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 action is in reply to the application filed on 05/09/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-20 are currently rejected.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 14 recites “a anomalous condition signal” which should read as “an anomalous condition signal”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
The examiner has identified independent system/method/product Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claims 19 and Claim 20. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
accessing a first collection of first path offsets along a segment, the first path offsets corresponding to prior user device probe data generated during a prior interval;
determining second path offsets along the segment based on current user device probe data generated during a current interval;
generating a second collection of the second path offsets along the segment using the second path offsets;
comparing the first collection and the second collection in accordance with a change criterion to identify a difference that represents an anomalous condition along the segment; and
generating incident information based on the difference.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as mental processes. Analyzing and comparing current data to historical data recites concepts performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a concept performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of: A computer in Claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements of gathering data are insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea without a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 1, 19, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application.)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1, 19, and 20 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more.)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 19, and 20 and thus correspond to Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
To overcome the 101 rejection the independent claims can be amended to recite a positively recited control step of the vehicle in light of the identified lane disturbance.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)&(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fowe (US 2022/0180739), herein Fowe.
Regarding claim 1:
Fowe teaches:
A computer-implemented method (A method, apparatus and computer program product are provided to determine lane statuses such as closures and/or shifting, by using probe data, such as probe data collected from vehicle and/or mobile devices traveling along a road segment [abstract]), comprising:
accessing a first collection of first path offsets along a segment (partitioning historical probe data into clusters based on their lateral positional indicators [0052]), the first path offsets corresponding to prior user device probe data generated during a prior interval (all historical probe data available for a segment may be utilized to determine clusters and statistical measures of the historical positional indicators for the segment [0059]);
determining second path offsets (partitioning the subject probe data into a same number of clusters as the historical probe data associated with the segment. In this regard, a similar or same algorithm such as used in operation 300 may be applied to the subject probe data (e.g., real-time, near real-time, or current probe data) [0063]) along the segment based on current user device probe data generated during a current interval (utilize real-time or near real-time subject probe data of other vehicles traveling on the segment (in a period of time leading up to a current time) to assess current (e.g., real-time or near real-time) lane statuses, and provide a response in real-time or near real-time to user equipment 12 [0044]);
generating a second collection of the second path offsets along the segment using the second path offsets (partitioning the subject probe data into a same number of clusters as the historical probe data associated with the segment. In this regard, a similar or same algorithm such as used in operation 300 may be applied to the subject probe data (e.g., real-time, near real-time, or current probe data) [0063]);
comparing the first collection and the second collection in accordance with a change criterion (comparing a statistical measure of the subject lateral positional indicators to respective statistical measures of the historical lateral positional indicators [0064]) to identify a difference that represents an anomalous condition along the segment (determining whether any lane of the segment is closed dependent upon the comparison of the statistical measure of the subject lateral positional indicators to the respective statistical measure of the historical lateral positional indicators [0065]); and
generating incident information based on the difference (The data may be compared in real-time or near real-time such that alerts regarding lane statuses, including but not limited to closed, and/or shifted lanes, may be provided to drivers traveling in or approaching the affected segment [0043]).
Regarding claim 2:
Fowe teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Fowe further teaches:
wherein a particular path offset of the second path offsets represents a particular path of a single electronic user device along the segment (probe traces define the path of a probe device, such as may be carried by a vehicle during its travel along a portion of the road network [0042]) and includes a plurality of geolocation points (A plurality of probe data, or “probes” 400 of a segment are plotted [0053]).
Regarding claim 3:
Fowe teaches all the limitations of claim 2, upon which this claim depends.
Fowe further teaches:
wherein the particular path offset comprises, for each geolocation point of the plurality of geolocation points, a signed perpendicular distance from a centerline of the segment (D-values to the left of the center line vector 402 have negative values and d-values to the right of the center line vector 402 have positive values. The sign or polarity of a positional indicator (e.g., d-value) may indicate direction of the probe from the center line vector 402, and the absolute value of the d-value indicates how far the probe is from the center line vector 402, measured laterally, or at a direction orthogonal to, or substantially orthogonal to the flow of traffic (and/or center line vector 402) [0055]).
Regarding claim 4:
Fowe teaches all the limitations of claim 3, upon which this claim depends.
Fowe further teaches:
wherein generating the second collection of the second path offsets comprises adding a count to the second collection at the signed perpendicular distance value (In FIGS. 5 and 6, four clusters of historical probe data 500, and four clusters of subject probe data are provided on x-y axes plotting the frequency of the probes by their d-values, or lateral positional indicators. Each peak represents a cluster of data [0066]).
Regarding claim 5:
Fowe teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Fowe further teaches:
wherein the current interval occurs after the prior interval (Probe data collected in real-time or near real-time is compared to historical probe data [abstract]).
Regarding claim 6:
Fowe teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Fowe further teaches:
wherein the prior interval has a first length that is longer than a second length of the current interval (the subject probe data is associated with a time relative to a week or a day of the week, and the historical probe data is associated with the same time period relative to at least one prior week or at least one prior day of the week [0011]).
Regarding claim 7:
Fowe teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Fowe further teaches:
wherein the first collection comprises a first histogram and the second collection comprises a second histogram (In FIGS. 5 and 6, four clusters of historical probe data 500, and four clusters of subject probe data are provided on x-y axes plotting the frequency of the probes by their d-values, or lateral positional indicators. Each peak represents a cluster of data [0066]).
Regarding claim 8:
Fowe teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Fowe further teaches:
wherein the second collection represents a current estimated width (For a segment in which a lane closure is detected, example embodiments may further detect which lane is closed (e.g., leftmost lane). The broken dashed lines 802 further illustrate the lane lines, which may be modified due to construction, for example. The label 810 indicates a segment for which a shifted lane is detected according to processing circuitry 22 of example embodiments. Label 812 indicates a segment for which a closed lane is detected by processing circuitry 22 of example embodiments. According to example embodiments, the exemplary lane statuses of FIG. 8 may be determined based on probe data and provided to drivers [0087]) of the segment and current estimated borders of the segment (a lane closure and/or shifting, as illustrated by the graphics 800, such as illustrated by indicators of cones or other barricades [0087]).
Regarding claim 9:
Fowe teaches all the limitations of claim 8, upon which this claim depends.
Fowe further teaches:
wherein the current estimated width of the segment is different than a historical estimated width of the segment represented by the first collection (the offset 550 of FIG. 5 may satisfy a closure threshold, such that example embodiments, such as processing circuitry 22, determine at least one lane is closed. The offset 650 of FIG. 6 is less than the offset 550 of FIG. 5. In this regard, even if a closure threshold is not satisfied by the offset 650 (or if a closure threshold is not implemented or defined, and/or operation 318 is not performed), offset 650 may be indicative of a lane shift [0073]).
Regarding claim 10:
Fowe teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Fowe further teaches:
wherein the change criterion comprises a collection width criterion (a shift threshold may be defined. If the absolute value of an offset (e.g., difference) between any pair of historical and subject lateral positional indicators (e.g., d.sub.h1 and d.sub.s1, d.sub.h2 and d.sub.s2, etc.) is greater than, or is greater than or equal to a shift threshold, example embodiments, such as processing circuitry 22, may determine at least one lane is shifted [0071]), and wherein the difference represents that the second collection is narrower than the first collection (the offset 550 of FIG. 5 may satisfy a closure threshold, such that example embodiments, such as processing circuitry 22, determine at least one lane is closed. The offset 650 of FIG. 6 is less than the offset 550 of FIG. 5. In this regard, even if a closure threshold is not satisfied by the offset 650 (or if a closure threshold is not implemented or defined, and/or operation 318 is not performed), offset 650 may be indicative of a lane shift. [0073]).
Regarding claim 11:
Fowe teaches all the limitations of claim 10, upon which this claim depends.
Fowe further teaches:
wherein the anomalous condition comprises a narrowing of lanes along the segment (The broken dashed lines 802 further illustrate the lane lines, which may be modified due to construction, for example. The label 810 indicates a segment for which a shifted lane is detected according to processing circuitry 22 of example embodiments [0087]).
Regarding claim 12:
Fowe teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Fowe further teaches:
wherein the change criterion comprises a collection center criterion (The statistical measures of lateral positional indicators, such as mean d-values, are indicated as d.sub.s1, d.sub.s2, d.sub.s3, and do for the subject probe data, and d.sub.h1, d.sub.h2, d.sub.h3, and d.sub.h4 for the historical probe data. [0066]), and wherein the difference represents that a median of the second collection is offset from a median of the first collection (If the absolute value of an offset (e.g., difference) between any pair of historical and subject lateral positional indicators (e.g., d.sub.h1 and d.sub.s1, d.sub.h2 and d.sub.s2, etc.) equals or exceeds a closure threshold, example embodiments, such as processing circuitry 22, may determine at least one lane of the segment is closed [0068]).
Regarding claim 13:
Fowe teaches all the limitations of claim 12, upon which this claim depends.
Fowe further teaches:
wherein the anomalous condition comprises a shifting of lanes along the segment (In operation, 320, apparatus 20 includes means, such as processing circuitry 22, memory 24, and/or the like, for determining whether any lane of the segment is shifted dependent upon the comparison of the statistical measure of the subject lateral positional indicators to the respective statistical measure of the historical lateral positional indicators [0070]).
Regarding claim 14:
Fowe teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Fowe further teaches:
further comprising receiving a anomalous condition signal (at least one lane of the segment is determined as closed and/or shifted, in operation 700 [0077]), and wherein generating the incident information comprises generating the incident information based on the anomalous condition signal (As shown in operation 720, apparatus 20 may include means, such as processing circuitry 22, memory 24, communication interface 26, user interface 28, and/or the like, for causing provision of an alert via a user interface regarding a lane status, such as but not limited to a closed and/or shifted lane. For example, a lane status determination apparatus 8 may transmit an indication of a lane status to user equipment 12 [0085]).
Regarding claim 15:
Fowe teaches all the limitations of claim 14, upon which this claim depends.
Fowe further teaches:
wherein the anomalous condition signal indicates an anomalous condition to the segment (at least one lane of the segment is determined as closed and/or shifted, in operation 700 [0077]), and wherein receiving the anomalous condition signal comprises receiving the anomalous condition signal from a transportation authority (The compilation to produce the end user database(s) can be performed by a party or entity separate from the lane status determination apparatus 8. For example, a navigation device developer or other end user device developer, can perform compilation on a received map database and/or probe database in a delivery format to produce one or more compiled databases [0039]).
Regarding claim 16:
Fowe teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Fowe further teaches:
further comprising sending the incident information to an electronic user device that is adjacent to or approaching the segment (The data may be compared in real-time or near real-time such that alerts regarding lane statuses, including but not limited to closed, and/or shifted lanes, may be provided to drivers traveling in or approaching the affected segment [0043]).
Regarding claim 17:
Fowe teaches all the limitations of claim 16, upon which this claim depends.
Fowe further teaches:
wherein the incident information causes the electronic user device to present information about the anomalous condition (The alerts may be provided to any user equipment 12 such as a navigation system, an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS), an in-vehicle infotainment system, a mobile device (such as one configured to access a mapping or navigation application or website), a dynamic road sign, a personal navigation device (PND), a portable navigation device, a cellular telephone, a smart phone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a watch, a camera, a computer, and/or other device [0043]).
Regarding claim 18:
Fowe teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Fowe further teaches:
wherein the second collection comprises a rolling window that is updated at a regular interval (The segment for which subject probe data is to be obtained may be indicated in a systematic manner, such that the process described below may be performed for a variety of segments on a routine basis [0060]).
Regarding claim 19:
Fowe teaches:
A system (Referring to FIG. 1, an exemplary system in which certain example embodiments operate is depicted [0034]), comprising:
a memory configured to store computer-executable instructions (fig. 2, memory 24);
a processor (fig. 2 processor 22) configured to access the memory and execute the computer- executable instructions (the processing circuitry 22 (and/or co-processors or any other processors assisting or otherwise associated with the processing circuitry) may be in communication with the memory device 24 via a bus for passing information among components of the apparatus[0046]) to at least:
access a first collection of first path offsets along a segment (partitioning historical probe data into clusters based on their lateral positional indicators [0052]), the first path offsets corresponding to prior user device probe data generated during a prior interval (all historical probe data available for a segment may be utilized to determine clusters and statistical measures of the historical positional indicators for the segment [0059]);
determine second path offsets (partitioning the subject probe data into a same number of clusters as the historical probe data associated with the segment. In this regard, a similar or same algorithm such as used in operation 300 may be applied to the subject probe data (e.g., real-time, near real-time, or current probe data) [0063]) along the segment based on current user device probe data generated during a current interval (utilize real-time or near real-time subject probe data of other vehicles traveling on the segment (in a period of time leading up to a current time) to assess current (e.g., real-time or near real-time) lane statuses, and provide a response in real-time or near real-time to user equipment 12 [0044]);
generate a second collection of the second path offsets along the segment using the second path offsets (partitioning the subject probe data into a same number of clusters as the historical probe data associated with the segment. In this regard, a similar or same algorithm such as used in operation 300 may be applied to the subject probe data (e.g., real-time, near real-time, or current probe data) [0063]);
compare the first collection and the second collection in accordance with a change criterion (comparing a statistical measure of the subject lateral positional indicators to respective statistical measures of the historical lateral positional indicators [0064]) to identify a difference that represents an anomalous condition along the segment (determining whether any lane of the segment is closed dependent upon the comparison of the statistical measure of the subject lateral positional indicators to the respective statistical measure of the historical lateral positional indicators [0065]); and
generate incident information based on the difference (The data may be compared in real-time or near real-time such that alerts regarding lane statuses, including but not limited to closed, and/or shifted lanes, may be provided to drivers traveling in or approaching the affected segment [0043]).
Regarding claim 20:
Fowe teaches:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computer system, cause the computer system to (An apparatus is provided including at least processing circuitry and at least one non-transitory memory including computer program code instructions, the computer program code instructions configured to, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the apparatus to… [0006]) at least:
access a first collection of first path offsets along a segment (partitioning historical probe data into clusters based on their lateral positional indicators [0052]), the first path offsets corresponding to prior user device probe data generated during a prior interval (all historical probe data available for a segment may be utilized to determine clusters and statistical measures of the historical positional indicators for the segment [0059]);
determine second path offsets (partitioning the subject probe data into a same number of clusters as the historical probe data associated with the segment. In this regard, a similar or same algorithm such as used in operation 300 may be applied to the subject probe data (e.g., real-time, near real-time, or current probe data) [0063]) along the segment based on current user device probe data generated during a current interval (utilize real-time or near real-time subject probe data of other vehicles traveling on the segment (in a period of time leading up to a current time) to assess current (e.g., real-time or near real-time) lane statuses, and provide a response in real-time or near real-time to user equipment 12 [0044]);
generate a second collection of the second path offsets along the segment using the second path offsets (partitioning the subject probe data into a same number of clusters as the historical probe data associated with the segment. In this regard, a similar or same algorithm such as used in operation 300 may be applied to the subject probe data (e.g., real-time, near real-time, or current probe data) [0063]);
compare the first collection and the second collection in accordance with a change criterion (comparing a statistical measure of the subject lateral positional indicators to respective statistical measures of the historical lateral positional indicators [0064]) to identify a difference that represents an anomalous condition along the segment (determining whether any lane of the segment is closed dependent upon the comparison of the statistical measure of the subject lateral positional indicators to the respective statistical measure of the historical lateral positional indicators [0065]); and
generate incident information based on the difference (The data may be compared in real-time or near real-time such that alerts regarding lane statuses, including but not limited to closed, and/or shifted lanes, may be provided to drivers traveling in or approaching the affected segment [0043]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fowe (US 2022/0180736) discloses A method, apparatus and computer program product are provided to determine lane status confidence indicators of lane status predictions such as closures and/or shifting. Lane statuses and corresponding confidence indicators are determined based on probe data, such as probe data collected from vehicle and/or mobile devices traveling along a road segment. Probe data may be partitioned into clusters and compared to partitioned subsets of the probe data. Cluster stability for the segment and corresponding lane status confidence indicators can be determined based on the comparison. Accordingly, determinations of whether to transmit predicted lane statuses to another system, service, and/or user device may be made.
Dorum (US 2019/0325738) discloses a method for establishing lane-level data from probe data. Methods may include receiving probe data points associated with a plurality of vehicles; determining, for each of the probe data points, a location and road segment corresponding to the location; generating, from the probe data points associated with a first road segment, a probe density histogram for the first road segment, where the probe density histogram represents a volume of probe data points at each of a plurality of positions across a width of the first road segment; applying a deconvolution method to the probe density histogram to obtain a multi-modal histogram; determining, from the multi-modal histogram, a number of statistically significant peaks, where each statistically significant peak represents a lane of the first road segment; and computing, from the multi-modal histogram, lane-level properties of the probe data of the first road segment.
Stenneth (US 2015/0170514) discloses determining real time traffic conditions. A candidate road is divided into road segments by perpendicular bisectors. A spatial sliding window is positioned over at least a portion of a road segment, wherein the spatial sliding window corresponds to a front end of the road segment in a direction of travel of the road segment. Real time probe data is received from mobile devices in probe vehicles or on travelers of the at least portion of the road segment within the spatial sliding window. The real time probe data is analyzed, and a computer program assists in determining the real time traffic conditions of the at least portion of the road segment within the spatial sliding window. Based on the analysis, the real time traffic conditions are reported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott R Jagolinzer whose telephone number is (571)272-4180. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8AM - 4PM Eastern.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571)272-4190. 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.
Scott R. Jagolinzer
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/S.R.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights