Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. In the present case, the originally numbered Claim 16 from the claim set filed 11/25/2024 appears to have had its numbering omitted in the claim set filed 2/07/2025, however will be treated as if proper numbering as Claim 16 had been maintained for the purposes of this action. Appropriate correction is required.
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 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method for determining the priority level of a road (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. Similarly, Claim 9 is directed to a system for determining the priority level of a road [i.e. a machine] and is similarly within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 9 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 9 recites:
A system for determining a priority level of a road, comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code; the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the system at least to:
determine a position associated with a road relative to one or more roads based on a total number of one or more vehicles that travelled on the road and a speed of the one or more vehicles on the road; and [mental process/step]
determine a priority level of the road based on whether a position associated with a priority level relative to one or more priority levels for the one or more roads matches the position associated with the road. [mental process/step]
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determine a position…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected regarding vehicle movements and forming a simple judgement. Further, “determine a priority level…” in the context of the claim encompasses a person looking at multiple positions, and determining if they match, which is a mental process under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A system for determining a priority level of a road, comprising: [generic linking to technical field, 2106.05(h), [Apply it, 2106.05(f)]
at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code; the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the system at least to: [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module, Apply it 2106.05(f)]
determine a position associated with a road relative to one or more roads based on a total number of one or more vehicles that travelled on the road and a speed of the one or more vehicles on the road; and
determine a priority level of the road based on whether a position associated with a priority level relative to one or more priority levels for the one or more roads matches the position associated with the road.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “at least one processor…,” the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that merely recites using a computer to perform the process. In particular, the “at least one processor…” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) alongside coupled memory and computer program code such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a vehicle controller to perform the determination of road priority level amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept, and is thus insignificant extra-solution activity.
Dependent claim(s) 2 – 8 & 10 – 16 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically:
Claims 2 & 10 recite wherein determining the position of a priority level is based on a percentage of road associated with the priority level, which is a mental process of forming a simple judgement under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim(s).
Claims 3 & 11 recite wherein determining the priority level of the road further comprises determining whether a total length of the road is encompassed in a road length associated with the priority level, which is a mental process of forming a simple judgement under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim(s).
Claims 4 & 12 recite assigning a next lower priority level to the road when the total length of the road is not encompassed in the road length associated with the priority level, which is a mental process of labeling data based on a simple judgement under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim(s).
Claims 5 & 13 recite determining a position based on a total number of one or more vehicles that travelled on each road and a speed of the one or more vehicles on each road, which is a mental process of forming a simple judgement under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim(s).
Claims 6 & 14 recite determining whether a value associated with each of two or more roads fall within a same range of values, and combining a total road length of the two or more roads for the same range of values based on the determination which is a mental process of forming a simple judgement under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim(s).
Claims 7 & 15 recite assigning a priority level to each of the one or more roads based on the value calculated for each road, which is a mental process of assigning a label to evaluated data based on a simple judgement under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim(s)
Claims 8 & 16 recite determining the total number of the one or more vehicles that travelled on the road based on a total global positioning system (GPS) ping count associated with the road, which is a mental process of making a simple judgement based on data collected from generic sensors, which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data collection, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Therefore, dependent claims 2 – 8 & 10 – 16 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Independent Claims 1 & 9.
Therefore, claim(s) 1 – 16 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5 - 7, 9, & 13 - 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN 104732760 A).
Regarding Claim 1:
Zhang recites: A method for determining a priority level of a road, comprising: (Zhang discloses in at least Paragraph 0007 a method for updating a road level [i.e. determining the priority level of a road] including, as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0125 – 0127 the updating of road grades between different levels based on assessed traffic capacity values of the road during an update period)
determining, by a processor, a position associated with a road relative to one or more roads based on a total number of one or more vehicles that travelled on the road and a speed of the one or more vehicles on the road; and (Zhang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0211 & 0212 wherein the method may be implemented using one or more hardware processing units, utilizing a computer program stored in attached memory to implement the steps [i.e. the determination is performed by a processor]. At least Paragraphs 0104 – 0106 of Zhang disclose wherein positioning information may be reported by a plurality of vehicles during an update period, including a vehicle ID, time, and latitude/longitude information, which may be matched to a corresponding road as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0052, 0107, & 0108 [i.e. the data is associated with a road relative to one or more roads] and further used to compute the traffic capacity of the road, including as components the traffic volume and speed, as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0109 & 0110 of Zhang. At least Paragraphs 0111 & 0112 of Zhang disclose wherein this may include determining an initial and ending positioning point, computing the number of vehicles passing through the same road section [i.e. a total number of one or more vehicles that travelled on the road], and computing the average traveling speed [i.e. a speed of the one or more vehicles on the road] of each road section. Examiner notes that “a position associated with a road” in the context of the claim is interpreted as set forth in at least Paragraphs 0028 & 0030 of the present specification, which recite, inter alia, “[a] position associated with a road relative to one or more roads, for example in a road network, refers to how a road may be ranked in comparison with the one or more roads…” and “[a] position associated with a priority level relative to one or more priority levels refers to the value range at which a priority level starts and ends in comparison with the one or more priority levels…” thus rendering the “position” not a physical position as would be ordinarily understood by the phrase “a position associated with a road” but rather a mathematical “scoring” of the features of the road. Thus, computing a traffic capacity based on the road according to the traffic volume and the traffic speed of the road as disclosed by Zheng correlates to the “position” recited by the present claimed invention [i.e. determining a position associated with a road relative to one or more roads based on a total number of one or more vehicles that travelled on the road and a speed of the one or more vehicles on the road])
determining, by the processor, a priority level of the road based on whether a position associated with a priority level relative to one or more priority levels for the one or more roads matches the position associated with the road. (Zhang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0211 & 0212 wherein the method may be implemented using one or more hardware processing units, utilizing a computer program stored in attached memory to implement the steps [i.e. the determination is performed by a processor]. Zhang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0118 – 0120 wherein a road level [i.e. a priority level of the road] is determined based on a traffic capacity interval that the determined traffic capacity of the road [i.e. the position associated with the road] falls within. At least Paragraphs 0122 – 0124 of Zhang disclose wherein traffic capacity intervals may be set corresponding to different road levels, with the roads whose traffic capacities fall within said intervals being associated with the corresponding road level. In a specific example, at least Paragraph 0125 of Zhang discloses wherein a road with an assessed road capacity value [i.e. position associated with the road as set forth above] of 70 falls within the level 2 road grade interval of 40 – 70 [i.e. a position associated with a priority level relative to one or more priority levels for the one or more roads matches the position associated with the road], and the road grade of the road is updated to level 2 accordingly [i.e. a priority level of the road is determined based on such])
Regarding Claim 5:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the position associated with the road further comprises calculating, for each road of the one or more roads, a value associated with each road based on a total number of one or more vehicles that travelled on each road and a speed of the one or more vehicles on each road, and positioning each road of the one or more roads based on the value calculated for each road.
Zhang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0029, 0088, 0123, & 0143 wherein each road of a plurality of roads is assessed for their respective traffic capacities [i.e. calculating, for each road of the one or more roads, a value associated with each road based on a total number of one or more vehicles that travelled on each road and a speed of the one or more vehicles on each road], and sorted into a corresponding level based on said capacities [i.e. positioning each road of the one or more roads based on the value calculated for each road].
Regarding Claim 6:
The method of claim 5, further comprising determining whether a value associated with each of two or more roads fall within a same range of values, and combining a total road length of the two or more roads for the same range of values based on the determination.
Zhang discloses in at least Paragraph 0151 wherein according to the road grade information for an urban road set [i.e. values associated with each of two or more roads], roads with a same road level [i.e. roads that fall within a same range of values] may be aggregated [i.e. combined in length] with one another.
Regarding Claim 7:
The method of claim 5, further comprising assigning a priority level to each of the one or more roads based on the value calculated for each road.
Zhang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0123 & 0143 wherein a level is assigned to each road of a plurality of roads based on the assessed traffic capacity of each road [i.e. assigning a priority level to each of the one or more roads based on the value calculated for each road].
Regarding Claim 9:
Zhang discloses: A system for determining a priority level of a road, comprising: (Zhang discloses in at least Paragraph 0007 a system for updating a road level [i.e. determining the priority level of a road] including, as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0125 – 0127 the updating of road grades between different levels based on assessed traffic capacity values of the road during an update period)
at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code; the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the system at least to: (Zhang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0211 & 0212 wherein the method may be implemented using one or more hardware processing units, utilizing a computer program stored in attached memory to implement the steps [i.e. at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to implement the contents of the disclosure])
determine a position associated with a road relative to one or more roads based on a total number of one or more vehicles that travelled on the road and a speed of the one or more vehicles on the road; and (Zhang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0104 – 0106 wherein positioning information may be reported by a plurality of vehicles during an update period, including a vehicle ID, time, and latitude/longitude information, which may be matched to a corresponding road as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0052, 0107, & 0108 [i.e. the data is associated with a road relative to one or more roads] and further used to compute the traffic capacity of the road, including as components the traffic volume and speed, as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0109 & 0110 of Zhang. At least Paragraphs 0111 & 0112 of Zhang disclose wherein this may include determining an initial and ending positioning point, computing the number of vehicles passing through the same road section [i.e. a total number of one or more vehicles that travelled on the road], and computing the average traveling speed [i.e. a speed of the one or more vehicles on the road] of each road section. Examiner notes that “a position associated with a road” in the context of the claim is interpreted as set forth in at least Paragraphs 0028 & 0030 of the present specification, which recite, inter alia, “[a] position associated with a road relative to one or more roads, for example in a road network, refers to how a road may be ranked in comparison with the one or more roads…” and “[a] position associated with a priority level relative to one or more priority levels refers to the value range at which a priority level starts and ends in comparison with the one or more priority levels…” thus rendering the “position” not a physical position as would be ordinarily understood by the phrase “a position associated with a road” but rather a mathematical “scoring” of the features of the road. Thus, computing a traffic capacity based on the road according to the traffic volume and the traffic speed of the road as disclosed by Zheng correlates to the “position” recited by the present claimed invention [i.e. determining a position associated with a road relative to one or more roads based on a total number of one or more vehicles that travelled on the road and a speed of the one or more vehicles on the road])
determine a priority level of the road based on whether a position associated with a priority level relative to one or more priority levels for the one or more roads matches the position associated with the road. (Zhang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0118 – 0120 wherein a road level [i.e. a priority level of the road] is determined based on a traffic capacity interval that the determined traffic capacity of the road [i.e. the position associated with the road] falls within. At least Paragraphs 0122 – 0124 of Zhang disclose wherein traffic capacity intervals may be set corresponding to different road levels, with the roads whose traffic capacities fall within said intervals being associated with the corresponding road level. In a specific example, at least Paragraph 0125 of Zhang discloses wherein a road with an assessed road capacity value [i.e. position associated with the road as set forth above] of 70 falls within the level 2 road grade interval of 40 – 70 [i.e. a position associated with a priority level relative to one or more priority levels for the one or more roads matches the position associated with the road], and the road grade of the road is updated to level 2 accordingly [i.e. a priority level of the road is determined based on such])
Regarding Claim 13:
The system of claim 9, wherein determining the position associated with the road further comprises calculating, for each road of the one or more roads, a value associated with each road based on a total number of one or more vehicles that travelled on each road and a speed of the one or more vehicles on each road, and positioning each road of the road network based on the value calculated for each road.
Zhang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0029, 0088, 0123, & 0143 wherein each road of a plurality of roads is assessed for their respective traffic capacities [i.e. calculating, for each road of the one or more roads, a value associated with each road based on a total number of one or more vehicles that travelled on each road and a speed of the one or more vehicles on each road], and sorted into a corresponding level based on said capacities [i.e. positioning each road of the one or more roads based on the value calculated for each road].
Regarding Claim 14:
The system of claim 13, further configured to determine whether a value associated with each of two or more roads fall within a same range of values, and combine a total road length of the two or more roads for the same range of values based on the determination.
Zhang discloses in at least Paragraph 0151 wherein according to the road grade information for an urban road set [i.e. values associated with each of two or more roads], roads with a same road level [i.e. roads that fall within a same range of values] may be aggregated [i.e. combined in length] with one another.
Regarding Claim 15:
The system of claim 13, further configured to assign a priority level to each of the one or more roads based on the value calculated for each road.
Zhang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0123 & 0143 wherein a level is assigned to each road of a plurality of roads based on the assessed traffic capacity of each road [i.e. assigning a priority level to each of the one or more roads based on the value calculated for each road].
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.
Claim(s) 2 - 4 & 10 - 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 104732760 A) as applied to claims 1 & 9 above, and further in view of Shen (US 2022/0327922 A1).
Regarding Claim 2:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the priority level of the road further comprises determining a percentage of road length associated with the priority level relative to a total road length of the one or more roads, and determining the position associated with the priority level based on the percentage.
Zhang does not appear to specifically disclose determining the position associated with the road priority level based on a percentage of road length associated with the priority level relative to a total road length of the one or more roads.
However Shen teaches in at least Paragraphs 0036 & 0040 wherein a congestion index may be determined for a road segment based on a weighted sum of congestion indices of sub-road segments that form the overall road segment. At least Paragraphs 0061 – 0063 of Shen further teaches wherein the weight of each sub-road segment may be determined based on lengths of each sub-road segment, such that the amount by which each segment is weighted is based on a ratio of the length of the relevant sub-road segment to the overall length of the road segment [i.e. determining a percentage of road length associated with the priority level relative to a total road length of the one or more roads]. At least Paragraphs 0063 – 0066 of Shen teaches wherein the weighted congestion index is determined based on the congestion indices of each sub-segment, and the weight of each determined based on the respective segment lengths [i.e. the position associated with the priority level is determined based on the percentage].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Zhang by incorporating the determination of road priority level position based on a weighted sum of sub-road segments as taught by Shen.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Shen in at least Paragraphs 0059 & 0060, the accuracy of a congestion index state of a roadway may be improved by adjusting the effects of congestion based on the road length that the congestion is anticipated to affect, improving the indexing of accessibility levels of roadways.
Regarding Claim 3:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the priority level of the road further comprises determining whether a total length of the road is encompassed in a road length associated with the priority level.
Zhang does not appear to specifically disclose wherein determining the priority level of the road further comprises determining whether a total length of the road is encompassed in a road length associated with the priority level.
However Shen teaches in at least Paragraphs 0036 & 0040 wherein a congestion index may be determined for a road segment based on congestion indices of sub-road segments that form the overall road segment. At least Paragraphs 0096 – 0098 of Shen further teaches wherein a parameter determination module may include a congestion length determination unit, which may evaluate the road segment to determine the presence of congestion and non-congestion regions of the road [i.e. determining whether a total length of the road is encompassed in a road length associated with the priority level]. Based on this determination, lengths of each congestion and non-congestion segment may be assessed, and used to determine a weighted congestion index based on the congestion indices of each sub-segment, and the weight of each determined based on the respective segment lengths as taught in at least Paragraphs 0063 – 0066 of Shen.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Zhang by incorporating the determination of congestion and non-congestion length information as taught by Shen.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Shen in at least Paragraphs 0059 & 0060, the accuracy of a congestion index state estimation of a roadway may be improved by adjusting the effects of congestion based on the road length that the congestion is anticipated to affect and not affect, improving the indexing of accessibility levels of roadways.
Regarding Claim 4:
The method of claim 3, further comprising assigning a next lower priority level to the road when the total length of the road is not encompassed in the road length associated with the priority level.
Zhang does not appear to specifically disclose assigning a next lower priority level to the road when the total length of the road is not encompassed in the road length associated with the priority level.
However Shen teaches in at least Paragraphs 0036 & 0040 wherein a congestion index may be determined for a road segment based on a weighted sum of congestion indices of sub-road segments that form the overall road segment. At least Paragraphs 0061 – 0063 of Shen further teaches wherein the weight of each sub-road segment may be determined based on lengths of each sub-road segment, such that the amount by which each segment is weighted is based on a ratio of the length of the relevant sub-road segment to the overall length of the road segment, which may be determined for an overall road segment as congestion and non-congestion lengths as set forth above by a congestion length determination unit. At least Paragraphs 0063 – 0066 of Shen teaches wherein the weighted congestion index is determined based on the congestion indices of each sub-segment, and the weight of each determined based on the respective segment lengths. Thus, in the case that the total length of the road is not encompassed in the road length associated with a single non-congested or congested priority level, a congestion level [i.e. priority level] is assigned that is a weighted combination of the two segments [i.e. assigning a next lower priority level to the road when the total length of the road is not encompassed in the road length associated with the priority level].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Zhang by incorporating the determination of road priority level position based on a weighted sum of sub-road segments, increasing the amount of congestion for a roadway when it is detected on part of the roadway as taught by Shen.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Shen in at least Paragraphs 0059 & 0060, the accuracy of a congestion index state of a roadway may be improved by incorporating both congestion and non-congestion components of the roadway length into the computation, improving the indexing of accessibility levels of roadways.
Regarding Claim 10:
The system of claim 9, wherein determining the priority level of the road further comprises determining a percentage of road length associated with the priority level relative to a total road length of the one or more roads, and determining the position associated with the priority level based on the percentage.
Zhang does not appear to specifically disclose determining the position associated with the road priority level based on a percentage of road length associated with the priority level relative to a total road length of the one or more roads.
However Shen teaches in at least Paragraphs 0036 & 0040 wherein a congestion index may be determined for a road segment based on a weighted sum of congestion indices of sub-road segments that form the overall road segment. At least Paragraphs 0061 – 0063 of Shen further teaches wherein the weight of each sub-road segment may be determined based on lengths of each sub-road segment, such that the amount by which each segment is weighted is based on a ratio of the length of the relevant sub-road segment to the overall length of the road segment [i.e. determining a percentage of road length associated with the priority level relative to a total road length of the one or more roads]. At least Paragraphs 0063 – 0066 of Shen teaches wherein the weighted congestion index is determined based on the congestion indices of each sub-segment, and the weight of each determined based on the respective segment lengths [i.e. the position associated with the priority level is determined based on the percentage].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Zhang by incorporating the determination of road priority level position based on a weighted sum of sub-road segments as taught by Shen.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Shen in at least Paragraphs 0059 & 0060, the accuracy of a congestion index state of a roadway may be improved by adjusting the effects of congestion based on the road length that the congestion is anticipated to affect, improving the indexing of accessibility levels of roadways.
Regarding Claim 11:
The system of claim 9, wherein determining the priority level of the road further comprises determining whether a total length of the road is encompassed in a road length associated with the priority level.
Zhang does not appear to specifically disclose wherein determining the priority level of the road further comprises determining whether a total length of the road is encompassed in a road length associated with the priority level.
However Shen teaches in at least Paragraphs 0036 & 0040 wherein a congestion index may be determined for a road segment based on congestion indices of sub-road segments that form the overall road segment. At least Paragraphs 0096 – 0098 of Shen further teaches wherein a parameter determination module may include a congestion length determination unit, which may evaluate the road segment to determine the presence of congestion and non-congestion regions of the road [i.e. determining whether a total length of the road is encompassed in a road length associated with the priority level]. Based on this determination, lengths of each congestion and non-congestion segment may be assessed, and used to determine a weighted congestion index based on the congestion indices of each sub-segment, and the weight of each determined based on the respective segment lengths as taught in at least Paragraphs 0063 – 0066 of Shen.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Zhang by incorporating the determination of congestion and non-congestion length information as taught by Shen.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Shen in at least Paragraphs 0059 & 0060, the accuracy of a congestion index state estimation of a roadway may be improved by adjusting the effects of congestion based on the road length that the congestion is anticipated to affect and not affect, improving the indexing of accessibility levels of roadways.
Regarding Claim 12:
The system of claim 11, further configured to assign a next lower priority level to the road when the total length of the road is not encompassed in the road length associated with the priority level.
Zhang does not appear to specifically disclose assigning a next lower priority level to the road when the total length of the road is not encompassed in the road length associated with the priority level.
However Shen teaches in at least Paragraphs 0036 & 0040 wherein a congestion index may be determined for a road segment based on a weighted sum of congestion indices of sub-road segments that form the overall road segment. At least Paragraphs 0061 – 0063 of Shen further teaches wherein the weight of each sub-road segment may be determined based on lengths of each sub-road segment, such that the amount by which each segment is weighted is based on a ratio of the length of the relevant sub-road segment to the overall length of the road segment, which may be determined for an overall road segment as congestion and non-congestion lengths as set forth above by a congestion length determination unit. At least Paragraphs 0063 – 0066 of Shen teaches wherein the weighted congestion index is determined based on the congestion indices of each sub-segment, and the weight of each determined based on the respective segment lengths. Thus, in the case that the total length of the road is not encompassed in the road length associated with a single non-congested or congested priority level, a congestion level [i.e. priority level] is assigned that is a weighted combination of the two segments [i.e. assigning a next lower priority level to the road when the total length of the road is not encompassed in the road length associated with the priority level].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Zhang by incorporating the determination of road priority level position based on a weighted sum of sub-road segments, increasing the amount of congestion for a roadway when it is detected on part of the roadway as taught by Shen.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Shen in at least Paragraphs 0059 & 0060, the accuracy of a congestion index state of a roadway may be improved by incorporating both congestion and non-congestion components of the roadway length into the computation, improving the indexing of accessibility levels of roadways.
Claim(s) 8 & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 104732760 A) as applied to claims 1 & 9 above, and further in view of Lucien (US 2008/0234921 A1).
Regarding Claim 8:
The method of claim 1, further comprising determining the total number of the one or more vehicles that travelled on the road based on a total global positioning system (GPS) ping count associated with the road.
Zhang does not appear to specifically disclose determining a total number of vehicles that travelled along a road based on total GPS ping count associated with the road.
However Lucien teaches in at least Paragraph 0047 wherein a number of vehicles present on a road segment may be determined based on a number of GPS traces detected within a considered time window [i.e. comprising determining the total number of the one or more vehicles that travelled on the road based on a total global positioning system (GPS) ping count associated with the road], which may be utilized in order to assess a traffic volume of a roadway as taught in at least Paragraph 0048 of Lucien.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Zhang by incorporating the determination of number of vehicles along a road segment based on associated GPS traces as taught by Lucien.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Lucien in at least Paragraphs 0039 & 0047, real-time data of a motorway may be acquired, including position information of vehicles currently passing through the section, improving the estimation of current congestion conditions of a roadway, and the grading of road segments based on such.
Regarding Claim 16:
The system of claim 9, further configured to determine the total number of vehicles that travelled on the road based on a total global positioning system (GPS) ping count associated with the road.
Zhang does not appear to specifically disclose determining a total number of vehicles that travelled along a road based on total GPS ping count associated with the road.
However Lucien teaches in at least Paragraph 0047 wherein a number of vehicles present on a road segment may be determined based on a number of GPS traces detected within a considered time window [i.e. comprising determining the total number of the one or more vehicles that travelled on the road based on a total global positioning system (GPS) ping count associated with the road], which may be utilized in order to assess a traffic volume of a roadway as taught in at least Paragraph 0048 of Lucien.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Zhang by incorporating the determination of number of vehicles along a road segment based on associated GPS traces as taught by Lucien.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Lucien in at least Paragraphs 0039 & 0047, real-time data of a motorway may be acquired, including position information of vehicles currently passing through the section, improving the estimation of current congestion conditions of a roadway, and the grading of road segments based on such.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure:
Fowe (US 2015/0348406 A1): Fowe recites a system for aggregating and reporting real-time traffic conditions, including the collection of real-time traffic data from a network, and the updating of segment information based on such. The traffic information may be updated on a ranked priority scheme in accordance with the estimated importance, including through the use of a cost function corresponding to the road segments. The cost function may take into account difference in current traffic conditions from a historical average, as well as traffic density of road segments.
Yuan (US 2019/0329788 A1): Yuan recites a road condition status prediction method, including the obtaining of historical road segment information, and identification of classification events that may affect road segments. Probabilities may be associated with classification events, and current road conditions may be predicted based on said probabilities.
Yang (US 12,067,865 B2): Yang recites a method of obtaining road condition information, including the obtaining of a number of vehicles passing through a road segment during a time interval, and comparing said information to a threshold. A congestion state of the target road segment may be determined based on data collected.
Yan (CN 108268974 A): Yan recites a vehicle path recommendation method, including the determination of a path to a destination with the least possible amount of congestion. Road sections may be categorized based on congestion information, and an optimal path corresponding to minimizing interaction with said sections may be determined and presented to a vehicle operator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN CARDIMINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2759. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:00.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R CARDIMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661