DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/03/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea (organizing human activity and mental processes) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim(s) recite(s) “identify individual vehicles”, “acquire…pieces of vehicle information…” and “select…a vehicle…”; these limitations are merely mental processes, and “notify a user…” is directed to organizing human activity. These limitations constitute organizing human activity and mental processes, which are recognized judicial exceptions. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); MPEP 2106.04.
The claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial.
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 2, the claim further recite limitation to define “select…a vehicle” which is considered as abstract idea directed to human activity and mental processes; thus, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 3, the claim further recite limitations to define “acquire…pieces of vehicle information” and “select the vehicle”, which are considered as abstract idea directed to human activity and mental processes; thus, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 4-5, the claim(s) further recite limitation to define “notify a user” which is considered as abstract idea directed to human activity and mental processes; thus, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forster et al. (US 2021/0356965 A1) in view of Hu et al. (US 2019/0304027 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Forster discloses a traffic control device (e.g. Fig. 1: 104) comprising a control unit (e.g. Fig. 1: routing engine 108) configured to:
identify individual vehicles (e.g. Fig. 1: vehicles 102, 120, 122, 124 & [0061]: routing engine 108 of system 104 receives request to generate route for the vehicles; thus, identify each vehicle);
acquire, for the individual vehicles, pieces of vehicle information indicating safety-related functions on the identified vehicles (e.g. Fig. 1 & [0051, 0052]: service system 104 receives vehicle capability data from vehicles, wherein the vehicle capability data indicates whether vehicle is capable of making unprotected lefts, traveling on highways, or only on roadways with speed limit are broadly interpreted as safety-related functions; [0040, 0049, 0050]: business policy forbids routing vehicle through school zone, residential neighborhoods, cul-de-sacs).
Forster fails to disclose, but Hu teaches:
select, based on the acquired pieces of vehicle information, a vehicle on which a restriction is to be imposed about entry into a specific road from among the identified vehicles (e.g. [0119-0123]: impose fees to vehicle actively enters restricted road section); and
notify a user of the selected vehicle about information on the restriction as restriction information (e.g. [0124]: broadcast).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Forster with the teachings of Hu to reduce traffic on a congested road section by imposing fees to vehicle entering a restricted road section (e.g. [0120]).
Regarding claim 2, Forster discloses the control unit is configured to select, from among the identified vehicles, a vehicle with the vehicle information that does not indicate that the vehicle has a function of automatically avoiding collision as the vehicle on which the restriction is to be imposed (e.g. [0051]: capabilities includes making unprotected lefts and traveling on highways implies the vehicle is capable of driving on roadway without causing accident).
Regarding claim 4, Hu teaches the control unit is configured to notify the user of the selected vehicle about a penalty to be given when the vehicle enters the specific road as the restriction information (e.g. [0124]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forster et al. (US 2021/0356965 A1) in view of Hu et al. (US 2019/0304027 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Gordon et al. (US 2017/0213458 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Forster discloses select the vehicle on which the restriction is to be imposed based on the acquired pieces of vehicle information (see rejection of claim 1).
Forster fails to disclose, but Gordon teaches the control unit is configured to: further acquire, for the individual vehicles, pieces of driving information indicating driving records of the identified vehicles; and select the vehicle on which the restriction is to be imposed based on the acquired pieces of driving information (e.g. [0025, 0087]: learn about history of a driver or a particular vehicle to determine whether the driver and/or the vehicle is/are allowed to enter the roadways) so as to reduce accident risk.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Forster and Hu with the teachings of Gordon to impose road access restriction on a vehicle based on its driving record.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forster et al. (US 2021/0356965 A1) in view of Hu et al. (US 2019/0304027 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Zhong et al. (US 2019/0078902).
Regarding claim 5, Forster fails to disclose, but Zhong teaches the control unit is configured to notify a user of a vehicle that is not selected as the vehicle on which the restriction is to be imposed among the identified vehicles about an incentive to be given when the vehicle enters the specific road (e.g. Abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Forster and Hu with the teachings of Zhong to provide incentive to driver to avoid certain roadway so as to reduce degree of crowdedness of the roadway.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAM WAN MA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3693. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/KAM WAN MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688