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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112:
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/21/2026, with respect to claim 8 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to cancellation of claim 8 by applicant. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101:
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendment to independent claim 1 further clarifies the mathematical relationships used as input into the microscopic traffic simulation platform, but does not overcome the rejection. The claim recites an output of traffic flow scenario to obtain indicator data reflecting traffic capacity; however, there is no recited application of the disclosed output, i.e., 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 (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/21/2026, with respect to claims 1-4, 6-7 and 9-10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
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 1-4, 6-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a test method for a variable speed limit (VSL) strategy in a mixed traffic flow considering driver compliance (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, 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.
Claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below)
and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A test method for a variable speed limit (VSL) strategy in a mixed traffic flow considering driver compliance, the test method being implemented by a processor executing a computer program, and comprising:
(1) building, on a microscopic traffic simulation platform, a road scenario based on a road condition of a bottleneck area formed by a main road and an on-ramp, wherein the main road is a three-lane road, and the on-ramp is a single-lane road; and
setting a plurality of mixed traffic flows respectively consisting of human-driven vehicles (HDVs) and connected and automated vehicles (CAVs), wherein the plurality of mixed traffic flows vary in CAV penetration rate
(2) establishing the VSL strategy, wherein the VSL strategy comprises an optimization-based VSL control strategy; and for each of the plurality of mixed traffic flows,
calculating a speed limit at an upstream of the bottleneck area based on the VSL strategy, wherein the speed limit is determined based on the optimization-based VSL control strategy through steps of:
(S 11) building an analytical model based on a cell transmission model; and dividing a highway into variable length regions with a cell length of [Symbol font/0x44]x, and dividing time into discrete time steps with a duration time of [Symbol font/0x44]t; wherein a length Ax; of each cell follows a constraint of modeling step, and vfree[Symbol font/0x44]t _; [Symbol font/0x44]xi, where Vfree, represents the free flow velocity;
(S12) modeling the bottleneck area, and modifying the free flow velocity to modify a traffic fundamental diagram, so as to adjust the flow volume in the bottleneck area; and
(S 13) according to a modified traffic fundamental diagram obtained in step (S12), analyzing a density dynamic and a velocity dynamic to obtain a cell density and a cell average velocity; wherein for a cell to which the optimization-based VSL control strategy is applied, the cell average velocity is predicted through the following formula: Vi(k + 1) = rcav * ui (k) + (1 - rcav) * [rde * (ui(k) - 5) + rag* ui(k) + r * (u(k) + 5)]
(3) establishing a HDV compliance; and based on the HDV compliance in combination with the speed limit, classifying HDV drivers in the road scenario, and
determining a proportion of the HDV drivers in individual types, wherein
determining the proportion of the HDV drivers in the individual types comprises: modeling and analyzing data collected over two months on an urban freeway to obtain empirical proportions of the defensive drivers, the compliant drivers, and the aggressive drivers for respective combinations of HDV compliance level and speed limit published on variable message signs; and
selecting, according to the HDV compliance and the speed limit, the proportions r4,, r, and r, from the empirical proportions for use in step (S 13); and
(4) determining a traffic flow scenario in which the HDV drivers and CAV drivers are located, and
testing the traffic flow scenario on the microscopic traffic simulation platform to obtain indicator data reflecting traffic capacity.
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, determining, calculating and analyzing in the context of this claim encompasses a person performing human activity and forming a simple judgement. The determining, calculating and analyzing steps are not too complicated to be performed with the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, calculating a speed limit, analyzing a density dynamic and a velocity dynamic and determining a proportion of the HDV drivers recite a mathematical relationship (i.e. a mathematical equation). Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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”) while the bolded portions
continue to represent the “abstract idea”:
A test method for a variable speed limit (VSL) strategy in a mixed traffic flow considering driver compliance, the test method being implemented by a processor executing a computer program, and comprising:
(1) building, on a microscopic traffic simulation platform, a road scenario based on a road condition of a bottleneck area formed by a main road and an on-ramp, wherein the main road is a three-lane road, and the on-ramp is a single-lane road; and
setting a plurality of mixed traffic flows respectively consisting of human-driven vehicles (HDVs) and connected and automated vehicles (CAVs), wherein the plurality of mixed traffic flows vary in CAV penetration rate
(2) /y, wherein the VSL strategy comprises an optimization-based VSL control strategy; and for each of the plurality of mixed traffic flows,
calculating a speed limit at an upstream of the bottleneck area based on the VSL strategy, wherein the speed limit is determined based on the optimization-based VSL control strategy through steps of:
(S 11) building an analytical model based on a cell transmission model; and dividing a highway into variable length regions with a cell length of [Symbol font/0x44]x, and dividing time into discrete time steps with a duration time of [Symbol font/0x44]t; wherein a length Ax; of each cell follows a constraint of modeling step, and vfree[Symbol font/0x44]t _; [Symbol font/0x44]xi, where Vfree, represents the free flow velocity;
(S12) modeling the bottleneck area, and modifying the free flow velocity to modify a traffic fundamental diagram, so as to adjust the flow volume in the bottleneck area; and
(S 13) according to a modified traffic fundamental diagram obtained in step (S12), analyzing a density dynamic and a velocity dynamic to obtain a cell density and a cell average velocity; wherein for a cell to which the optimization-based VSL control strategy is applied, the cell average velocity is predicted through the following formula: Vi(k + 1) = rcav * ui (k) + (1 - rcav) * [rde * (ui(k) - 5) + rag* ui(k) + r * (u(k) + 5)];
(3) establishing a HDV compliance; and based on the HDV compliance in combination with the speed limit,
classifying HDV drivers in the road scenario, and
determining a proportion of the HDV drivers in individual types, wherein
determining the proportion of the HDV drivers in the individual types comprises: modeling and analyzing data collected over two months on an urban freeway to obtain empirical proportions of the defensive drivers, the compliant drivers, and the aggressive drivers for respective combinations of HDV compliance level and speed limit published on variable message signs; and
selecting, according to the HDV compliance and the speed limit, the proportions r4,, r, and r, from the empirical proportions for use in step (S 13); and
(4) determining a traffic flow scenario in which the HDV drivers and CAV drivers are located, and
testing the traffic flow scenario on the microscopic traffic simulation platform to obtain indicator data reflecting traffic capacity.
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 limitations of building…, setting…, establishing…, modeling…, classifying…and selecting… , the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular building…, setting…, establishing…, modeling…, classifying…and selecting are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the determining, calculating and analyzing steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The testing…
step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of data processing and output from the determining, calculating and analyzing steps). Lastly, the claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The test method for a variable speed limit (VSL) strategy in a mixed traffic flow considering driver compliance is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the calculating and determining steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do 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 vehicle navigation or control problem, 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 (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.
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, 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 elements of using a computer to perform the building…, setting…, establishing…, modeling…, classifying…,selecting and testing…amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of building…, setting…, establishing…, modeling…, classifying…,selecting and testing…; the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in
Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of building…, setting…, establishing…, modeling…, classifying…,selecting and testing…are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, and the specification does not provide any indication that the computer is anything other than a conventional computer network component. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-7 and 9-10 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do
not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-4, 6-7 and 9-10 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-7 and 9-10 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOYA PETTIEGREW whose telephone number is (313)446-6636. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30pm - 5:00pm 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/TOYA PETTIEGREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
