DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Provisional Application No. 63/544,962, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Claims 1-20 are not supported in the provisional application. The provisional application figures are completely devoid of any method. Further, the instantly claimed method and configured processor require control of a traffic light. The provisional application does not support control of any traffic light(s) in any of the claims, specification, or figures. The provisional is merely directed towards outputting control of a vehicle. Although inputs are derived from traffic signals, there is no supported output control of traffic lights in the provisional. Further, note the provisional title "Mobile App for Energy-Efficient Vehicle Speed Advisory through Real-Time Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) Communication."
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-5,13-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3,13 recites the limitation "the predictive bilinear" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examining, claim 3 will be taken to depend from claim 2. Claims 4-5,14-15 rejected due to dependency from rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,6-10,11,16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Mitra et al US 2021/0201669.
In Re 1,6-10 Mitra teaches:
1. A method for controlling traffic flow on road (title abstract), comprising the steps of:
obtaining, by a processor (para 7 fig 2 109), traffic related information comprising a total number of vehicles (para 24 “report number of vehicles 103”) that caused an activation of a sensor (105 fig 1) of a first detector located at a first intersection of a plurality of intersections (intersection points 107)(301 fig 3);
generating, by the processor, a predicted traffic volume at one or more downstream second intersections based on the traffic related information (para 30 predict each of the plurality of vehicles)(303);
generating, by the processor, a traffic light timing (para 31 “determine an optimal signal time”) for at least two next cycles (paras 44-66, especially paras 63-64, teach multiple segment and iterations of control) based on the predicted traffic volume (305); and
controlling, by the processor, a traffic light of the one or more downstream second intersections in accordance with the traffic light timing (307) to reduce a probability or likelihood (it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987)) that the vehicle will stop at a red light thereat (para 39 “do not form congestion)(at least all figs and paras).
6. The method according to claim 1, further comprising communicating, from the processor to the vehicle, the traffic light timing (figs 1-4, traffic light timing is an output, also note communication network 409, paras 79-80).
7. The method according to claim 6, further comprising controlling a travel speed (optimal speed 307) of the vehicle based on the traffic light timing to further reduce a probability or likelihood (it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987)) that the vehicle will stop at a red light thereat (para 39 “do not form congestion).
8. The method according to claim 7, wherein the controlling the travel speed of the vehicle comprises: predicting a queue length (paras 64-65 stopped vehicles, first last cars table A) defined by a number of vehicles in a queue at the second intersection or a third intersection based on a traffic volume (number of vehicles) and vehicle speeds (table A car speed) that were detected during a past period (historic traffic data 211, table 1 is temporally based) of time by the first detector; obtaining a current location (data is relative to vehicles current location) of the vehicle; computing a distance (distance fig 1) to the second or third intersection from the vehicle’s current location; generating a desired speed (optimal speed) for the vehicle based on (i) the traffic volume and vehicle speeds, (ii) the traffic light timing for at least a next two cycles, (iii) the predicted queue length at the second or third intersection, (iv) the current location of the vehicle, (v) the computed distance to the second intersection, and (vi) a current time (inherently disclosed); and using the desired speed to generate the command for changing a travel speed of the vehicle (307).
9. The method according to claim 8, wherein the travel speed of the vehicle is controlled based on the desired speed (307).
10. The method according to claim 1, wherein said generating the desired speed is further based on a speed limit (para 19 “speed limit”) associated with at least one road along which the vehicle is to travel to reach the second or third intersection.
In Re 11,16-20, the computer readable medium (CRM) of claims 12-15 rejected over in re 2-5 as described above.
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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 2-5,12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra et al US 2021/0201669 in view of Fyffe US 2012/0056994.
In Re 2, Mitra further teaches
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the generating the traffic light timing comprises performing one or more iterations of the following operations:
using a current traffic volumes (data 207 including traffic data 213 number of vehicles para 38) at the plurality of intersections as a first input of a predictive control algorithm (predictive function algorithm paras 48-58, eqs 1-4);
using a signal timing (para 38 “signal wait/open time”) at the plurality of intersections as a second input of the predictive bilinear control algorithm;
using a combination of the first and second input as a third input to the predictive control algorithm (paras 37-38, data 217 comprises combination of multiple data sets 211,213,113,115,215); and
solving the predictive control algorithm to obtain the traffic light timing (paras 50-59 especially equation 4);
wherein the predictive control algorithm implements an objective function (“object” para 68) to maximize a traffic volume during a next cycle of the traffic lights, timing constraints for the traffic light timing, traffic light timing problem.
Mitra does not teach although Fyffe teaches bilinear control (para 30), and sequential least square regression to solve an optimization (para 30). Fyffe further teaches use of normalization parallel para 30. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to modify Mitra’s control with Fyffe’s bilinear control in order to make use of normalization parallel.
In Re 3, Mitra in view of Fyffe further teaches
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first, second and third inputs are assigned weights by the predictive bilinear control algorithm (weights are inherent to control using these algorithms, e.g. Mitra “B” eqs 1-2, F_PredictICP or DSP eqs 3-4 ).
4. The method according to claim 3, wherein a different weight is assigned to each of the first, second and third inputs (inherent and or obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of inventive filing).
5. The method according to claim 3, wherein the weights are dynamically updated based on an output of the predictive bilinear control algorithm during a previous iteration(inherent and or obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of inventive filing).
In Re 12-15, the CRM of claims 12-15 rejected over in re 2-5 as described above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL C STAUBACH whose telephone number is (571)272-3748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/CARL C STAUBACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747