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 .
Claim(s) Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) of U.S. Patent No. 12217603. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent inventive scope is narrow than the inventive scope of the instant application. Thus, the broader inventive scope of the instant application is encompassed within the inventive scope of the patent.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 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. In particular, claim 1: 1) recites “receiving data from a plurality of devices in a traffic network, each device comprising at least one sensor configured to obtain data from the traffic network”, however it is unclear what corresponds to the plurality of devices, and further unclear the data type that is being received. Claims 2-16 have the same issue due to dependency.Furthermore, base claim 17 and 20 have similar issues. Consequently claims 18-19 have the same issues as claim 17 due to dependency. 2) Recites “using the received data and a traffic model to determine data associated with vehicles in the traffic network”, however it is unclear how the determined data is associated with vehicles in the traffic network, it’s also unclear what type of traffic model is used and further unclear how the traffic model and the received data are used to make the determination. Claims 2-16 have the same issue due to dependency.Furthermore, base claim 17 and 20 have similar issues. Consequently claims 18-19 have the same issues as claim 17 due to dependency. 3) Recites “using the data associated with the vehicles and an emissions model to obtain corresponding GHG emissions data”, however it is unclear what type of emission model is used, and further unclear how the emission model and the data associated with vehicles are used to obtain the corresponding GHG emissions data. Claims 2-16 have the same issue due to dependency.Furthermore, base claim 17 and 20 have similar issues. Consequently claims 18-19 have the same issues as claim 17 due to dependency. 4) Recites “evaluating the corresponding GHG emissions data to a baseline of GHG emissions using a GHG quantification methodology to determine a GHG reduction”, however it is unclear what kind of baseline of GHG emissions is used, and further unclear what kind of quantification methodology is used to determine a GHG reduction. Claims 2-16 have the same issue due to dependency.Furthermore, base claim 17 and 20 have similar issues. Consequently claims 18-19 have the same issues as claim 17 due to dependency. In particular, claim 7 recites “wherein the baseline of GHG emissions is determined dynamically over a timespan associated with a project, by periodically re-quantifying the baseline of GHG emissions based on current measured network conditions”, however it is unclear what corresponds to a project. Claim 8 has the same issue due to dependency. In particular, claim 8 recites “wherein the baseline of GHG emissions is determined using a statistical model of pre-project emissions or other data collected periodically over a life of the project”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Furthermore, it is unclear what corresponds to a project.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-11 & 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McBride et al. (“McBride”, US 20110191011 A1) in view of Oliver et al. (“Oliver”, US 20200284600 A1). 1) Regarding claim 1, McBride disclose a method of quantifying greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with vehicle traffic (¶39 with reference to Figs. 1 & 5 with regard to the observed data being used to determine environmental impact (i.e., reduction in vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions)), the method comprising: receiving data from a plurality of devices in a traffic network (Figs. 1-2 & 5, take notice that Fig. 2 illustrates that a plurality of observed areas 16 being monitored, also take note that Fig. 1 illustrates that each observed area (e.g., intersections) has a system 10 (corresponding to a device), see ¶34, hence the method uses a plurality of devices), each device comprising at least one sensor configured to obtain data from the traffic network (¶35; Figs. 1 & 5, with regard to the camera 36 and/or sensors 38); using the received data and a traffic model to determine data associated with vehicles in the traffic network (abstract; ¶¶5-7, 39); using the data associated with the vehicles and an emissions model to obtain corresponding GHG emissions data (¶¶5-7, 39). As per the limitation evaluating the corresponding GHG emissions data to a baseline of GHG emissions using a GHG quantification methodology to determine a GHG reduction. McBride discloses, in ¶39, the concept of quantifying GHG emissions for GHG reduction measures. Oliver discloses, in abstract; ¶¶4-7, 34, 46, 48, 86, the concept of using a determine baseline GHG emissions corresponding to carbon offset or credit projects to reduce GHG emission during vehicle transport (corresponding to vehicle movement) activities via GHG emissions quantification methods. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using a determine baseline GHG emissions corresponding to carbon offset or credit projects to reduce GHG emission during vehicle transport activities via GHG emissions quantification methods, with the motivation to enhance the GHG emission reduction features of the system. 2) Regarding claim 17, McBride and Oliver with the same motivation to combine as presented in the rejection of claim 1 teach a system for quantifying greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with vehicle traffic (McBride: Figs. 1-2 & 5), the system comprising a processor and memory (McBride: ¶¶8, 109), the memory comprising computer executable instructions that (McBride: ¶109), when executed by the processor, cause the system to: receive data from a plurality of devices in a traffic network, each device comprising at least one sensor configured to obtain data from the traffic network (see analysis of the rejection of claim 1); use the received data and a traffic model to determine data associated with vehicles in the traffic network (see analysis of the rejection of claim 1); use the data associated with the vehicles and an emissions model to obtain corresponding GHG emissions data (see analysis of the rejection of claim 1); and evaluate the corresponding GHG emissions data to a baseline of GHG emissions using a GHG quantification methodology to determine a GHG reduction (see analysis of the rejection of claim 1). 3) Regarding claim 20, McBride and Oliver with the same motivation to combine as presented in the rejection of claim 1 teach a non-transitory computer readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that (McBride: ¶¶8, 109), when executed by a processor of a computing system (McBride: ¶¶8, 109), cause the computing system to: receive data from a plurality of devices in a traffic network, each device comprising at least one sensor configured to obtain data from the traffic network (see analysis of the rejection of claim 1); use the received data and a traffic model to determine data associated with vehicles in the traffic network (see analysis of the rejection of claim 1); use the data associated with the vehicles and an emissions model to obtain corresponding GHG emissions data (see analysis of the rejection of claim 1); and evaluate the corresponding GHG emissions data to a baseline of GHG emissions using a GHG quantification methodology to determine a GHG reduction (see analysis of the rejection of claim 1). 4) Regarding claims 2 and 18, wherein the received data comprises camera data obtained at a traffic intersection using a video capture device (McBride: Figs. 1-2 & 5: element 36) configured to obtain images and/or video data (McBride: abstract; ¶¶5-6, 31, 35). 5) Regarding claims 3 and 19, wherein the received data comprises data from a plurality of intelligent signaling devices located at a plurality of traffic intersections (see analysis of the rejection of claim 1 in view of McBride Figs. 1-2). 5) Regarding claim 4, wherein the traffic model is used to identify a type of vehicle, a direction of travel of the vehicle, and a speed of the vehicle (McBride: ¶¶31, 52, 68, 77, 86, 89, 91; Oliver: ¶56). 6) Regarding claim 5, further comprising receiving vehicle data from at least one vehicle traveling through one of the plurality of intersections (McBride: ¶51 with regard to the vehicle count for real-time traffic flow analysis which can be performed per vehicle (see ¶68), hence each vehicle provides vehicle count information). 7) Regarding claim 6, wherein the received data is used to determine a vehicle type, and the vehicle type is used in obtaining the corresponding GHG emissions data (Oliver: ¶¶56-57). 8) Regarding claim 7, wherein the baseline of GHG emissions is determined dynamically over a timespan associated with a project, by periodically re-quantifying the baseline of GHG emissions based on current measured network conditions (Oliver discloses, in ¶106, that the baseline GHG emission may be calculated over a period of time by obtaining real-time access to vehicle fleet emissions). 9) Regarding claim 9, wherein the baseline of GHG emissions is determined using a statistical model of pre-project emissions or other data collected periodically over a life of the project (Oliver discloses, in ¶106, that the baseline GHG emission may be calculated over a period of time by obtaining real-time access to vehicle fleet emissions). 10) Regarding claim 10, wherein the data associated with the vehicles comprises vehicle trajectory data (McBride: ¶¶27, 31, 52, 77, 85-86). 11) Regarding claim 11, further comprising: using data from multiple signaling devices to calculate a route traveled by a vehicle associated with the vehicle trajectory data (McBride: abstract; ¶¶5-6, 39); and using the route to determine a distance traveled by the vehicle in applying the GHG quantification methodology (Oliver: ¶¶6-7, 12). 12) Regarding claim 14, further comprising submitting the GHG reduction determination to obtain a carbon offset credit (Oliver: ¶¶4-8, 34). 13) Regarding claim 15, wherein the corresponding GHG emissions data and the baseline of GHG emissions are estimated using a set of inputs, the set of inputs comprising any one or more of vehicle type, speed, acceleration, distance travelled, or emissions factors (Oliver: ¶¶6-7, 12). 14) Regarding claim 16, wherein the GHG reduction is determined according to whether it can achieve a carbon offset credit (Oliver: ¶¶4-8, 34).
Claim(s) 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McBride et al. (“McBride”, US 20110191011 A1) in view of Oliver (“Oliver2”, US 20220114562 A1). 1) Regarding claim 12, wherein the GHG quantification methodology follows an industry standard (Oliver: ¶34 with regard to energy savings in the transportation sector. Furthermore, Oliver2 discloses, in ¶50; Fig. 5, the concept of using ISO 14064-2 quantification methodology. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using ISO 14064-2 quantification methodology, with the motivation to enhance the quantification features of the system). 2) Regrading claim 13, wherein the industry standard corresponds to ISO 14064- 2:2019. Oliver2 discloses, in ¶50; Fig. 5, the concept of using ISO 14064-2 quantification methodology for projects. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using ISO 14064-2 quantification methodology at the project level, with the motivation to enhance the quantification features of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20200027096 A1, system using GHG industry standards.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHICO A FOXX whose telephone number is (571)272-5530. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 M-F.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
CHICO A. FOXX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
/CHICO A FOXX/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights