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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 were filed on 02/26/2025. Claims 1-20 have been canceled by the applicant and new claims 21-40 were filed by the applicant on 02/26/2025. Claims 21-40 are currently pending and addressed below.
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 21-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 21 and 30 are directed to a system node (i.e., a machine) and a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 21 and 30 are 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.
Independent claims 21 and 30 include limitations that recite an abstract idea and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Independent claims 21 and 30 recite the following information:
An intelligent transportation system node/method comprising:
a memory storing computer readable instructions and a plurality of input queues,
the plurality of input queues including at least one first input queue associated with the node, and at least one second input queue associated with at least one preceding neighboring node; and
processing circuitry configured to execute the computer readable instructions to cause the node to:
determine traffic condition information associated with a desired segment of a road network, the road network including at least one reserved lane,
determine whether to dequeue at least one access request token from the plurality of input queues based on the determined traffic condition information and vehicle information corresponding to at least one vehicle associated with the at least one access request token; and
transmit at least one reserved lane access token from a set of reserved lane access tokens to at least one vehicle corresponding to the at least one dequeued access request token, the at least one reserved lane access token instructing the at least one vehicle to access to the reserved lane.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute an abstract idea of a mental process that monitors the traffic on a road section to obtain information about the traffic conditions and vehicles travelling on the road section, generates a queue structure for vehicles requesting a lane assignment, and analyzes the obtained information about the traffic conditions and vehicles travelling on the road sections to remove a lane access request from queue structure for at least one of the vehicles requesting a lane assignment.
Each of the limitations can be performed in the mental realm or by using pen and paper to monitor the traffic on a road section to obtain information about the traffic conditions and vehicles travelling on the road section, generate a queue structure for vehicles requesting a lane assignment, and analyze the obtained information about the traffic conditions and vehicles travelling on the road sections to remove a lane access request from queue structure for at least one of the vehicles requesting a lane assignment.
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. 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.”
Claims 21 and 30 do contain additional elements of an intelligent transportation system node comprising a memory storing computer readable instructions and a plurality of input queues, the plurality of input queues including at least one first input queue associated with the node, at least one second input queue associated with at least one preceding neighboring node, and processing circuitry configured to execute the computer readable instructions to cause the node to transmit at least one reserved lane access token from a set of reserved lane access tokens to at least one vehicle corresponding to the at least one dequeued access request token, the at least one reserved lane access token instructing the at least one vehicle to access to the reserved lane. However, these additional elements do not add to significantly more than the abstract idea of a mental process.
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 elements of an intelligent transportation system node comprising a memory storing computer readable instructions and a plurality of input queues, the plurality of input queues including at least one first input queue associated with the node, at least one second input queue associated with at least one preceding neighboring node, and processing circuitry configured to execute the computer readable instructions to cause the node to transmit at least one reserved lane access token from a set of reserved lane access tokens to at least one vehicle corresponding to the at least one dequeued access request token, the at least one reserved lane access token instructing the at least one vehicle to access to the reserved lane, the examiner submits that these limitations merely describe how to generally apply the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose vehicle lane assignment system environment. The intelligent transportation system node comprising a memory storing computer readable instructions and a plurality of input queues, the plurality of input queues including at least one first input queue associated with the node, at least one second input queue associated with at least one preceding neighboring node, and processing circuitry configured to execute the computer readable instructions to cause the node to transmit at least one reserved lane access token from a set of reserved lane access tokens to at least one vehicle corresponding to the at least one dequeued access request token, the at least one reserved lane access token instructing the at least one vehicle to access to the reserved lane are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the traffic condition determining, whether to dequeue at least one access request token determining, and reserved lane access token transmitting components of the system. The examiner submits that these limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., describe general means of the traffic condition determining, whether to dequeue at least one access request token determining, and reserved lane access token transmitting steps) and therefore amount to mere transmission of data between computer processing components which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity that merely uses computing components to perform the process.
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 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 (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, representative independent claims 1 and 19-20 do 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 an intelligent transportation system node comprising a memory storing computer readable instructions and a plurality of input queues, the plurality of input queues including at least one first input queue associated with the node, at least one second input queue associated with at least one preceding neighboring node, and processing circuitry configured to execute the computer readable instructions to cause the node to transmit at least one reserved lane access token from a set of reserved lane access tokens to at least one vehicle corresponding to the at least one dequeued access request token, the at least one reserved lane access token instructing the at least one vehicle to access to the reserved lane amount 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 amount to mere transmission of data between computer processing components which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity that merely uses computing components to perform the process.
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 gathering/transmitting data are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the computer is anything other than a conventional computer. 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 claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 22-29 (node claims) and 31-38 (method claims) do not recite and further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. The limitations of the dependent claims are directed towards additional aspects of the judicial exception that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims further narrow the scope of independent claims 21 and 30 however, the identified additional limitations and elements still do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the identified abstract ideas. Therefore, dependent claims 22-29 and 31-38 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 21 and 30. Therefore, claims 21-38 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Examiner note to help applicant overcome the 35 U.S.C 101 rejections:
Applicant is advised to amend independent claims 21 and 30, with cited reference sections that support the amendments provided in the Application Specification, to specifically recite:
“… wherein the at least one vehicle is an autonomous vehicle and the at least one vehicle comprises processing circuitry configured to cause the at least one vehicle to autonomously drive on the reserved lane based on the at least one reserved lane access token”
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramasamy US 20170276492 A1 (“Ramasamy”).
For claim 39, Ramasamy discloses a vehicle (See at least Fig. 2 of Ramasamy – computing device 210 shown for vehicle) comprising:
a memory storing computer readable instructions (See at least [0019] of Ramasamy – “… FIG. 3 shows a more detailed view of the example computing device 210 shown in FIG. 2… The processor 310 is configured to employ bus 350 to execute program code stored in memory 320…”); and
processing circuitry configured to execute the computer readable instructions (See at least [0019] of Ramasamy – “… FIG. 3 shows a more detailed view of the example computing device 210 shown in FIG. 2… The processor 310 is configured to employ bus 350 to execute program code stored in memory 320…”) to cause the vehicle to:
transmit an access request token to at least one intelligent transportation system node, the access request token including vehicle information, the vehicle information including at least one of current position information corresponding to the vehicle, current speed information corresponding to the vehicle, current acceleration information corresponding to the vehicle, vehicle type information corresponding to the vehicle, occupancy information corresponding to the vehicle, billing information corresponding to the vehicle, destination information corresponding to the vehicle, or any combinations thereof (See at least [0020]-[0026]– “… wireless transceiver 312 is configured to transmit and receive wireless signals via antenna 314…the computing device 210 may comprise one or more additional wireless transceivers … FIG. 4, FIG. 4 shows an example lane assignment system 480 in communication with a plurality of vehicles 440, 442a-c, 444 via a network 470 in communication with a wireless communication node 450… The lane assignment system 480 includes at least one server … wireless communication node 450 is configured to communicate with one or more of the vehicles 440, 442a-e c, 444… receive signals from one or more of the vehicles 440, 442a-e c, 444 to provide information to the lane assignment system 480 …” and [0074] of Ramasamy – “… a vehicle equipped with a computing device 210 transmits a message to a remote device… transmits a request for a lane assignment to the lane assignment system 480… the request may include other information, such as priority information, vehicle information, position information, heading information, route information…”); and
receive at least one reserved lane access token from the node in response to the access request token, the at least one reserved lane access token instructing the vehicle to access to the reserved lane (See at least [0048] – “… the lane assignment server 482 assigns the at least one vehicle to a lane of travel on the road based at least in part on the vehicle information and the lane information. For example, the lane assignment server 482 determines that based on the received vehicle information in the request, that based on the priority of the vehicle, the priority of nearby vehicles, the portion of the road 400 travelled by the vehicle, its direction of travel (northbound), and its driving mode (autonomous), and the lane information indicating that lane 410 is dedicated to vehicles travelling in an autonomous driving mode at the vehicle's position, the vehicle's reported driving mode matches the information of lane 410, and so the lane assignment server determines that the vehicle should be assigned to lane 410. The lane assignment server 482 then transmits the assignment to the vehicle via the network 470 and wireless communication node 450…” and [0076] of Ramasamy – “… the computing device 210 receives a lane assignment from … the lane assignment system 480 in this example. The lane assignment may provide an indication of a new lane of travel for the vehicle or an indication to remain in the current lane of travel… The computing device 210 may then provide an indication to the operator of the vehicle of the new lane assignment, such as by displaying the lane assignment on a heads-up display of the vehicle or by providing an audible of tactile indication of the new lane assignment…”).
For claim 40, Ramasamy discloses wherein
the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle (See at least [0018] of Ramasamy – “... The computing device 210 may be configured in some examples to access navigation information, such as preprogramed route information or location information that may be employed for autonomous vehicle lane assignment…”);
the reserved lane access token includes at least one of a permitted amount of travel time on the reserved lane, a permitted travel distance on the reserved lane, or a combination thereof (See at least [0048]-[0053] of Ramasamy – “… the lane assignment server 482 assigns the at least one vehicle to a lane of travel on the road based at least in part on the vehicle information and the lane information… the lane assignment system 480 may … allow vehicles travelling in the left lane 410 to be temporarily assigned a higher priority for the middle lane, and then to assign those vehicles to the middle lane 420 to avoid the lane closure… the temporary lane assignment may expire upon passing a particular location, e.g., 250 feet past the end of the lane closure, at which time the prior lane assignment is used by the vehicles without the need for the vehicles to transmit a request to the lane assignment server 482…”); and
the vehicle is further caused to:
autonomously drive on the reserved lane based on the at least one reserved lane access token (See at least [0077] of Ramasamy – “... computing device 210 may communicate with … autonomous driving system of the vehicle and provide the lane assignment to the … autonomous driving system of the vehicle… In response to receipt of the lane assignment, the autonomous driving system may cause the vehicle to change to the assigned lane …”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-38 are objected to for containing allowable subject matter, but would be allowable if the claim rejections from previous sections of this office action were resolved.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of record is Ramasamy US 20170276492 A1 (“Ramasamy”).
Ramasamy discloses an autonomous vehicle driving system that is capable of requesting a lane assignment from a server that obtains vehicle information and traffic information in order to determine a lane assignment for a plurality of vehicles and transmits the lane assignment information to the vehicles for autonomous travel on a road. However, Ramasamy is silent on determining whether to dequeue at least one access request token from the plurality of input queues based on the determined traffic condition information and vehicle information corresponding to at least one vehicle associated with the at least one access request token, and transmit at least one reserved lane access token from a set of reserved lane access tokens to at least one vehicle corresponding to the at least one dequeued access request token.
The Examiner notes that dequeuing is a particular computing operation that removes an element from the front or rear end of a data structure. Ramasamy does not disclose, teach, or suggest any particular removing of an element of a data structure in order to determine at least one access request token from a plurality of input queues to then transmit at least one reserved lane access token to a vehicle corresponding to the at least one dequeued access request token.
As to independent claims 21 and 30, the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the following claimed subject matter:
“determine whether to dequeue at least one access request token from the plurality of input queues based on the determined traffic condition information and vehicle information corresponding to at least one vehicle associated with the at least one access request token, and
transmit at least one reserved lane access token from a set of reserved lane access tokens to at least one vehicle corresponding to the at least one dequeued access request token, the at least one reserved lane access token instructing the at least one vehicle to access to the reserved lane”
Claims 22-29 depend from claim 21, claims 31-38 depend from claim 30, and are therefore allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J HERRERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5271. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, FADEY JABR can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/M.J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
