DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 20 November 2024. This communication is the first action on merits. 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 1-20 are original / previously presented.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 are objected to because:
Figures 17A-17B, 19, 21, and 23 include markings that are not distinguishable when viewed in grayscale.
Figures 18, 19 and 22 have text that is not oriented in the same direction as the view, which must be oriented in the same direction as to avoid having to rotate the sheet. See 37 CFR 1.84(p).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 Objections
Claims 1, 3, 11-12, 17, and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 17, 19-20:
Claims 1, 19, and 20 include the limitation “receiving information from a traffic-management system of an environment and second information from at least an instance of traffic-mapping software…”. Subsequent limitations in claims 1, 17, 19, and 20 each include “the information”, which while likely refers back to “information from a traffic-management system of an environment” in claim 1 / 19 / 20, are confusing because there is also “second information” previously recited in claims 1 / 19 / 20. To preclude an interpretation of indefiniteness in the claims regarding “the information”, the Office recommends amending the claim language to further distinguish “the information” and “the second information” (e.g. claim 1: receiving first information from a traffic-management system of an environment…).
Claim 3:
Claim 3 includes the phrase "and/or", which is interpreted by the office as either "and" or "or". The Office recommends amending "and/or" to either "and" or "or" to reflect the Applicant’s intention.
Claim 11:
Claim 11 includes the phrase "and/or", which is interpreted by the office as either "and" or "or". The Office recommends amending "and/or" to either "and" or "or" to reflect the Applicant’s intention.
Claim 12:
Claim 12 includes the limitation “wherein the operations comprise performing a remedial action based at least in part 5n the identified event” in which “5n” is likely a typographical misspelling of “on” (i.e. at least part on the identified event).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the electronic device" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, this will be interpreted as introducing a instance of “an electronic device” of a user.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the electronic device” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this is referring to “the electronic device” in line 7, or “an electronic device” subsequently introduced in line 10. For the purpose of examination, this will be interpreted as referring to the first introduced electronic device (line 7).
Claim 20:
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the electronic device" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, this will be interpreted as introducing a instance of “an electronic device” of a user.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the electronic device” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this is referring to “the electronic device” in line 5, or “an electronic device” subsequently introduced in line 8. For the purpose of examination, this will be interpreted as referring to the first introduced electronic device (line 5).
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 information and the second information; and providing one or more instructions addressed to the [user], wherein the one or more instructions specify the computed route. The claims as a whole recite certain methods of organizing human activities.
First, the limitations of 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 information and the second information; and providing one or more instructions addressed to the [user], wherein the one or more instructions specify the computed route are certain methods of organizing human activities. For instance these limitations represent the sub-groupings of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, teaching, and following rules or instructions. For example, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes computing a route…, providing one or more instructions…; teaching includes providing one or more instructions…;
and following rules or instructions includes computing a route…, 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…, 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), 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. 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: 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 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 information comprises traffic conditions in the environment; and wherein the 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 and/or the second information 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 5n (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 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; minimizes transit times of the vehicle and the vehicles to destinations; or minimize transit times of second vehicles having a higher priority than the vehicle in the environment merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Therefore claims 1, 19-20, and the dependent claims 2-18 and all limitations taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-15, and 17-20 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.
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 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 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 the electronic device to a destination based at least in part on the 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 (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); and
providing one or more instructions addressed to the electronic device, wherein the one or more instructions specify the computed route (Levine Fig 5, ¶[0019], ¶[0028] details displaying the preferred route on the member’s device with or without the map-associated data such as a geographical map / road map / streets map, receiving vocal navigation instructions by speaker of the device, and notifying / displaying a member of the updated preferred route).
Claim 2:
Levine in view of Stolfus, 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, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 2. Levine also teaches the following:
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 (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, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Levine also teaches the following:
wherein the 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, 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, 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, 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 and/or the second information (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, 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, 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, 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), 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), 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, 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), 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), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 17:
Levine in view of Stolfus, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Levine also teaches the following:
wherein at least some of the 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, 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);
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
Stolfus (of Levine in view of Stolfus) also teaches the following:
minimize transit times of second vehicles having a higher priority than the vehicle in the environment (Stolfus ¶[0018] details a subscription tier in which third tier users are given cost/time savings routes over other users, and alerts are made to third tier users before alerts are made to other lower tiered users).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the computed route: minimize transit times of second vehicles having a higher priority than the vehicle in the environment as taught by Stolfus with the teachings of Levine (in view of Stolfus), with the motivation “to determine traffic conditions along a traffic path”, to solve the problem that “there is no intelligent management of traffic” and to “provide a benefit to the entire system and the entities therein” (Stolfus Abstract, ¶[0003], ¶[0005]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the computed route: minimize transit times of second vehicles having a higher priority than the vehicle in the environment as taught by Stolfus in the system of Levine (in view of Stolfus), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 19:
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.
Claims 4-5 and 7 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, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2021/0027621 A1 to Bseileh et al.
Claim 4:
Levine in view of Stolfus, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Levine does not explicitly state, but Bseileh teaches the following:
wherein the operations comprise providing, addressed to the traffic-management system, second instructions based at least in part on the route (Bseileh Fig 10, ¶[0032], ¶[0060-61] 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
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 (Bseileh Fig 10, ¶[0048], ¶[0060-61] details 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).
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 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 as taught by Bseileh with the teachings of Levine in view of Stolfus, 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]). 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 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 as taught by Bseileh in the system of Levine in view of Stolfus, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 5:
Levine in view of Stolfus, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. With respect to the following:
wherein a given traffic-light pattern in the traffic-light patterns comprises states of the given traffic light and associated time durations.
Levine, as shown in ¶[0018] details information includes long periods of red traffic lights, but does not explicitly state a given traffic light pattern in the traffic-light patterns comprises states of the given traffic light and associated time durations. However, Bseileh teaches this information, 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]).
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 a given traffic-light pattern in the traffic-light patterns comprises states of the given traffic light and associated time durations as taught by Bseileh with the teachings of Levine in view of Stolfus, 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]). 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 a given traffic-light pattern in the traffic-light patterns comprises states of the given traffic light and associated time durations as taught by Bseileh in the system of Levine in view of Stolfus, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 7:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Bseileh, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 5. Bseileh also teaches the following:
wherein the given traffic-light pattern specifies when traffic is allowed to flow on particular roads in the environment (Bseileh Fig 5A-5B, Fig 10, ¶[0020], ¶0048], ¶[0061] details examples when the traffic lights are changed to green and allow vehicles to pass in that direction when a vehicle (e.g. an emergency vehicle) is within a threshold distance).
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 given traffic-light pattern specifies when traffic is allowed to flow on particular roads in the environment as taught by Bseileh with the teachings of Levine in view of Stolfus, with the motivation to “improve the ease of travel for the emergency vehicle” (Bseileh ¶[0020]). 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 given traffic-light pattern specifies when traffic is allowed to flow on particular roads in the environment as taught by Bseileh in the system of Levine in view of Stolfus, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2014/0249735 A1 to Levine et al. in view of US patent application publication 2015/0319093 A1 to Stolfus in view of US patent application publication 2021/0027621 A1 to Bseileh et al., as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2023/0222906 A1 to Shao et al.
Claim 6:
Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Bseileh, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 5. With respect to the following:
wherein the states comprise: a duration of a green light, a duration of a yellow light, and a duration of a red light.
Levine, as shown in ¶[0018] details long periods of red traffic lights (i.e. state duration of a red light); and Bseileh, as shown in ¶[0032], ¶[0048] details obtaining signal phase and timing (SPaT) data including traffic signal data (e.g. stop light) information representing status of each traffic light (e.g. red, yellow, green) and a countdown time until the traffic light changes to another color, and a light remaining green for a time according to a normal schedule (i.e. duration of a green light); highly suggesting but not explicitly stating a state duration of a yellow light. To the extent that Levine / Bseileh may not explicitly state this, Shao teaches this limitation, with a scheme for setting the time for traffic light states in a lighting cycle such that the lighting duration of the red light is 30 seconds, the lighting duration of the yellow light is 5 seconds, and the lighting duration of the green light is 20 seconds (Shao ¶[0067]).
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 states comprise: a duration of a green light, a duration of a yellow light, and a duration of a red light as taught by Shao with the teachings of Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Bseileh, with the motivation to “optimize the time setting of the traffic lights” and “maximizing a passing rate of vehicles… and ensuring a smooth flow of city traffic” (Shao ¶[0004]). 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 states comprise: a duration of a green light, a duration of a yellow light, and a duration of a red light as taught by Shao in the system of Levine in view of Stolfus in view of Bseileh, 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2014/0249735 A1 to Levine et al. in view of US patent application publication 2015/0319093 A1 to Stolfus, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2017/0270413 A1 to Moreira-Matias et al.
Claim 16:
Levine in view of Stolfus, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Levine does not explicitly state but Moreira-Matias also teaches the following:
wherein the environment comprises at least a portion of a city or a municipality (Moreira-Matias ¶[0003], ¶[0053], ¶[0056] details collecting and monitoring traffic data from a plurality of data sources to predict traffic incidents, where the environment examples include around a capital city / between a capital city and a secondary city / country).
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 Moreira-Matias with the teachings of Levine in view of Stolfus, with the motivation “to predict the occurrence and nature of traffic congestion on a short-term horizon… making relatively accurate predictions as to the nature (e.g. long or short period of congestion) and the cause thereof” (Moreira-Matias ¶[0015]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the environment comprises at least a portion of a city or a municipality as taught by Moreira-Matias 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).
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, 17-20 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 claims 17 and 18. Claims 17 and 18 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 to “optimize the time setting of the traffic lights” and “maximizing a passing rate of vehicles… and ensuring a smooth flow of city traffic” (Shao ¶[0004]).
Conclusion
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, Jeffrey 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