DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response and amendments filed on 29 June 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, 3, 8, 11-12, 18-20 are currently amended.
Claims 2, 4-7, 9-10, 13-17 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objection of the drawings, the Applicant has successfully amended the drawings, and accordingly the objection is rescinded.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1, 3, 11, 12, 17, 19, and 20, the Applicant has successfully amended the claims, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.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112(b) rejection of claims 19-20, the Applicant has successfully amended the claims, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.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 “Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The Applicant disagrees and traverses” (Remarks pg. 8). Examiner disagrees. The claims 1-20 are directed to a judicial exception (certain methods of organizing human activities representing the sub-categories of mitigating risks, managing personal behavior and interactions between people, following rules or instructions), applied using generic computers / general computer components (processor, interface circuit, computer system, non-transitory computer readable medium, and electronic device); and adding high-level extra-solution and/or post-solution activities (transmitting data, data gathering) implemented by computers / computer components which is not significantly more. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible because “Examiner argues that the claims recite operations previously undertaken by humans (such as managing interactions between people) or that could be undertaken by humans. However, the claims recited communication between an electronic device and a computer system, and calculations performed by the computer system. Humans do not perform such operations, and no interactions between people are recited. Thus, the Examiner has not provided any evidence to substantiate these assertions” (Remarks pg. 8). Examiner disagrees. First, in Step 2A Prong One, it is identified which claim limitations recite the judicial exception and fall within at least one of the subgroupings of certain methods of organizing human activities. For example, mitigating risks includes computing a route… minimizes a transit time of a second vehicle associated with the municipality…, perform[ing] computation without the second information; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes computing a route… minimizes a transit time of a second vehicle associated with the municipality…, perform[ing] computation without the second information, providing one or more instructions…; teaching includes providing one or more instructions…; and following rules or instructions includes computing a route… minimizes a transit time of a second vehicle associated with the municipality…, perform[ing] computation without the second information, providing one or more instructions. Second, other than reciting generic / general purpose computers and computer components, each of these activities are recited at such a high level of detail that they align with the subcategories and the Step 2A Prong One activities could be performed by a person or people (e.g. a person computing a route… minimizes a transit time of a second vehicle associated with the municipality…, a person perform[s] computation without the second information, a person providing one or more instructions to another person…). The recitation of computer components to implement the claims does not preclude the claim 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. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible because “the independent claims include the claim elements that the computed route minimizes a transit time of a second vehicle having a higher priority than the vehicle in the environment, and the second vehicle is associated with a municipality, and wherein the computation has improved reliability than when performed without the second information. By improving reliability, the recited invention eliminates the need for additional computations (such as repeating the computation of the route). In these ways, the recited invention reduces use of computer-system resources (such as reduced use of processor cycles, memory, and/or network bandwidth) and, thus, improves the function of the computer system. These improvements in the function of the computer system are not a business or organization of human activities. Instead, the improvements in the function of the computer system are a technical solution (expanding the types of information used when computing routes) to the technical problem of increasing the reliability of computed routes for non-municipal and municipal vehicles” (Remarks pg. 8-9). Examiner disagrees. First, these newly amended limitations of wherein the computed route minimizes a transit time of a second vehicle having a higher priority than the vehicle in the environment, and the second vehicle is associated with the municipality, and wherein the computation has improved reliability than when performed without the second information are further represent the judicial exception (certain methods of organizing human activities: managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions, mitigating risks). Second, the claimed feature of “wherein the computation has improved reliability than when performed without the second information” is not a technical improvement that is a practical application or significantly more because (1) it is a conclusory statement, (2) it has no technical metes and bounds regarding reliability, and (3) at best is only an improvement to a business / commercial process (i.e. the judicial exception) by also considering / evaluating expanded data in second information (i.e. mitigating risks). See MPEP 2106.05(a) citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (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”. Third, 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. Fourth, the Applicant specification does not discuss the argued reduced use of computer-system resources (such as reduced repeating computation of the route, reduced use of processor cycles, memory, and/or network bandwidth) 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). 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 (subcategories of mitigating risks, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, teaching, following rules or instructions) on computers which are claimed at such a high level of detail they could otherwise performed by a person or people (i.e. a person computing a route… minimizes a transit time of a second vehicle associated with the municipality…, a person perform[ing] computation without the second information, a person providing one or more instructions to another person…); (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 “Regarding 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. Moreover, the Applicant notes that the use of a generic computer system performing conventional computer operations do not doom the claims” (Remarks pg. 9). 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. computing a route… minimizes a transit time of a second vehicle associated with the municipality…, perform[ing] computation without the second information, 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 previous 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 4-7, the Applicant has successfully amended and/or cancelled the claim, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-3, 8-20 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 Beth in view of Nayak).
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous double-patenting rejection of claims 1-20 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant “requests that this Double Patenting rejection be held in abeyance until such time as patentable subject matter is identified in the present patent application” (Remarks pg. 13). Examiner disagrees. Amended claims 1, 4-5 and 7-20 remain provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15, 17, 19-20 of copending Application No. 18/916,622 in view of US patent application publication 2021/0027621 A1 to Bseileh et al.; claims 2-3 remain provisionally rejection on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Application 18/916,622 in view of US patent application publication 2014/0249735 A1 to Levine; claim 6 remains provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/916,622 in view of US patent application publication 2021/0027621 A1 to Bseileh et al. in view of US patent application publication 2023/0222906 A1 to Shao et al. This argument is not persuasive.
Priority
The application 18/953,076 filed on 20 November 2024 claims priority from US provisional application 63/601,218 filed on 20 November 2023.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 29 June 2026 have been acknowledged by the Office.
Claim Interpretation
The term “proximate” in the claim 18 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 ¶[0139] “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.
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 computing a route, for at least a vehicle associated with the user from a current location associated with [the user] to a destination based at least in part on the first information and the second information, wherein the computed route minimizes a transit time of a second vehicle having a higher priority than the vehicle in the environment, and the second vehicle is associated with a municipality, and wherein the computation has improved reliability than when performed without 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 computing a route, for at least a vehicle associated with the user from a current location associated with [the user] to a destination based at least in part on the first information and the second information, wherein the computed route minimizes a transit time of a second vehicle having a higher priority than the vehicle in the environment, and the second vehicle is associated with the municipality, and wherein the computation has improved reliability than when performed without 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 mitigating risks, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, teaching, and following rules or instructions. For example, mitigating risks includes computing a route… minimizes a transit time of a second vehicle associated with the municipality…, perform[ing] computation without the second information; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes computing a route… minimizes a transit time of a second vehicle associated with the municipality…, perform[ing] computation without the second information, providing one or more instructions…; teaching includes providing one or more instructions…; and following rules or instructions includes computing a route… minimizes a transit time of a second vehicle associated with the municipality…, perform[ing] computation without the second information, providing one or more instructions. The presence of generic computer components such as a processor, interface circuit, 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, 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 an existing manual process. 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 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, wherein the information specifies traffic-light patterns in a time interval 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). Also, reciting the subject matter of the information as traffic light patterns at this high level of detail is no more than a general linkage to a field of use (i.e. traffic lights), which does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(h). 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, computer system, non-transitory computer readable medium, electronic device), applied to a field of use (traffic lights); 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, computer system, non-transitory computer readable medium, electronic device to perform computing a route… minimizes a transit time of a second vehicle associated with the municipality…, perform[ing] computation without the second information, 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). Reciting the subject matter of the received data as traffic light patterns at this high level of detail is no more than a general linkage to a field of use (i.e. traffic lights), which does not provide a practical application or significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(h). 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 ¶[0063], ¶[0077], ¶[0093], ¶[0132] describing the additional element of receiving information from a traffic-management system, and ¶[0183], ¶[0198], ¶[0209] describes that the information specifies the traffic-light patterns in a time interval 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 ¶[0093], ¶[0132] 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, applying the judicial exception to a field of use. 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 include traffic light patterns and also minimizes transit time of a higher-priority municipal vehicle), that is tangentially associated with technology elements (e.g. computers, traffic lights), 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. Note that the claimed feature of “wherein the computation has improved reliability than when performed without the second information” is not a technical improvement that is a practical application or significantly more because (1) it is a conclusory statement, (2) it has no technical metes and bounds regarding reliability, and (3) at best is only an improvement to a business / commercial process (i.e. the judicial exception) by also considering / evaluating data in second information (i.e. mitigating risks). 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 limitation wherein the route is based at least in part on a predefined transportation goal merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations (i.e. further limiting certain methods of organizing human activities: following rules or instructions). 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 predefined transportation goal comprises at least one of: pollution associated with the vehicle when navigating the route, energy consumption associated with the vehicle when navigating the route, travel time of the vehicle when navigating the route, battery life of a battery in the vehicle, or an idle time of the vehicle when navigating the route merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations (i.e. further limiting certain methods of organizing human activities: following rules or instructions). 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 4: The limitations wherein the operations comprise providing, addressed to the traffic-management system, second instructions based at least in part on the route; and wherein the second instructions comprise a change to at least one of the traffic-light patterns in a second time interval, and the second time interval is subsequent to the time interval are further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the traffic-management system is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a general computer. Also, reciting the subject matter of the instructions as traffic light patterns at this high level of detail is no more than a general linkage to technology / field of use (i.e. traffic lights), which does not provide a practical application or significantly more. See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0089], ¶[0109], ¶[0185] describing the additional element of instructions to a traffic management system including changes to traffic light patterns, road signage, traffic signal timing 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). 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 5: The limitation wherein a given traffic-light pattern in the traffic-light patterns comprises states of the given traffic light and associated time durations merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations (i.e. further limiting certain methods of organizing human activities: following rules or instructions). Also, reciting the subject matter of the instructions as traffic light durations at this high level of detail is no more than a general linkage to technology / field of use (i.e. traffic lights), which does not provide a practical application or significantly more. See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0089], ¶[0109], ¶[0185] describing the additional element of instructions to a traffic management system including changes to traffic light patterns, road signage, traffic signal timing 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 6: The limitation wherein the states comprise: a duration of a green light, a duration of a yellow light, and a duration of a red light merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations (i.e. further limiting certain methods of organizing human activities: following rules or instructions). Also, reciting the subject matter of the instructions as traffic light durations at this high level of detail is no more than a general linkage to technology / field of use (i.e. traffic lights), which does not provide a practical application or significantly more. See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0089], ¶[0109], ¶[0185] describing the additional element of instructions to a traffic management system including changes to traffic light patterns, road signage, traffic signal timing 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 7: The limitation wherein the given traffic-light pattern specifies when traffic is allowed to flow on particular roads in the environment merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations (i.e. further limiting certain methods of organizing human activities: following rules or instructions). Also, reciting the subject matter of the instructions as traffic light patterns at this high level of detail is no more than a general linkage to technology / field of use (i.e. traffic lights), which does not provide a practical application or significantly more. See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0089], ¶[0109], ¶[0185] describing the additional element of instructions to a traffic management system including changes to traffic light patterns, road signage, traffic signal timing 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 8: 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 9: 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 ¶[0134] 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 10: 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 ¶[0135], ¶[0144] 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 11: The limitation wherein the operations comprise identifying an event in at least a portion of the environment based at least in part on the 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 12: 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 13: 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 14: First, 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. 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. Second, the limitations of comprises predicting a change in a traffic condition in the environment in a subsequent time interval; comprises determining a change in the traffic conditions after the change has occurred; comprises comparing the traffic conditions to predefined signatures of different types of events are each further directed to certain 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, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea. Third, the limitation or 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 ¶[0098], ¶[0108], ¶[0141] describing the additional element of using a pre-trained / pretrained 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 15: 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 16: 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 17: 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 18: The limitations 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; or minimizes transit times of the vehicle and the vehicles to destinations 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 1-3, 8-20 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 2022/0156665 A1 to Beth et al. in view of US patent application publication 2024/0144812 A1 to Nayak 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),
wherein the first information specifies traffic-light patterns in a time interval (Levine ¶[0002], ¶[0018], ¶[0020] details the RTS receiving information about long periods of red traffic lights (i.e. red traffic light interval), and storing precalculated data on traffic lights including whether the traffic light is out of order and traffic light status);
computing a route, for at least a vehicle associated with the user from a current location associated with an 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] details calculating preferred routes based on real time data including transmitted location data of the current member and other members (information, second information), traffic conditions obtained including alerts / traffic information / accidents / messages from members / long red traffic lights (first information), 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),
With respect to the following:
wherein the computed route minimizes a transit time of a second vehicle having a higher priority than the vehicle in the environment, and the second vehicle is associated with the municipality, and
Levine, as shown in ¶[0011-12], ¶[0018-19] details calculating a preferred route for the user’s vehicle including the fastest route (i.e. minimizes transit time for a vehicle in the environment) and according to one or more characteristic priorities, but does not explicitly state wherein the computed route minimizes a transit time of a second vehicle having a higher priority than the vehicle in the environment, and the second vehicle is associated with the municipality. However, Beth teaches this limitation with a coordinating agent of the platform managing vehicles movement through a smart city and adjusts the route of the passenger’s car based on the entry or a higher priority vehicle such as an emergency vehicle (i.e. vehicle associated with the municipality) entering or anticipated to enter the passenger car’s route (Beth ¶[0082]).
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 a transit time of a second vehicle having a higher priority than the vehicle in the environment, and the second vehicle is associated with the municipality as taught by Beth with the teachings of Levine in view of Stolfus, with the motivation “to achieve a prioritized characteristic such as maximizing goal achievement, safety, efficiency” (Beth ¶[0083]). 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 a transit time of a second vehicle having a higher priority than the vehicle in the environment, and the second vehicle is associated with the municipality as taught by Beth 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).
With respect to the following:
wherein the computation has improved reliability than when performed without the second information; and
Levine, as shown in Fig 5, ¶[0011-12], ¶[0018-19], ¶[0032], claim 1 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 / traffic information / accidents / messages from members regarding long periods of red traffic lights (i.e. first information); and current location and destinations / origins (second information) obtained from the mobile device, ¶[0025]; but does not explicitly state that the computation has improved reliability than when performed without the second information. However, Nayak teaches this feature, with determining routes based on received traffic incident triggers which include a traffic incident trigger feed such as information about traffic incidents including images and location coordinates (i.e. first information) and location sensor data of a vehicle such as the GPS and navigation device / mobile phone (i.e. second information), and receiving data from multiple sources ensures that the data regarding the incident the caused the re-route is reliable, and then the incident will then be updated in a map database which is used to calculate routes to avoid the accident, i.e. an improved route computation reliability when performed with both first and second information (Nayak ¶[0005], ¶[0014], ¶[0067-68], ¶[0099], ¶[0122-124]).
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 computation has improved reliability than when performed without the second information as taught by Nayak with the teachings of Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Beth, with the motivation “to enable verification of the traffic incident” because “the received data of the traffic incident may be unreliable” (Nayak ¶[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 computation has improved reliability than when performed without the second information as taught by Nayak in the system of Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Beth, 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 Beth in view of Nayak) also teaches the following:
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).
Claim 2:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Beth in view of Nayak, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Levine also teaches the following:
wherein the route is based at least in part on a predefined transportation goal (Levine ¶[0018] details calculating a preferred route according to one or more characteristic priorities, e.g. the shortest route, the fastest route).
Claim 3:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Beth in view of Nayak, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 2. Levine also teaches the following:
wherein the predefined transportation goal comprises at least one of: pollution associated with the vehicle when navigating the route, energy consumption associated with the vehicle when navigating the route, travel time of the vehicle when navigating the route, battery life of a battery in the vehicle, or an idle time of the vehicle when navigating the route (Levine ¶[0018] details calculating a preferred route according to one or more characteristic priorities, e.g. the shortest route, the fastest route).
Claim 8:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Beth in view of Nayak, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Levine also teaches the following:
wherein the first information comprises traffic conditions in the environment (Levine ¶[0018] details receiving alerts / notification from members of other traffic data in addition to their location data which includes traffic jams, long periods of red lights, accidents, blocked lanes, or any other information that is of assistance for a traveler); and
wherein the information is associated with different types of data sources distributed in the environment (Levine ¶[0015-16], ¶[0018], ¶[0020-21], ¶[0027] details different types of data sources from the environment include messages from the members (data sent by choice) and data on traffic lights and traffic signs (data retrieved from storage) and member device location / speed data (data sent automatically), where the members are within a distance from the momentary location of a user (i.e. distributed in the environment)), and the environment comprises multiple intersections and roadways (Levine ¶[0016], ¶[0020-21] details road data includes traffic lights, traffic signs, junctions (i.e. roads and intersections), and the members of the group are located on roads between one member and their destination).
Claim 9:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Beth in view of Nayak, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 8. Levine 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 (Levine Fig 1, ¶[0014], ¶[0025], ¶[0027] details a type of data source includes navigation software on the member devices reporting the location and velocity / speed data to the RTS).
Claim 10:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Beth in view of Nayak, 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 11:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Beth in view of Nayak, 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 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).
Claim 12:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Beth in view of Nayak, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 11. 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 13:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Beth in view of Nayak, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 12. 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 14:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Beth in view of Nayak, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 11. 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);
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);
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);
comparing the traffic conditions to predefined signatures of different types of events; or
uses a pretrained predictive model.
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; comprises predicting a change in a traffic condition in the environment in a subsequent time interval; or 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 Beth in view of Nayak), 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; comprises predicting a change in a traffic condition in the environment in a subsequent time interval; or 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 Beth in view of Nayak), 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 15:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Beth in view of Nayak, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 11. 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 Beth in view of Nayak), 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 Beth in view of Nayak), 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 16:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Beth in view of Nayak, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Beth also teaches the following:
wherein the environment comprises at least a portion of a city or a municipality (Beth ¶[0082] details the environment may be a smart city).
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 Beth in the system of Levine in view of Stolfus (in view of Beth in view of Nayak), 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 17:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Beth in view of Nayak, 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).
Claim 18:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Beth in view of Nayak, 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); or
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; alternatively, and in further support of obviousness Stolfus also teaches this feature 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 (Stolfus ¶[0031], ¶[0103]), 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, 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]); or
Claim 19:
Claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and therefore claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 1.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and therefore claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 1.
Novelty / Non-Obviousness
Claims 4-7 are not rejected under 35 USC 102 or 35 USC 103. The Examiner knows of no art which teaches or suggests the features as recited in claim 4 (including all claimed features in the claims which claim 4 is dependent on); and the features as recited in claim 5 (including all claimed features in the claims which claim 5 is dependent on). The following reference(s) teach the additional individual features in the limitations of claims 4 and 5, however the Examiner has determined it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine these references in combination with the previously applied references (e.g. claim 1: Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Beth in view of Nayak) to render claims 4 and 5 (and its dependent claims 6-7) obvious.
Claim 4:
A computer system, comprising:
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:
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 an electronic device of a user, wherein the first information specifies traffic-light patterns in a time interval;
computing a route, for at least a vehicle associated with the user 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, wherein the computed route minimizes a transit time of a second vehicle having a higher priority than the vehicle in the environment, and the second vehicle is associated with the municipality, and wherein the computation has improved reliability than when performed without the second information; and
providing one or more instructions addressed to the electronic device, wherein the one or more instructions specify the computed route;
wherein the operations comprise providing, addressed to the traffic-management system, second instructions based at least in part on the route; and
wherein the second instructions comprise a change to at least one of the traffic-light patterns in a second time interval, and the second time interval is subsequent to the time interval.
The prior art of to Bseileh et al. (US 2021/0027621 A1) details the emergency vehicle communicating with a roadside unit requesting to override the infrastructure (traffic light) normal operation mode, the roadside units receiving the intended route of the emergency vehicle and communicating changes by the infrastructure traffic lights; and changing the traffic light from a normal operation mode / standard time schedule (i.e. first time interval) to a changed operation mode when the emergency vehicle is around a predetermined distance (e.g. 200 feet away) until the vehicle traveled outside the predetermined distance (i.e. second time interval), afterwards then the traffic light returns to the normal operation mode / standard time schedule (Bseileh Fig 10, ¶[0032], ¶[0048], ¶[0060-61]).
Claim 5:
A computer system, comprising:
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:
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 an electronic device of a user, wherein the first information specifies traffic-light patterns in a time interval;
computing a route, for at least a vehicle associated with the user 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, wherein the computed route minimizes a transit time of a second vehicle having a higher priority than the vehicle in the environment, and the second vehicle is associated with the municipality, and wherein the computation has improved reliability than when performed without the second information; and
providing one or more instructions addressed to the electronic device, wherein the one or more instructions specify the computed route;
wherein a given traffic-light pattern in the traffic-light patterns comprises states of the given traffic light and associated time durations.
The prior art of to Bseileh et al. (US 2021/0027621 A1) details obtaining signal phase and timing (SPaT) data (i.e. traffic light patterns) including stop light information that includes the status of each traffic light (e.g. red, yellow, green) (i.e. states of the given traffic light) and a countdown timer until the traffic light changes to another color (i.e. associated time durations); and traffic lights have a maximum timer in which the light does not remain green in a direction for more than one minute (Bseileh ¶[0032], ¶[0072]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15, 17, and 19-20 of copending Application No. 18/916,622 (hereinafter ‘622) in view of US patent application publication 2021/0027621 A1 to Bseileh et al.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-20:
Claim 1 is not identical to the ‘622 application, however it is an obvious modification to claim 1. Claim 1 of ‘622 does not include the limitation “wherein the information specifies traffic-light patterns in a time interval”. However, this is an obvious modification and Bseileh teaches this remaining feature (Bseileh ¶[0032]) and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would make these modifications to ‘622 with the motivation to “regulate an operation mode of an infrastructure” and where vehicles “should have priority of the road and infrastructure for critical situations where timing and speed of the emergency vehicle is important” (Bseileh ¶[0001], ¶[0059]).
Claim 4 is not identical to the ‘622 application, however it is an obvious modification to claim 1. Claim 1 of ‘622 does not include the limitations “wherein the information specifies traffic-light patterns in a time interval” and “wherein the operations comprise providing, addressed to the traffic-management system, second instructions based at least in part on the route; and wherein the second instructions comprise a change to at least one of the traffic-light patterns in a second time interval, and the second time interval is subsequent to the time interval”. However, this is an obvious modification and Bseileh teaches this remaining features (Bseileh Fig 10, ¶[0060-61], ¶[0032], ¶[0048]) and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would make these modifications to ‘622 with the motivation to “regulate an operation mode of an infrastructure” and where vehicles “should have priority of the road and infrastructure for critical situations where timing and speed of the emergency vehicle is important” (Bseileh ¶[0001], ¶[0059]).
Claim 5 is not identical to the ‘622 application, however it is an obvious modification to claim 1. Claim 1 of ‘622 does not include the limitations “wherein the information specifies traffic-light patterns in a time interval” and “wherein a given traffic-light pattern in the traffic-light patterns comprises states of the given traffic light and associated time durations”. However, this is an obvious modification and Bseileh teaches this remaining features (Bseileh ¶[0032], ¶[0072]) and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would make these modifications to ‘622 with the motivation to “regulate an operation mode of an infrastructure” and where vehicles “should have priority of the road and infrastructure for critical situations where timing and speed of the emergency vehicle is important” (Bseileh ¶[0001], ¶[0059]).
Claim 7 is not identical to the ‘622 application, however it is an obvious modification to claim 1. Claim 1 of ‘622 does not include the limitations “wherein the information specifies traffic-light patterns in a time interval” and “wherein a given traffic-light pattern in the traffic-light patterns comprises states of the given traffic light and associated time durations”, and “wherein the given traffic-light pattern specifies when traffic is allowed to flow on particular roads in the environment”. However, this is an obvious modification and Bseileh teaches this remaining features (Bseileh Fig 5A-5B, Fig 10, ¶[0020], ¶[0032], ¶0048], ¶[0061], ¶[0072]) and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would make these modifications to ‘622 with the motivation to “regulate an operation mode of an infrastructure” and where vehicles “should have priority of the road and infrastructure for critical situations where timing and speed of the emergency vehicle is important” (Bseileh ¶[0001], ¶[0059]).
Claim 8 is not identical to the ‘622 application, however it is an obvious modification to claim 2. Claim 2 of ‘622 does not include the limitation “wherein the information specifies traffic-light patterns in a time interval”. However, this is an obvious modification and Bseileh teaches this remaining feature (Bseileh ¶[0032]) and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would make these modifications to ‘622 with the motivation to “regulate an operation mode of an infrastructure” and where vehicles “should have priority of the road and infrastructure for critical situations where timing and speed of the emergency vehicle is important” (Bseileh ¶[0001], ¶[0059]).
Claim 9 is not identical to the ‘622 application, however it is an obvious modification to claim 3. Claim 3 of ‘622 does not include the limitation “wherein the information specifies traffic-light patterns in a time interval”. However, this is an obvious modification and Bseileh teaches this remaining feature (Bseileh ¶[0032]) and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would make these modifications to ‘622 with the motivation to “regulate an operation mode of an infrastructure” and where vehicles “should have priority of the road and infrastructure for critical situations where timing and speed of the emergency vehicle is important” (Bseileh ¶[0001], ¶[0059]).
Claim 10 is not identical to the ‘622 application, however it is an obvious modification to claim 4. Claim 4 of ‘622 does not include the limitation “wherein the information specifies traffic-light patterns in a time interval”. However, this is an obvious modification and Bseileh teaches this remaining feature (Bseileh ¶[0032]) and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would make these modifications to ‘622 with the motivation to “regulate an operation mode of an infrastructure” and where vehicles “should have priority of the road and infrastructure for critical situations where timing and speed of the emergency vehicle is important” (Bseileh ¶[0001], ¶[0059]).
Claim 11 is not identical to the ‘622 application, however it is an obvious modification to claim 5. Claim 5 of ‘622 does not include the limitation “wherein the information specifies traffic-light patterns in a time interval”. However, this is an obvious modification and Bseileh teaches this remaining feature (Bseileh ¶[0032]) and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would make these modifications to ‘622 with the motivation to “regulate an operation mode of an infrastructure” and where vehicles “should have priority of the road and infrastructure for critical situations where timing and speed of the emergency vehicle is important” (Bseileh ¶[0001], ¶[0059]).
Claim 12 is not identical to the ‘622 application, however it is an obvious modification to claim 6. Claim 6 of ‘622 does not include the limitation “wherein the information specifies traffic-light patterns in a time interval”. However, this is an obvious modification and Bseileh teaches this remaining feature (Bseileh ¶[0032]) and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would make these modifications to ‘622 with the motivation to “regulate an operation mode of an infrastructure” and where vehicles “should have priority of the road and infrastructure for critical situations where timing and speed of the emergency vehicle is important” (Bseileh ¶[0001], ¶[0059]).
Claim 13 is not identical to the ‘622 application, however it is an obvious modification to claim 7. Claim 7 of ‘622 does not include the limitation “wherein the information specifies traffic-light patterns in a time interval”. However, this is an obvious modification and Bseileh teaches this remaining feature (Bseileh ¶[0032]) and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would make these modifications to ‘622 with the motivation to “regulate an operation mode of an infrastructure” and where vehicles “should have priority of the road and infrastructure for critical situations where timing and speed of the emergency vehicle is important” (Bseileh ¶[0001], ¶[0059]).
Claim 14 is not identical to the ‘622 application, however it is an obvious modification to claims 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. Claims 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of ‘622 does not include the limitation “wherein the information specifies traffic-light patterns in a time interval”. However, this is an obvious modification and Bseileh teaches this remaining feature (Bseileh ¶[0032]) and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would make these modifications to ‘622 with the motivation to “regulate an operation mode of an infrastructure” and where vehicles “should have priority of the road and infrastructure for critical situations where timing and speed of the emergency vehicle is important” (Bseileh ¶[0001], ¶[0059]).
Claim 15 is not identical to the ‘622 application, however it is an obvious modification to claim 13. Claim 13 of ‘622 does not include the limitation “wherein the information specifies traffic-light patterns in a time interval”. However, this is an obvious modification and Bseileh teaches this remaining feature (Bseileh ¶[0032]) and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would make these modifications to ‘622 with the motivation to “regulate an operation mode of an infrastructure” and where vehicles “should have priority of the road and infrastructure for critical situations where timing and speed of the emergency vehicle is important” (Bseileh ¶[0001], ¶[0059]).
Claim 16 is not identical to the ‘622 application, however it is an obvious modification to claim 14. Claim 14 of ‘622 does not include the limitation “wherein the information specifies traffic-light patterns in a time interval”. However, this is an obvious modification and Bseileh teaches this remaining feature (Bseileh ¶[0032]) and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would make these modifications to ‘622 with the motivation to “regulate an operation mode of an infrastructure” and where vehicles “should have priority of the road and infrastructure for critical situations where timing and speed of the emergency vehicle is important” (Bseileh ¶[0001], ¶[0059]).
Claim 17 is not identical to the ‘622 application, however it is an obvious modification to claim 15. Claim 15 of ‘622 does not include the limitation “wherein the information specifies traffic-light patterns in a time interval”. However, this is an obvious modification and Bseileh teaches this remaining feature (Bseileh ¶[0032]) and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would make these modifications to ‘622 with the motivation to “regulate an operation mode of an infrastructure” and where vehicles “should have priority of the road and infrastructure for critical situations where timing and speed of the emergency vehicle is important” (Bseileh ¶[0001], ¶[0059]).
Claim 18 is not identical to the ‘622 application, however it is an obvious modification to claim 17. Claim 17 of ‘622 does not include the limitation “wherein the information specifies traffic-light patterns in a time interval”. However, this is an obvious modification and Bseileh teaches this remaining feature (Bseileh ¶[0032]) and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would make these modifications to ‘622 with the motivation to “regulate an operation mode of an infrastructure” and where vehicles “should have priority of the road and infrastructure for critical situations where timing and speed of the emergency vehicle is important” (Bseileh ¶[0001], ¶[0059]).
Claim 19 is not identical to the ‘622 application, however it is an obvious modification to claim 19. Claim 19 of ‘622 does not include the limitation “wherein the information specifies traffic-light patterns in a time interval”. However, this is an obvious modification and Bseileh teaches this remaining feature (Bseileh ¶[0032]) and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would make these modifications to ‘622 with the motivation to “regulate an operation mode of an infrastructure” and where vehicles “should have priority of the road and infrastructure for critical situations where timing and speed of the emergency vehicle is important” (Bseileh ¶[0001], ¶[0059]).
Claim 20 is not identical to the ‘622 application, however it is an obvious modification to claim 20. Claim 20 of ‘622 does not include the limitation “wherein the information specifies traffic-light patterns in a time interval”. However, this is an obvious modification and Bseileh teaches this remaining feature (Bseileh ¶[0032]) and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would make these modifications to ‘622 with the motivation to “regulate an operation mode of an infrastructure” and where vehicles “should have priority of the road and infrastructure for critical situations where timing and speed of the emergency vehicle is important” (Bseileh ¶[0001], ¶[0059]).
Claims 2-3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/916,622 (hereinafter ‘622) in view of US patent application publication 2014/0249735 A1 to Levine et al.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 2-3:
Claim 2 is not identical to the ‘622 application, however it is an obvious modification to claim 1. Claim 1 of ‘622 does not include the limitation “wherein the route is based at least in part on a predefined transportation goal”. However, this is an obvious modification and Levine teaches this remaining feature (Levine ¶[0018]) and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would make these modifications to ‘622 with the motivation to “calculate preferred routes based on real time data on traffic conditions” (Levine ¶[0011]).
Claim 3 is not identical to the ‘622 application, however it is an obvious modification to claim 1. Claim 1 of ‘622 does not include the limitations “wherein the route is based at least in part on a predefined transportation goal” and “wherein the predefined transportation goal comprises: pollution associated with the vehicle when navigating the route, energy consumption associated with the vehicle when navigating the route, travel time of the vehicle when navigating the route, battery life of a battery in the vehicle, and/or an idle time of the vehicle when navigating the route”. However, this is an obvious modification and Levine teaches these remaining features (Levine ¶[0018]) and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would make these modifications to ‘622 with the motivation to “calculate preferred routes based on real time data on traffic conditions” (Levine ¶[0011]).
Claim 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/916,622 (hereinafter ‘622) in view of US patent application publication 2021/0027621 A1 to Bseileh et al. in view of US patent application publication 2023/0222906 A1 to Shao et al.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 6:
Claim 6 is not identical to the ‘622 application, however it is an obvious modification to claim 1. First, apply the same modifications above to claim 5. Second, claim 1 of ‘622 does not include the limitation “wherein the states comprise: a duration of a green light, a duration of a yellow light, and a duration of a red light”. However, this is an obvious modification and Shao teaches this remaining feature (Shao ¶[0067]) and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would make these modifications to ‘622 with the motivation of “maximizing a passing rate of vehicles… and ensuring a smooth flow of city traffic” (Shao ¶[0004]).
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US patent application publication 2018/0299279 A1 to Brown et al. details routing a vehicle to avoid emergency vehicles.
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, Jeff Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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
Prosecution Insights