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 a Non-Final Rejection office action in response to application Serial No. 19/196,179 filed 12/08/2025. Claim(s) 2-21 have been examined and fully considered.
Claim(s) 1 has been canceled, and 2-21 are newly added.
Claim(s) 2-21 are pending in Instant Application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/19/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of CON of 17/476,800 filed 09/16/2021.
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.
Claim(s) 2-21 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 based on the following analysis because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without being significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim(s) 2-21 are directed to a computer-implemented method (process), and a system, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations, including those bolded below:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
monitoring a roadway that is dedicated for use by autonomous vehicles using sensors that are spaced apart at regular intervals along the roadway;
determining, based on monitoring the roadway, that a particular vehicle that is travelling on the roadway has not satisfied one or more conditions that are associated with travelling on the roadway; and
in response to determining that the particular vehicle that is traveling on the roadway has not satisfied the one or more conditions that are associated with travelling on the roadway, transmitting an instruction to toll an operator associated with the particular vehicle.
Claim 9 recites abstract limitations, including those bolded below:
A system comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
monitoring a roadway that is dedicated for use by autonomous vehicles using sensors that are spaced apart at regular intervals along the roadway;
determining, based on monitoring the roadway, that a particular vehicle that is travelling on the roadway has not satisfied one or more conditions that are associated with travelling on the roadway; and
in response to determining that the particular vehicle that is traveling on the roadway has not satisfied the one or more conditions that are associated with travelling on the roadway, transmitting an instruction to toll an operator associated with the particular vehicle.
Claim 16 recites abstract limitations, including those bolded below:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
monitoring a roadway that is dedicated for use by autonomous vehicles using sensors that are spaced apart at regular intervals along the roadway;
determining, based on monitoring the roadway, that a particular vehicle that is travelling on the roadway has not satisfied one or more conditions that are associated with travelling on the roadway; and
in response to determining that the particular vehicle that is traveling on the roadway has not satisfied the one or more conditions that are associated with travelling on the roadway, transmitting an instruction to toll an operator associated with the particular vehicle.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. More specifically, the “aggregating” step encompasses a driver making observation, evaluation or judgement about vehicles with information such position and/or location, speed for downstream and upstream road segments. Furthermore, the “determining” steps, applied to each of the vehicles, encompasses that same driver making an evaluation, observation or judgment about which direction each vehicle is oriented according to traffic data. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One , the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
monitoring a roadway that is dedicated for use by autonomous vehicles using sensors that are spaced apart at regular intervals along the roadway;
determining, based on monitoring the roadway, that a particular vehicle that is travelling on the roadway has not satisfied one or more conditions that are associated with travelling on the roadway; and
in response to determining that the particular vehicle that is traveling on the roadway has not satisfied the one or more conditions that are associated with travelling on the roadway, transmitting an instruction to toll an operator associated with the particular vehicle.
Claim 9 recites the additional elements of:
A system comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
monitoring a roadway that is dedicated for use by autonomous vehicles using sensors that are spaced apart at regular intervals along the roadway;
determining, based on monitoring the roadway, that a particular vehicle that is travelling on the roadway has not satisfied one or more conditions that are associated with travelling on the roadway; and
in response to determining that the particular vehicle that is traveling on the roadway has not satisfied the one or more conditions that are associated with travelling on the roadway, transmitting an instruction to toll an operator associated with the particular vehicle.
Claim 16 recites the additional elements of:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
monitoring a roadway that is dedicated for use by autonomous vehicles using sensors that are spaced apart at regular intervals along the roadway;
determining, based on monitoring the roadway, that a particular vehicle that is travelling on the roadway has not satisfied one or more conditions that are associated with travelling on the roadway; and
in response to determining that the particular vehicle that is traveling on the roadway has not satisfied the one or more conditions that are associated with travelling on the roadway, transmitting an instruction to toll an operator associated with the particular vehicle.
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 data processing functions of the “A computer-implemented method”; “sensors”; “A system”; “one or more processors”; and “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” the claimed components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea.
The functions of the components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea. In addition, each of these additional limitations indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding the additional limitations of “monitoring a roadway that is dedicated for use by autonomous vehicles using sensors that are spaced apart at regular intervals along the roadway” and “in response to determining that the particular vehicle that is traveling on the roadway has not satisfied the one or more conditions that are associated with travelling on the roadway, transmitting an instruction to toll an operator associated with the particular vehicle.”, of claim(s) 1, 9, and 16 these limitations mount to extra-solution activity.
The functions of the sensors (collecting, sending and receiving information) are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity because they are merely generating data. [see MPEP, 2106.04(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity [R-10.2019], (3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering, calculating and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering)].
The characterization of the sensor as being of the vehicles during the travel of the vehicles along the road segment amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
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.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the functions of the “A computer-implemented method”; “sensors”; “A system”; “one or more processors”; and “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, update, or generate) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
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 functions of sensors (receiving information) are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the traffic classification is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. 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.
The characterization of sensors as being of the vehicles during the travel of the vehicles along the road segment amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claim(s) 3-8 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 previously identified judicial exception and/or aforementioned additional elements that were identified as well-understood, routine and conventional in the analysis above. Therefore, dependent claims 3-8 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 2.
Dependent claim(s) 10-15 and 17-21 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 previously identified judicial exception and/or aforementioned additional elements that were identified as well-understood, routine and conventional in the analysis above. Therefore, dependent claims 10-21 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 9 and 16.
Therefore, claim(s) 2-21 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)(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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 6-10, 13-15, 17 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gordon et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0213458), hereinafter, referred to as “Gordon”.
Regarding [claim 2], Gordon discloses a computer-implemented method (see, Abstract; Paragraph [0003]: “a processor-implemented method”) comprising: monitoring a roadway that is dedicated for use by autonomous vehicles using sensors (see, “roadway sensor(s) 218” and/or “SDV equipment sensors 315”) that are spaced apart at regular intervals along the roadway (see, Paragraphs [0051]; [0086]: “the roadway access-controlling station 206 receives sensor readings from sensors (e.g., roadway sensor(s) 218 and/or sensors shown in FIG. 3 that are on SDV 220) that monitor the access-controlled roadway 208. These sensor readings describe a current real-time condition of the access-controlled roadway, thus allowing the roadway access-control ling station 206 to determine the current roadway conditions of the access-controlled roadway 208 based on the received sensor readings.”);
determining, based on monitoring the roadway, that a particular vehicle that is travelling on the roadway has not satisfied one or more conditions that are associated with travelling on the roadway (see, Paragraphs [0034]-[0035]: “the road barricade system may take into account the presence of an SDV when allowing access to or exit from a toll road. For example, if multiple vehicles attempt to use a particular exit on a toll road, thus creating a bottleneck when the multiple vehicles merge into fewer lanes near the particular exit, the barricade system may allow only an approaching SDV that is capable of exiting per predetermined criteria (i.e., at a certain speed, within a certain proximity of other vehicles, etc.), to use the particular toll road exit. Alternatively, only SDVs that match the predetermined exiting criteria may be allowed to enter/access the toll road in the first place, thus altogether eliminating congestion due to hesitation, poor lane-changing skills, etc.”;
[0048]: “With reference now to FIG. 2, an exemplary self-driving vehicle (SDV) 202, depicted traveling along a roadway 204, is approaching a roadway access-controlling station 206. Roadway access-controlling station 206 controls which vehicles are allowed to travel on an access-controlled roadway 208 (i.e., a roadway that is restricted to use by SDVs that meet certain performance requirements) and which vehicles must travel on an uncontrolled roadway 210 (e.g., for use by any vehicle, including manually-controlled vehicles, SDVs that do not meet the requirements to travel along access-controlled roadway 208, etc.).”; and [[0051]: “transmitted by roadway sensor(s) 218 and/or other SDVs to the supervisory computer 201 and/or directly to SDVs (e.g., SDV 202) themselves. That is, supervisory computer 201 is able to receive sensor readings from other SDVs, such as SDV 220, and/or roadway sensor(s) 218 in order to determine current roadway conditions of access controlled roadway 208. Thus, various on-board sensors on SDV 220 (see exemplary sensors shown in FIG. 3 for SDV 202) and/or roadway sensor(s) 208 are mechanical, visual, and/or electrical sensors that are able to detect the number and speed of vehicles traveling on the access-controlled roadway 208, the amount and/or type of precipitation on the access-controlled roadway 208… the movement of vehicles traveling along access-controlled roadway 208, etc.), as well as information received from sensors and/or on-board computers within SDV 202 and/or SDV 220, and/or from information received by an information service (e.g., a weather station). In one or more embodiments, these roadway conditions are utilized not only in the decision as to whether or not to allow a particular SDV to access the access-controlled roadway 208, but also are utilized in the decision regarding into which operational/driving mode the SDV 202 should be placed.”); and in response to determining that the particular vehicle that is traveling on the roadway has not satisfied the one or more conditions that are associated with travelling on the roadway, transmitting an instruction to toll an operator associated with the particular vehicle (see, Paragraphs [0034]-[0035]; and [0050]: “This interrogation results in a signal from the SDV 202 that describes the level of ability of SDV 202 to operate in an autonomous mode. If this ability is sufficient to safely travel on the access-controlled roadway 208, then the supervisory computer 201 (analogous to computer 101 shown in FIG. 1) sends a signal to the automatic barricade controlling device 214 to raise (or otherwise move) the automatic barricade 216, thus allowing the SDV 202 to enter the access-controlled roadway 208. This decision may be based on current conditions of the access-controlled roadway 208.”).
As to [claim 3], Gordon discloses the method of claim 2. Gordon discloses wherein determining that the particular vehicle that is traveling on the roadway has not satisfied the one or more conditions that are associated with travelling on the roadway (see, Paragraphs [0036]: “the road barricade system will take into account whether a given human driven car is a member of a particular cohort of car types in determining whether or not it should be allowed on the SDV-only section. That is, even if manually driven, if a highly-skilled driver (according to the driver's profile) is driving a high performance vehicle (e.g., a highly responsive sports car), then that driver/vehicle may be allowed on the SDV-only roadway, while slower and/or less responsive vehicles”; [0048]: “With reference now to FIG. 2, an exemplary self-driving vehicle (SDV) 202, depicted traveling along a roadway 204, is approaching a roadway access-controlling station 206. Roadway access-controlling station 206 controls which vehicles are allowed to travel on an access-controlled roadway 208 (i.e., a roadway that is restricted to use by SDVs that meet certain performance requirements) and which vehicles must travel on an uncontrolled roadway 210 (e.g., for use by any vehicle, including manually-controlled vehicles, SDVs that do not meet the requirements to travel along access-controlled roadway 208, etc.).”; and [0051]: “transmitted by roadway sensor(s) 218 and/or other SDVs to the supervisory computer 201 and/or directly to SDVs (e.g., SDV 202) themselves. That is, supervisory computer 201 is able to receive sensor readings from other SDVs, such as SDV 220, and/or roadway sensor(s) 218 in order to determine current roadway conditions of access controlled roadway 208. Thus, various on-board sensors on SDV 220 (see exemplary sensors shown in FIG. 3 for SDV 202) and/or roadway sensor(s) 208 are mechanical, visual, and/or electrical sensors that are able to detect the number and speed of vehicles traveling on the access-controlled roadway 208, the amount and/or type of precipitation on the access-controlled roadway 208… the movement of vehicles traveling along access-controlled roadway 208, etc.), as well as information received from sensors and/or on-board computers within SDV 202 and/or SDV 220, and/or from information received by an information service (e.g., a weather station). In one or more embodiments, these roadway conditions are utilized not only in the decision as to whether or not to allow a particular SDV to access the access-controlled roadway 208, but also are utilized in the decision regarding into which operational/driving mode the SDV 202 should be placed.”; and [0067]: “SDV equipment sensors 315 may include drivetrain sensors that detect operating conditions within an engine (e.g., power, speed, revolutions per minute—RPMs of the engine, timing, cylinder compression, coolant levels, engine temperature, oil pressure, etc.), the transmission (e.g., transmission fluid level, conditions of the clutch, gears, etc.), etc. SDV equipment sensors 315 may include sensors that detect the condition of other components of the SDV 202, including lights (e.g., using circuitry that detects if a bulb is broken), wipers (e.g., using circuitry that detects a faulty wiper blade, wiper motor, etc.), etc. Thus, signals from the SDV equipment sensors 315 can be used by the roadway access-controlling station 206 shown in FIG. 2 for determining the condition of access-controlled roadway 208, in order to determine which, if any, vehicles are allowed to access the access-controlled roadway 208. That is, if the SDV 202 is in poor condition, then it will not be allowed to enter the access-controlled roadway 208, even if designed to handle the current roadway conditions of access-controlled roadway 208.”) comprises determining that the particular vehicle is not an autonomous vehicle (see, Paragraphs [0027]: “The road barricade system may take into account the presence of pedestrians and/or animals near a road or forecast to be near a road in making the decision as to whether or not to allow a certain SDV or a manual vehicle to enter the roadway. For example, if there are numerous pedestrians and/or animals near ( or even on) the roadway, then only properly-enabled SDVs may be allowed to drive on that roadway.”; and [0036]: “the road barricade system will take into account whether a given human driven car is a member of a particular cohort of car types in determining whether or not it should be allowed on the SDV-only section. That is, even if manually driven, if a highly-skilled driver (according to the driver's profile) is driving a high performance vehicle (e.g., a highly responsive sports car), then that driver/vehicle may be allowed on the SDV-only roadway, while slower and/or less responsive vehicles”).
As to [claim 6], Gordon discloses the method of claim 2. Gordon discloses
wherein determining that the particular vehicle that is traveling on the roadway has not satisfied the one or more conditions that are associated with travelling on the roadway comprises determining that the particular vehicle has merged into the roadway without authorization (see, Paragraphs [0021]; “While it would be unsafe for a driver of ordinary skill to drive on such a road, a properly set up SDV could safely drive on such a road and/or at speeds that would be unsafe for human drivers. In order to keep unqualified SDVs and/or human drivers off such roadways, barricades would be needed to block access for non-qualified SDVs (i.e., SDVs that do not have the autonomous capabilities to handle the roadway conditions or human drivers that are not qualified to drive on the roadway).”; and [0036]: “the road barricade system will take into account whether a given human driven car is a member of a particular cohort of car types in determining whether or not it should be allowed on the SDV-only section. That is, even if manually driven, if a highly-skilled driver (according to the driver's profile) is driving a high performance vehicle (e.g., a highly responsive sports car), then that driver/vehicle may be allowed on the SDV-only roadway, while slower and/or less responsive vehicles…”; and see also [0051]: “the movement of vehicles traveling along access-controlled roadway 208, etc.), as well as information received from sensors and/or on-board computers within SDV 202 and/or SDV 220, and/or from information received by an information service (e.g., a weather station). In one or more embodiments, these roadway conditions are utilized not only in the decision as to whether or not to allow a particular SDV to access the access-controlled roadway 208, but also are utilized in the decision regarding into which operational/driving mode the SDV 202 should be placed.”; and [0067]: “Thus, signals from the SDV equipment sensors 315 can be used by the roadway access-controlling station 206 shown in FIG. 2 for determining the condition of access-controlled roadway 208, in order to determine which, if any, vehicles are allowed to access the access-controlled roadway 208. That is, if the SDV 202 is in poor condition, then it will not be allowed to enter the access-controlled roadway 208, even if designed to handle the current roadway conditions of access-controlled roadway 208.”).
As to [claim 7], Gordon discloses the method of claim 2. Gordon discloses comprising generating a roadway configuration for the roadway based on monitoring the roadway(see, Paragraph [0086]-[0087]: “the roadway access-controlling station 206 only allows vehicles (either autonomous SDVs or manually operated vehicles) to enter the access-controlled roadway 208 if other similar vehicles and/or the approaching self-driving vehicle have a good safety record while traveling on the access-controlled roadway 208. Thus, the vehicle interrogation hardware device receives a description of a physical state of the approaching self-driving vehicle (what type of vehicle it is, its current mechanical/maintenance state, etc.). The roadway access-controlling station retrieves an accident history (e.g., from an accident history database in the supervisory computer 201) of other vehicles that have a same physical state as that of the approaching self-driving vehicle (202/224) while traveling on the access-controlled roadway 208”).
As to [claim 8], Gordon discloses the method of claim 2. Gordon discloses wherein determining that a particular vehicle that is travelling on the roadway has not satisfied one or more conditions that are associated with travelling on the roadway is performed by a gantry device (see, Abstract; and Paragraphs [0021]-[0022]: “a system that utilizes/comprises a road barricade (e.g., an electronic gate arm) and a receiver for receipt of an SDV mode signal from an SDV. In response to receiving a signal describing whether or not the vehicle is in an (adequate) autonomous mode, the barricade deploys or undeploys.”; and [0067]: “SDV equipment sensors 315 may include drivetrain sensors that detect operating conditions within an engine (e.g., power, speed, revolutions per minute—RPMs of the engine, timing, cylinder compression, coolant levels, engine temperature, oil pressure, etc.), the transmission (e.g., transmission fluid level, conditions of the clutch, gears, etc.), etc. SDV equipment sensors 315 may include sensors that detect the condition of other components of the SDV 202, including lights (e.g., using circuitry that detects if a bulb is broken), wipers (e.g., using circuitry that detects a faulty wiper blade, wiper motor, etc.), etc. Thus, signals from the SDV equipment sensors 315 can be used by the roadway access-controlling station 206 shown in FIG. 2 for determining the condition of access-controlled roadway 208, in order to determine which, if any, vehicles are allowed to access the access-controlled roadway 208. That is, if the SDV 202 is in poor condition, then it will not be allowed to enter the access-controlled roadway 208, even if designed to handle the current roadway conditions of access-controlled roadway 208.”; Paragraph [0084]: “the vehicle interrogation hardware device 212 shown in FIG. 2 determines that another approaching vehicle (e.g., vehicle 224 shown in FIG. 2) is operating in manual mode. In response to determining that this other approaching vehicle is operating in manual mode, the automatic barricade con trolling device 214 positions the automatic barricade 216 to block this other approaching vehicle from accessing the access-controlled roadway 208 (e.g., the automatic barricade 216 in FIG. 2 goes and/or stays down).”).
As to [claim 9], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 2, therefore claim 9 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above. Gordon discloses a system (see, Abstract) comprising: one or more processors (see, Paragraphs [0008]; [0038]: “Exemplary computer 101 includes a processor 103 that is coupled to a system bus 105. Processor 103 may utilize one or more processors, each of which has one or more processor cores.”) ; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (see, Paragraph [0111]: “As shown in FIG. 5, computer system/server 12 in cloud computing node 10 is shown in the form of a general purpose computing device. The components of computer system/server 12 may include, but are not limited to, one or more processors or processing units 16, a system memory 28, and a bus 18 that couples various system components including system memory 28 to processor 16.”) comprising: …
As to [claim 10], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 3, therefore claim 10 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 13], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 6, therefore claim 13 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 14], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 7, therefore claim 14 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 15], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 8, therefore claim 15 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
Regarding [claim 16], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 2, therefore claim 16 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
Regarding [claim 16], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 2, therefore claim 16 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 17], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 3, therefore claim 17 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 20], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 6, therefore claim 20 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 21], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 7, therefore claim 21 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
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) 4, 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Gordon” in view of Hada (Pub. No.: US 2012/0059574).
As to [claim 4], Gordon discloses the method of claim 2. Gordon discloses wherein determining that the particular vehicle that is traveling on the roadway has not satisfied the one or more conditions that are associated with travelling on the roadway (see, Paragraphs [0021]: “While it would be unsafe for a driver of ordinary skill to drive on such a road, a properly set up SDV could safely drive on such a road and/or at speeds that would be unsafe for human drivers. In order to keep unqualified SDVs and/or human drivers off such roadways, barricades would be needed to block access for non-qualified SDVs (i.e., SDVs that do not have the autonomous capabilities to handle the roadway conditions or human drivers that are not qualified to drive on the roadway).”; [0048]: “With reference now to FIG. 2, an exemplary self-driving vehicle (SDV) 202, depicted traveling along a roadway 204, is approaching a roadway access-controlling station 206. Roadway access-controlling station 206 controls which vehicles are allowed to travel on an access-controlled roadway 208 (i.e., a roadway that is restricted to use by SDVs that meet certain performance requirements) and which vehicles must travel on an uncontrolled roadway 210 (e.g., for use by any vehicle, including manually-controlled vehicles, SDVs that do not meet the requirements to travel along access-controlled roadway 208, etc.).”; and [0051]: “transmitted by roadway sensor(s) 218 and/or other SDVs to the supervisory computer 201 and/or directly to SDVs (e.g., SDV 202) themselves. That is, supervisory computer 201 is able to receive sensor readings from other SDVs, such as SDV 220, and/or roadway sensor(s) 218 in order to determine current roadway conditions of access controlled roadway 208. Thus, various on-board sensors on SDV 220 (see exemplary sensors shown in FIG. 3 for SDV 202) and/or roadway sensor(s) 208 are mechanical, visual, and/or electrical sensors that are able to detect the number and speed of vehicles traveling on the access-controlled roadway 208, the amount and/or type of precipitation on the access-controlled roadway 208… the movement of vehicles traveling along access-controlled roadway 208, etc.), as well as information received from sensors and/or on-board computers within SDV 202 and/or SDV 220, and/or from information received by an information service (e.g., a weather station). In one or more embodiments, these roadway conditions are utilized not only in the decision as to whether or not to allow a particular SDV to access the access-controlled roadway 208, but also are utilized in the decision regarding into which operational/driving mode the SDV 202 should be placed.”), however, does not explicitly …comprises determining that an operator of the particular vehicle has not obeyed instructions to speed up or slow down.
However, Hada teaches
….comprises determining that an operator of the particular vehicle has not obeyed instructions to speed up or slow down (see, Abstract; and Paragraphs [0046]: “For example, the suggested speed may be displayed using one or more of the following: a numeric display, a lamp proximate the speedometer (for example using lamps in an arcuate form around the periphery or inner portion of an analog-style speedometer), any modified speedometer, a tone to indicate whether the driver should speed up or slow down, other indicator light(s), synthesized speech to give instructions to the driver, or any other appropriate method.”; and [0053]: “Roadside units may be provided at intervals along a highway. The term "roadside" is not intended to be limiting to a unit located in the highway shoulder. A roadside unit may be supported at the side of the road such as a shoulder, for example mounted on a post, but may also be supported over the roadway on a gantry, within a median, or located under the roadway or otherwise proximate the highway. The roadside unit may be partially or fully integrated with devices having additional functionality, such as a warning sign, speed limit sign, traffic control signal, and the like.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to implement traffic management, including assisting a driver to select a vehicle speed that improves traffic flow as taught by Hada. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey improvements in Safety, traffic throughput, and reduced environmental impact of vehicle traffic on highways. (see, Paragraph [0002]).
As to [claim 11], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 4, therefore claim 11 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Gordon” in view of Heath et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0203651), hereinafter, referred to as “Heath”.
As to [claim 5], Gordon disclose the method of claim 2. As Gordon discloses in Paragraphs [0021]: “While it would be unsafe for a driver of ordinary skill to drive on such a road, a properly set up SDV could safely drive on such a road and/or at speeds that would be unsafe for human drivers. In order to keep unqualified SDVs and/or human drivers off such roadways, barricades would be needed to block access for non-qualified SDVs (i.e., SDVs that do not have the autonomous capabilities to handle the roadway conditions or human drivers that are not qualified to drive on the roadway).”; [0048]: “With reference now to FIG. 2, an exemplary self-driving vehicle (SDV) 202, depicted traveling along a roadway 204, is approaching a roadway access-controlling station 206. Roadway access-controlling station 206 controls which vehicles are allowed to travel on an access-controlled roadway 208 (i.e., a roadway that is restricted to use by SDVs that meet certain performance requirements) and which vehicles must travel on an uncontrolled roadway 210 (e.g., for use by any vehicle, including manually-controlled vehicles, SDVs that do not meet the requirements to travel along access-controlled roadway 208, etc.).”; and [[0051]: “transmitted by roadway sensor(s) 218 and/or other SDVs to the supervisory computer 201 and/or directly to SDVs (e.g., SDV 202) themselves. That is, supervisory computer 201 is able to receive sensor readings from other SDVs, such as SDV 220, and/or roadway sensor(s) 218 in order to determine current roadway conditions of access controlled roadway 208. Thus, various on-board sensors on SDV 220 (see exemplary sensors shown in FIG. 3 for SDV 202) and/or roadway sensor(s) 208 are mechanical, visual, and/or electrical sensors that are able to detect the number and speed of vehicles traveling on the access-controlled roadway 208, the amount and/or type of precipitation on the access-controlled roadway 208… the movement of vehicles traveling along access-controlled roadway 208, etc.), as well as information received from sensors and/or on-board computers within SDV 202 and/or SDV 220, and/or from information received by an information service (e.g., a weather station). In one or more embodiments, these roadway conditions are utilized not only in the decision as to whether or not to allow a particular SDV to access the access-controlled roadway 208, but also are utilized in the decision regarding into which operational/driving mode the SDV 202 should be placed.”, as the cited paragraphs referred to …the vehicle based on an extent to which the particular vehicle that is traveling on the roadway has not satisfied the one or more conditions that are associated with travelling on the roadway.
Additionally, Heath teaches
determining an amount to toll an operator associated with the vehicle based on an extent to which the particular vehicle that is traveling on the roadway…that are associated with travelling on the roadway (see, Paragraph [0074]: “The central system 10 (back office) is then utilized to access both account holder vehicle data and the participating toll agency cost tables. The central system 10 calculates the anticipated toll charge by comparing the vehicle classification on record with the central system 10 to the matching vehicle class provided in the toll cost table. An anticipated toll charge is then utilized to determine the amount that will be deducted from the users account when the vehicle enters the toll area. The validation of the vehicle entering the toll area is conducted by tracking the GPS coordinates of the mobile wireless device utilizing the toll road. This step corresponds to step 36 in Fig. 2 in which the mobile wireless device 16 monitors its location and creates and sends a dataset that contains vehicle location data. The vehicle location data may be coded to the toll station or may comprise other forms of identifying the geographic area corresponding to the toll station.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further modify a central processing system comprises a toll payment system that, when fully functional, provides payment of a toll when the vehicle enters a defined geographic area corresponding to a toll station as taught by Heath. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey successful association of roadside sensor data to onboard vehicle system data is accomplished without the need for any direct communication link between the two system and hence without the need for investment in a costly infrastructure to support DSRC communications (see, Paragraph [0085]).
As to [claim 12], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 5, therefore claim 12 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 19], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 5, therefore claim 19 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAKARI UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-8462. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 TO 4:30.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached (571) 272-9855. 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.
/B.U./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights