of Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan) also teaches the following:
the vehicle is not associated with the municipality (Krishnan title, ¶[0019-20] details the mapping service notifies and re-routes users in vehicles that are non-emergency operation vehicles (e.g. not police, fire fighters, ambulances), i.e. not associated with the municipality);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the vehicle is not associated with the municipality as taught by Krishnan with the teachings of Levine in view of Stolfus (in view of Krishnan), with the motivation for “managing traffic that may interfere with the travel of emergency vehicles” (Krishnan ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the vehicle is not associated with the municipality as taught by Krishnan in the system of Levine in view of Stolfus (in view of Krishnan), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Levine (in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan, applying the first information includes municipality emergency vehicle information, per Krishnan above) also teaches the following:
computing a route, for at least the vehicle, from a current location associated with the electronic device to a destination based at least in part on the first information and the second information (Levine Fig 5, ¶[0011-12], ¶[0018-19], ¶[0032] details calculating preferred routes based on real time data including transmitted location data of the current member and other members, traffic conditions obtained including alerts (i.e. first information including emergency vehicle position and routes, per Krishnan) / traffic information / accidents / messages from members, and destinations/origins (second information); and calculating / recalculating the member preferred route to reach a destination upon their request or a change in traffic conditions / circumstances, i.e. receiving first information / emergency vehicle location and route information per Krishnan above; see also/alternatively in further view of obviousness Krishnan Fig 9, ¶[0098-101] claim 8 details obtaining the location and route of an emergency vehicle (first information), and the location and route of the vehicle with a maps database (second information), and then changing the route of the vehicle to avoid the emergency vehicle, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature as taught by Krishnan in the system of Levine in view of Stolfus (in view of Krishnan), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable); and
providing one or more instructions addressed to the electronic device, wherein the one or more instructions specify the computed route (Levine Fig 5, ¶[0019], ¶[0028] details displaying the preferred route on the member’s device with or without the map-associated data such as a geographical map / road map / streets map, receiving vocal navigation instructions by speaker of the device, and notifying / displaying a member of the updated preferred route; see also/alternatively in further view of obviousness Krishnan ¶[0110], claim 8, claim 16 details communicating the change in the route of the non-emergency vehicle to the non-emergency vehicle, displaying the change on a display / navigating web pages on Internet-enabled mobile phone of the user, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature as taught by Krishnan in the system of Levine in view of Stolfus (in view of Krishnan), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable).
Claim 20:
Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 19 and therefore claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 19.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2014/0249735 A1 to Levine et al. in view of US patent application publication 2015/0319093 A1 to Stolfus in view of US patent application publication 2017/0276495 A1 to Krishnan et al., as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2022/0048432 A1 to Switalski et al.
Claim 11:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 5. Levine does not explicitly state but Switalski teaches the following:
wherein the identifying of the event comprises comparing the traffic conditions to predefined signatures of different types of events (Switalski ¶[0029-30] details an event indication model that detects the occurrence of an event by carrying out pattern recognition by matching sensor data values to the pattern of predetermined data values of the event indication model, with a plurality of event indication models where each indication model is associated with a separate predetermined event).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the identifying of the event comprises comparing the traffic conditions to predefined signatures of different types of events as taught by Switalski with the teachings of Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan, with the motivation “to determine the cause of traffic accidents or other vehicle-related events” and “to obtain a better understand of the driving incident” (Switalski ¶[0003], ¶[0104]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the identifying of the event comprises comparing the traffic conditions to predefined signatures of different types of events as taught by Switalski in the system of Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2014/0249735 A1 to Levine et al. in view of US patent application publication 2015/0319093 A1 to Stolfus in view of US patent application publication 2017/0276495 A1 to Krishnan et al., as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2020/0244653 to Eichelberger.
Claim 11:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 5. Levine does not explicitly state but Eichelberger teaches the following:
wherein the identifying of the event comprises comparing the traffic conditions to predefined signatures of different types of events (Eichelberger ¶[0032] details monitoring traffic patterns and comparing the traffic patterns against a plurality of known traffic pattern signatures and then providing a score of 0 to 1 for each recognized traffic pattern signature correlation to determine a match).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the identifying of the event comprises comparing the traffic conditions to predefined signatures of different types of events as taught by Eichelberger with the teachings of Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan, with the motivation to determine an event “such that false negatives may be safely detected and discarded” (Eichelberger ¶[0032]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the identifying of the event comprises comparing the traffic conditions to predefined signatures of different types of events as taught by Eichelberger in the system of Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2014/0249735 A1 to Levine et al. in view of US patent application publication 2015/0319093 A1 to Stolfus in view of US patent application publication 2017/0276495 A1 to Krishnan et al., as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2017/0270413 A1 to Moreira-Matias et al.
Claim 12:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 5. Levine does not explicitly state but Moreira-Matias teaches the following:
wherein the identifying of the event uses a pretrained predictive model (Moreira-Matias ¶[0031-32], ¶[0034], ¶[0067-70], ¶[0080] details a congestion event classifier and model to predict an incident event and it’s cause based on the collected data, and the congestion classifier is trained using a decision tree-like induction model from collected input data (e.g. road traffic incident logs, weather forecasts and logs), and further re-trained).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the identifying of the event uses a pretrained predictive model as taught by Moreira-Matias with the teachings of Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan, with the motivation “to predict the occurrence and nature of traffic congestion on a short-term horizon… making relatively accurate predictions as to the nature (e.g. long or short period of congestion) and the cause thereof” (Moreira-Matias ¶[0015]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the identifying of the event uses a pretrained predictive model as taught by Moreira-Matias in the system of Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Krishnan, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US patent application publication 2019/0039613 A1 to Lee et al. details an apparatus and method for changing route of vehicle based on emergency vehicle.
EMS1 “First responders use Waze app to alert drivers of emergency vehicles” <https://www.ems1.com/communications-dispatch/articles/first-responders-use-waze-app-to-alert-drivers-of-emergency-vehicles-5PTB0sxi226O0uFy/> (<https://web.archive.org/web/20210422100517/https://www.ems1.com/communications-dispatch/articles/first-responders-use-waze-app-to-alert-drivers-of-emergency-vehicles-5PTB0sxi226O0uFy/> captured using Wayback Machine on 2 July 2018).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
BRIAN TALLMAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/BRIAN A TALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628