DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 10 June 2025 and the response to the restriction requirement received on 14 July 2026. This communication is the first action on merits. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claims 1, and 7 have been amended.
Claims 2, and 12-30 are cancelled.
Claims 3-4, 8-9 are original / previously presented.
Claims 31-37 are new.
Claims 5-6, and 10-11 are withdrawn, tied to the unelected invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-9 and 31-37 are currently pending and have been examined.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention 1 (claims 1, 3-4, 7-9) in the reply filed on 14 July 2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
This application 19/234,002 filed on 10 June 2025 claims priority from application 16/856,922 (now patent 12327434) filed on 23 April 2020, which claims priority from application 13/414,652 filed on 7 March 2012, which claims priority from provisional patent application 61/450,055 filed on 7 March 2011.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 12 January 2026 has been acknowledged by the Office.
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, 3-4, 7-9, 32, 34, and 37:
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 32, 34, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1, 3-4, 32, 34 recite a method; and claim 7-9, 37 recites a system. Since the claims recite either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG). Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A – Prong One:
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 32, 34, and 37 recite an abstract idea. Independent claim 1 recites calculating, a time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location based on a comparison of the roadside sensor location with respective locations and location detection event time stamps of the series of location detection events; comparing, prior to the vehicle passing the vehicle traffic control site, the calculated time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location to times of the set of data output events produced by the one or more sensors to determine a temporal correspondence between a data output event of the set of data output events and the calculated time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location; determining, an association between the vehicle and a data output event based on the determined temporal correspondence; and outputting, contemporaneously with the transit of the vehicle between the roadside sensor location and the vehicle traffic control site, prior to the vehicle passing the vehicle traffic control site, one or more commands that control vehicle traffic based on the association between the vehicle and the data output event.
Independent claim 7 recites contemporaneously with transit of a vehicle between the roadside sensor location and a vehicle traffic control site, carry out: calculating a time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location based on a comparison of the roadside sensor location with respective locations and location detection event time stamps of the series of location detection events; comparing, prior to the vehicle passing the vehicle traffic control site, the calculated time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location to times of a set of data output events of the data produced by the one or more sensors to determine a temporal correspondence between a data output event of the set of data output events and the calculated time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location; determining an association between the vehicle and the data output event based on the determined temporal correspondence; and taking one or more actions contemporaneously with the transit of the vehicle between the roadside sensor location and the vehicle traffic control site based on the determining the association.
The claims as a whole recite certain methods of organizing human activities, and individual limitations also recite mathematical concept.
First, the limitations of (claim 1) calculating, a time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location based on a comparison of the roadside sensor location with respective locations and location detection event time stamps of the series of location detection events; comparing, prior to the vehicle passing the vehicle traffic control site, the calculated time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location to times of the set of data output events produced by the one or more sensors to determine a temporal correspondence between a data output event of the set of data output events and the calculated time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location; determining, an association between the vehicle and a data output event based on the determined temporal correspondence; and outputting, contemporaneously with the transit of the vehicle between the roadside sensor location and the vehicle traffic control site, prior to the vehicle passing the vehicle traffic control site, one or more commands that control vehicle traffic based on the association between the vehicle and the data output event; (claim 7) contemporaneously with transit of a vehicle between the roadside sensor location and a vehicle traffic control site, carry out: calculating a time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location based on a comparison of the roadside sensor location with respective locations and location detection event time stamps of the series of location detection events; comparing, prior to the vehicle passing the vehicle traffic control site, the calculated time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location to times of a set of data output events of the data produced by the one or more sensors to determine a temporal correspondence between a data output event of the set of data output events and the calculated time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location; determining an association between the vehicle and the data output event based on the determined temporal correspondence; and taking one or more actions contemporaneously with the transit of the vehicle between the roadside sensor location and the vehicle traffic control site based on the determining the association are certain methods of organizing human activities. For instance, these limitations represent the sub-groupings of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and following rules or instructions. For example, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes calculating a time…, comparison… / comparing the roadside sensor location with the respective sensor locations…, comparing the calculated time…, determining temporal correspondence…, determining an association…, outputting commands that control traffic…, taking one or more actions based on determining…; and following rules or instructions includes calculating a time…, comparison… / comparing the roadside sensor location with the respective sensor locations…, comparing the calculated time…, determining temporal correspondence…, determining an association…, outputting commands that control traffic…, taking one or more actions based on determining. The presence of generic / general purpose computers and general computer components such as a central processing system, electronic commands does not preclude the steps from reciting certain methods of organizing human activities, since the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) regardless of the recitation of generic computer components or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, then it falls within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Second, the limitation of calculating a time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location based on a comparison of the roadside sensor location with respective locations and location detection event time stamps of the series of location detection events recites a mathematical relationship (time) between the roadside sensor location and the location detection event. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept. Also note that in this claim, the calculating step is determined to recite a mathematical concept because it explicitly recites calculating. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts (e.g. this limitation represents the subgroupings of mathematical relationships) but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. central processing system), then it falls within the ‘Mathematical Concepts’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. First, claims 1, 52, and 58 as a whole merely describe how to generally ‘apply’ the concepts of organizing human activities in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (i.e. central processing system, electronic command) are recited at a high-level of generality and merely invoked as a tools to perform existing manual processes. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic / general-purpose computers is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2016.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of receiving / accessing and its steps of receiving, at a central processing system for vehicle traffic control connected to a network, prior to a vehicle passing a vehicle traffic control site, a first dataset from a mobile wireless device moving with a vehicle, the first dataset comprising vehicle location data; accessing, by the central processing system, a second dataset including a set of data output events produced by one or more sensors at a roadside sensor location; a server connected to the telecommunications network to receive a first dataset from a mobile wireless device and a second dataset including data produced by one or more sensors at a roadside sensor location are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent calculating a time / determining temporal correspondence), and amounts to mere data gathering / data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the mobile wireless device, one or more sensors, server, telecommunications network (generic computer, general computer components) are only being used as a tool in the receiving / accessing, and represents using a computer in its ordinary capacity for economic / other tasks (e.g. to receive data), which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding receiving / accessing more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional elements of a mobile wireless device, and a central processing system / server connected to a telecommunications network in the limitations does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. mobile / remote computing), and as such do not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(h). Hence, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of a mobile wireless device moving with a vehicle in the limitations does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use (i.e. vehicles), and as such do not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(h). Hence, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of monitoring and its limitation of the first dataset comprising vehicle location data obtained by monitoring a location of the mobile wireless device in which the location is determined from satellites to produce a series of location detection events each associated with a respective location and location detection event time stamp, and vehicle related information are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for the received dataset and subsequent matching / comparing), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the mobile wireless device (generic computer) is only being used as a tool in the monitoring, and represents using a computer in its ordinary capacity for economic / other tasks (e.g. to receive data), which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Also, monitoring a mobile wireless device location determined from satellites does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. GPS, mobile), and as such do not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(h). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding monitoring more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (i.e. determining location). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of producing and its limitations of a set of data output events produced by one or more sensors at a roadside sensor location; the set of data output events produced by the one or more sensors; a second dataset including data produced by one or more sensors at a roadside sensor location; a set of data output events of the data produced by the one or more sensors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for the accessed / received dataset and subsequent matching / comparing), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the sensors (general computer components) are only being used as a tool in the producing, and represents using a computer in its ordinary capacity for economic / other tasks (e.g. to receive, store data), which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding producing more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (i.e. producing data). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of sending (claim 7) and its limitation sending a signal to the mobile wireless device prior to the vehicle passing the vehicle traffic control site, the signal being indicative of whether the vehicle is permitted to bypass the vehicle traffic control site is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a general means of outputting of one or more action as a result of the recorded matching / comparing), and amounts to mere outputting of data, which is a form of extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the central processing system and mobile wireless device (generic computers) is only being used as a tool in the sending, and represents using a computer in its ordinary capacity for economic / other tasks (e.g. to transmit data), which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Also, the mobile wireless device, and permission to bypass the vehicle inspection site does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and/or field of use (i.e. mobile, vehicle inspection), and as such does not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(h). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding sending more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (e.g. notifying whether bypass is permitted). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
While identified in Step 2A Prong One as a certain method of organizing human activity, also note that outputting (claim 1) (e.g. outputting, contemporaneously with the transit of the vehicle between the roadside sensor location and the vehicle traffic control site, by the central processing system prior to the vehicle passing the vehicle traffic control site, one or more electronic commands that control vehicle traffic based on the association between the vehicle and the data output event) is recited at a high level of detail and is representative of transmitting data / outputting data (extra-solution activities) which are not indicative of a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the central processing system, electronic commands (generic computer, general computer component) is only being used as a tool in the outputting, and represents using a computer in its ordinary capacity for economic / other tasks (e.g. to transmit data), which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (e.g. central processing system, electronic commands); adding high-level extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering, transmitting data, outputting data) with general purpose computers / general computer components (e.g. server, telecommunication network, mobile wireless device, sensors); and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment and field of use (e.g. vehicles / vehicle inspection, mobile computing, GPS). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a central processing system and electronic commands to perform calculating a time…, comparison… / comparing the roadside sensor location with the respective sensor locations…, comparing the calculated time…, determining temporal correspondence…, determining an association…, outputting commands that control traffic…, taking one or more actions based on determining amounts to no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ the exception using generic computers. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0023-24] describing the additional element of the central processing system (e.g. servers and related peripherals for connecting to the servers) at a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the technical particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the receiving / accessing are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for as a general means of gathering data for subsequent calculating a time / determining temporal correspondence), and amounts to mere data gathering / data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. mobile wireless device, one or more sensors, server connected to the telecommunications network) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool and using a computer in its ordinary capacity for economic / other tasks (e.g. to receive data), and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these receiving / accessing steps also represent computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network, utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information (Symantec), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs), electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document (Content Extraction); gathering statistics (OIP Techs). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0076] describing roadside sensors and systems collecting weigh in motion data for vehicles as conventional. Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the mobile wireless device, and the central processing system / server connected to a telecommunications network do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. mobile / remote computing). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(h). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0025-26], ¶[0053] describing the additional element of a mobile wireless device, and using a mobile wireless device for GPS location, and sending / receiving data with the mobile device at a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0024], ¶[0089] describing the additional element of the central processing system / server connected to a telecommunications network at a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). See Applicant’s specification Fig 1, ¶[0023-24] that all communication channels connecting the system elements may be conventional. Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the mobile wireless device moving with a vehicle, and sensors producing data concerning vehicles do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use (i.e. vehicles). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(h). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0039] describing that the mobile wireless device is normally carried by the driver in the vehicle; and also ¶[0026] describing this additional element of a mobile wireless device carried by a vehicle or person at a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0076] describing roadside sensors and systems collecting weigh in motion data for vehicles as conventional. Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding monitoring location of the mobile wireless device are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a general means of gathering data for receiving the dataset and subsequent matching / comparing), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. mobile wireless device) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general-purpose computer as a tool and using a computer in its ordinary capacity for economic / other tasks (e.g. to receive data), and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, monitoring a mobile wireless device location determined from satellites does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. GPS, mobile), and as such is not an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, these monitoring steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs); gathering statistics (OIP Techs). Also, see the Applicant’s specification ¶[0034] describing the additional element of retrieving location data from GPS satellites at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Also, note the Asam publication (US 2004/0135677 A1) demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of this additional element (see Asam ¶[0011] detailing any professionals know positioning data can be collected in a vehicle using GPS which is a global, satellite supported navigation system). Hence, these limitations do not provide an inventive concept.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding producing data concerning vehicles are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent matching / comparing), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer elements (i.e. sensors) in these steps merely represents using general computer components as a tool and using a computer in its ordinary capacity for economic / other tasks (e.g. to receive, store data), and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these producing steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs), electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document (Content Extraction); electronic record keeping (Alice); gathering statistics (OIP Techs). Also, see the Applicant’s specification ¶[0075], ¶[0082] describing the additional element of sensors producing data concerning vehicles at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Note the Boll publication background (US 7,480,560) demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of this additional element (see Boll col 1 ln 13-14, col 1 ln 45-58 detailing conventional components of current traffic control systems including collecting and monitoring with road sensor devices such as induction loops / traffic detectors / TV cameras to then supply traffic information to the system). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the sending a signal (claim 7) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a general means of outputting of one or more action as a result of the recorded matching / comparing), and amount to mere outputting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computers (i.e. central processing system, mobile wireless device) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general-purpose computer as a tool and using a computer in its ordinary capacity for economic / other tasks (e.g. to transmit data), and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these sending steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. outputting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), using a telephone for image transmission (TLI Communications), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Also, see the Applicant’s specification ¶[0030], ¶[0043] describing the additional element of sending a bypass signal at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
Also, as discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the Step 2A Prong One organizing human activity elements regarding outputting commands are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting data associated with the determining), and also amounts to the extra-solution activity of transmitting data / outputting data, which is not a practical application or an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). These outputting limitations also represent computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving and transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), presenting offers and gathering statistics (OIP Techs). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
The claims do not improve another technology or technical field. Instead, the claims represent a generic implementation of organizing human activities ‘applied’ by generic / general purpose-computers, generally ‘applied’ to a field of use and technology (e.g. mobile, GPS, vehicle inspection), and using general computer components in extra-solution capacities such as data gathering and outputting data. The claims do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. At best, the claims are more directed towards solving a business / economic / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how to determine whether a vehicle satisfies a condition to then take a one or more actions; how to determine whether a vehicle may bypass a vehicle traffic control site), that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. mobile, GPS), rather than solving a technology-based problem. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer itself. The claims are more directed towards improving a business / economic / entrepreneurial process rather than improving a computer outside of a business use, i.e. using computers a tool. The claims do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction to a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional in a way that confines the claim to a particular useful application.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually, both with respect to the independent claims 1 and 7, and further considering the addition of dependent claims 3-4, 8-9, 32, 34, 37. Note that the combination of limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components (e.g. server, mobile wireless device, sensors), see Alice (2014), and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components to achieve a technical improvement, see BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC (2016). The architecture in combination including a server, mobile wireless device, and sensors is well understood, routine, conventional as previously known in the industry and therefore do not provide significantly more. The Boll publication background (US 7,480,560) demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the architecture (see Boll col 1 ln 13-14, col 1 ln 45-58 detailing conventional components of current traffic control systems including traffic response controllers (i.e. server), road sensor devices such as induction loops / traffic detectors, and vehicles integrated with mobile positioning and communication systems using GPS devices or similar vehicle-tracking/locating equipment). Also, the Asam publication (2004/0135677 A1) demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the architecture (see Asam ¶[0003] detailing collecting GPS from internal vehicle sensor and external sensor sources, and ¶[0011] detailing ‘any professional knows’ that positioning data can be collected regarding a vehicle in many ways including using both GPS receivers as a global satellite-supported navigation system and also using localizing receivers along the racetrack (i.e. roadside sensors) in redundant combination). Hence, the ordered combination of elements does not provide significantly more. With respect to the dependent claims:
Dependent claims 3 and 8: The limitation wherein the vehicle traffic control site includes a vehicle inspection site merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations, and applying the judicial exception to field of use (i.e. inspection), which is not a practical application or significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(h). See the Applicant’s specification background ¶[0003] describing a roadside screening system, and ¶[0025] describing a vehicle screening area or weigh station or toll location as an inspection site at such a high level that indicates this element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Similar to the independent claims and the claims above, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4 and 9: The limitation wherein the vehicle inspection site includes a vehicle screening area or a weigh station merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations, and applying the judicial exception to field of use (i.e. inspection), which is not a practical application or significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(h). See the Applicant’s specification background ¶[0003] describing a roadside screening system, and ¶[0025] describing a vehicle screening area or weigh station or toll location as an inspection site at such a high level that indicates this element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Similar to the independent claims and the claims above, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 32: First, the limitations wherein the one or more sensors at the roadside sensor location produce data concerting vehicles in a first lane, and one or more additional sensors detect vehicles in a second lane at the roadside sensor location represent additional elements that are not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. Producing data, detecting vehicles, and recording are recited at a high level of generality and amount to the extra solution activities of data gathering and electronic record keeping. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computers (i.e. one or more sensors, one or more additional sensors) in these steps merely represents using computer components as a tool. See MPEP 2106.05(f). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0012], ¶[0081-82] describing the additional element of sensors producing / detecting vehicle lane data at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Producing data represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice), storing information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). Second, the limitation of the association between the vehicle and the data output event produced by the one or more sensors at the roadside sensor location is recorded depending on the lack of detection of a vehicle in the second lane by the one or more additional sensors is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (i.e. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claims. Also note that recording data represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice), storing information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). Similar to the independent claims, these limitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 34 and 37: The limitations wherein the one or more electronic commands include sending a notification to a law enforcement service is an additional element recited at a high level of generality that amounts to the extra-solution activity of outputting data, and applying the invention to a field of use (i.e. law enforcement). See MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g), 2106.04(h). Furthermore, sending is claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. outputting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), using a telephone for image transmission (TLI Communications), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Similar to the independent claims and the claims above, these limitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore claims 1 and 7, and the dependent claims 3-4, 8-9, 32, 34, 37 and all limitations taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 32, 34, 37 are ineligible.
EXAMINER’S NOTE: Dependent claims 31, 33, and 35-36 are not rejected under 35 USC 101.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 31, 34-35, and 37 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US patent application publication US 2012/0139696 A1 to McQuade in view of US patent application publication 2011/0015971 to Hembury in view of US patent application publication 2006/0142933 A1 to Feng.
Claim 1:
McQuade, as shown, teaches the following:
A method comprising:
receiving, at a central processing system for vehicle traffic control connected to a network, prior to a vehicle passing a vehicle traffic control site, a first dataset from a mobile wireless device moving with a vehicle (McQuade Fig 3 ¶[0008], ¶[0013], ¶[0026-27] details receiving current GPS location of vehicles and whether they are within a defined geofence, the vehicle is equipped with the mobile device),
With respect to the following:
the first dataset comprising vehicle location data obtained by monitoring a location of the mobile wireless device in which the location is determined from satellites to produce a series of location detection events each associated with a respective location and location detection event time stamp, and vehicle related information;
McQuade, as shown in ¶[0015], ¶[0026], ¶[0029], ¶[0034] details the first dataset comprising vehicle location data obtained by monitoring the location of the device by GPS (i.e. determined from satellites) to report real time locations of the vehicle and the vehicle identification, highly suggesting but not explicitly stating that the first dataset also includes a series of location detection events that are each associated with a location detection event time stamp. To the extent that McQuade may not explicitly state this, Hembury teaches this limitation obtaining a first dataset comprising vehicle GPS data determined by monitoring a mobile device location determined by satellites and storing a vehicle’s location and time data for up to two years, and transmitting the GPS data and vehicle ID in the dataset (Hembury ¶[0010], ¶[0031-33], ¶[0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the first dataset comprising vehicle location data obtained by monitoring a location of the mobile wireless device in which the location is determined from satellites to produce a series of location detection events each associated with a respective location and location detection event time stamp, and vehicle related information as taught by Hembury with the teachings of McQuade, with the motivation of “statewide or other jurisdiction registering and monitoring of vehicle locations” and “identify vehicles in a location of interest at a particular time, not only presently, but for a specified period of time in the past” (Hembury ¶[0002], ¶[0013]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the first dataset comprising vehicle location data obtained by monitoring a location of the mobile wireless device in which the location is determined from satellites to produce a series of location detection events each associated with a respective location and location detection event time stamp, and vehicle related information as taught by Hembury in the system of McQuade, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to the following:
accessing, by the central processing system, a second dataset including a set of data output events produced by one or more sensors at a roadside sensor location;
McQuade, as shown in ¶[0007], ¶[0011-12], ¶[0049] details accessing a second dataset that includes rule-based data associated with individual roadside inspection stations, the inspection stations and weigh stations include portable scales for measuring vehicles (i.e. sensors producing data concerning vehicles), and the inspection stations communicate data using a data link, highly suggesting but not explicitly stating accessing a second dataset including data produced by one or more sensors at a roadside location. To the extent that McQuade may not explicitly state this, Hembury teaches these limitations with roadside sensors detecting vehicles in monitored areas, the sensors determining how many vehicles pass over them or pass a particular roadway, and reporting the locations and times back to the system and comparator (Hembury ¶[0019], ¶[0055], ¶[0059]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include accessing, by the central processing system, a second dataset including a set of data output events produced by one or more sensors at a roadside sensor location as taught by Hembury with the teachings of McQuade (in view of Hembury), with the motivation to “identify vehicles in a location of interest at a particular time, not only presently, but for a specified period of time in the past” (Hembury ¶[0013]).
With respect to the following:
calculating, by the central processing system, a time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location based on a comparison of the roadside sensor location with respective locations and location detection event time stamps of the series of location detection events;
McQuade, as shown in ¶[0030], ¶[0049] details storing the result of a vehicle at an inspection station (i.e. roadside sensor) and defined rules regarding the frequency (i.e. time) of how often a vehicle is required to be inspected, but does not explicitly state calculating a time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location based on a comparison of the roadside sensor location with the respective locations and location detection event time stamps of the series of location detection events. However, Hembury teaches this limitation detailing comparing the vehicle GPS data for a particular period of time and radar / sensor data (i.e. roadside sensor data, per McQuade) for the same period of time, comparing all digital data for the location and the vehicle location timestamps to spot-check the vehicle at a particular time, i.e. calculating a time of vehicle encountering the roadside sensor location (Hembury ¶[0059-60], ¶[0065]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include calculating, by the central processing system, a time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location based on a comparison of the roadside sensor location with respective locations and location detection event time stamps of the series of location detection events as taught by Hembury in the system of McQuade (in view of Hembury), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to the following:
comparing, by the central processing system prior to the vehicle passing the vehicle traffic control site, the calculated time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location to times of the set of data output events produced by the one or more sensors to determine a temporal correspondence between a data output event of the set of data output events and the calculated time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location;
determining, by the central processing system, an association between the vehicle and a data output event based on the determined temporal correspondence; and
McQuade (of McQuade in view of Hembury), as shown in Fig 1, ¶[0027], ¶[0029-30], ¶[0035], ¶[0049] details identifying a GPS location data output event (noting one or more enrolled vehicles may be traveling at once, i.e. plural data output events) to determine the vehicle is approaching the inspection station / roadside sensor location, matching the location data of the inspection station / roadside sensor with the GPS location data of the vehicle device that includes the vehicle ID, including the consideration of rules for specific vehicles, specific times, and specific locations, and storing the result (i.e. determining an association); and Hembury, as shown in ¶[0059-60], ¶[0065] above, details calculating a time of vehicle encountering the roadside sensor location; but McQuade/Hembury does not explicitly state comparing, by the central processing system prior to the vehicle passing the vehicle traffic control site, the calculated time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location to times of the set of data output events produced by the one or more sensors to determine a temporal correspondence between a data output event of the set of data output events and the calculated time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location; determining, by the central processing system, an association between the vehicle and a data output event based on the determined temporal correspondence. However, Feng teaches these limitations recording a toll settlement match (i.e. determined association between the vehicle and the data output event) for the vehicle when the toll station provides data of a vehicle passing a roadside toll station with vehicle images and vehicle passing time (i.e. roadside sensor data output event) that aligns with the toll confirmation information sent by the vehicle including the GPS coordinates, the passing time, and the license plate (i.e. calculated time at which the vehicle entered the roadside sensor location), matching both license plate and the passing time of the vehicle (i.e. comparing the calculated time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location to times of data out events produced by the sensors), noting that the roadside toll station collects data output events for all passing vehicles in a settlement report (i.e. data output events), hence the calculated time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location is matched (i.e. determined to temporally correspond) to times of the plural data output events and the data output event is selected (determined association between the vehicle and the data output event) among data from all passing vehicles based on this match (i.e. when times match there is temporal correspondence between and association between the vehicle and a data output event) (Feng ¶[0060-63], ¶[0174]; In particular note the bolded portions of the following passages. See ¶[0060] “The toll stations belonging to different owners have their own toll station computer systems (72), toll station image recognition system devices (721) and toll station image recognition system software (722). Each toll station captures the pictures of passing vehicles with its self-provided toll station image recognition video camera (723), identifies the physical license plates of the vehicles, and then includes them into an intraday settlement report made by the toll station computer system (72) together with the vehicle passing times, and transmits this report to the road toll collection computer and software system (70) via the wired data communication network special for toll stations (71)”. See ¶[0063] “The Toll confirmation information sent by a vehicle comprises the current GPS coordinates, the electronic license plate, the traveling direction, and the passing time of the vehicle and the code number of the toll station”. See ¶[0062] “The road toll collection computer and software system (70) store the legal toll standards of all the toll stations. The system is an independent financial settlement unit, in charge of inspecting and checking the toll confirmation sent back by the vehicle when it is passing a toll station and the settlement report sent by the toll station computer system (72). If the toll confirmation information of a vehicle is received and the license plate number and passing time of the vehicle are also included in the settlement report, the road toll collection computer and software system (70) will send the toll confirmation corresponding to the vehicle to a road toll collection settlement system (701) to perform toll settlement”. Also see ¶[0174] noting that Vehicle (V1) sends a data point with time 10:00:00/04/14/2008 and Vehicle (V2) sends a data point with time 10:00:01/04/14/2008 (i.e. the vehicle is sending a plurality of records).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include comparing, by the central processing system prior to the vehicle passing the vehicle traffic control site, the calculated time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location to times of the set of data output events produced by the one or more sensors to determine a temporal correspondence between a data output event of the set of data output events and the calculated time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location; determining, by the central processing system, an association between the vehicle and a data output event based on the determined temporal correspondence as taught by Feng with the teachings of McQuade in view of Hembury, with the motivation of “brand new information acquisition and information service means” and that the “in-vehicle terminal platform is open and hence many applications can be accessed” (Feng ¶[0001], ¶[0008-9]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include comparing the calculated time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location to times of the plural data output events produced by the one of more sensors to determine a temporal correspondence between the data output event of the plural data output events and the calculated time at which the vehicle entered the roadside sensor location…; determining the association between the vehicle and the data output event based on the determined temporal correspondence… as taught by Feng in the system of McQuade in view of Hembury, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
McQuade (in view of Hembury in view of Feng, applying that the vehicle locations for passing over sensors are reported by the roadside sensors, per Hembury ¶[0059] above, and applying that the association is based on the time of the data output event with time the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor, per Feng above) also teaches the following:
outputting, contemporaneously with the transit of the vehicle between the roadside sensor location and the vehicle traffic control site, by the central processing system prior to the vehicle passing the vehicle traffic control site, one or more electronic commands that control vehicle traffic based on the association between the vehicle and the data output event (McQuade Fig 4, ¶[0008-9], ¶[0040], ¶[0049] details sending a signal whether the vehicle may bypass an inspection station as the vehicle is approaching the inspection location (noting the vehicle has passed the sensor of Hembury and is approaching the inspection location of McQuade, i.e. between) based on the vehicle satisfying the location-based match criteria after it has been detected, with communications regarding bypass performed by the remote computing system).
Claim 3:
McQuade in view of Hembury in view of Feng, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. McQuade also teaches the following:
wherein the vehicle traffic control site includes a vehicle inspection site (McQuade McQuade ¶[0008-9] details vehicle field and fixed inspection stations such as a weigh station).
Claim 4:
McQuade in view of Hembury in view of Feng, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 3. McQuade also teaches the following:
wherein the vehicle inspection site includes a vehicle screening area or a weigh station (McQuade ¶[0009], ¶[0012] details vehicle field and fixed inspection stations such as a weigh station).
Claim 7:
McQuade, as shown, teaches the following:
A central processing system for connecting to a telecommunications network (McQuade ¶[0007], ¶[0032-33] details wireless communication with the mobile GPS devices and the remote computing system), the central processing system comprising:
a server connected to the telecommunications network to receive first dataset from a mobile wireless device (McQuade ¶[0008], ¶[0013], ¶[0026-27] details receiving current GPS location of vehicles from mobile devices)
With respect to the following:
and a second dataset including data produced by one or more sensors at a roadside sensor location; and
McQuade, as shown in ¶[0007], ¶[0011-12], ¶[0049] details receiving a second dataset that includes rule-based data associated with individual roadside inspection stations, the inspection stations and weigh stations include portable scales for measuring vehicles (i.e. sensors producing data concerning vehicles), and the inspection stations communicate data using a data link, highly suggesting but not explicitly stating the second dataset including data produced by one or more sensors at a roadside location. To the extent that McQuade may not explicitly state this, Hembury teaches these limitations with roadside sensors detecting vehicles in monitored areas as the vehicles pass over them, and reporting the locations and times back to the system and comparator (Hembury ¶[0055], ¶[0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include receiving a second dataset including data produced by one or more sensors at a roadside sensor location as taught by Hembury with the teachings of McQuade (in view of Hembury), with the motivation to “identify vehicles in a location of interest at a particular time, not only presently, but for a specified period of time in the past” (Hembury ¶[0013]).
McQuade (in view of Hembury, applying that the vehicle is detected by a sensor as it passes over it, per Hembury ¶[0059] above) also teaches the following:
the central processing system being configured to, contemporaneously with transit of a vehicle between the roadside sensor location and a vehicle traffic control site, carry out the method steps of:
receiving the first dataset from the mobile wireless device carried by a vehicle (McQuade Fig 4, ¶[0008], ¶[0013], ¶[0026-27] details receiving current GPS location of vehicles as it is approaching a inspection site and whether they are within a defined geofence),
With respect to the following:
the first data set comprising vehicle location data obtained by monitoring a location of the mobile wireless device in which the location is determined from satellites to produce a series of location detection events each associated with a respective location and location detection event time stamp, and vehicle related information;
McQuade, as shown in ¶[0015], ¶[0026], ¶[0029], ¶[0034] details the first dataset comprising vehicle location data obtained by monitoring the location of the device by GPS (i.e. determined from satellites) to report real time locations of the vehicle and the vehicle identification, highly suggesting but not explicitly stating that the first dataset also includes a series of location detection events that are each associated with a location detection event time stamp. To the extent that McQuade may not explicitly state this, Hembury teaches this limitation obtaining a first dataset comprising vehicle GPS data determined by monitoring a mobile device location determined by satellites and storing a vehicle’s location and time data for up to two years, and transmitting the GPS data and vehicle ID in the dataset (Hembury ¶[0010], ¶[0031-33], ¶[0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the first dataset comprising vehicle location data obtained by monitoring a location of the mobile wireless device in which the location is determined from satellites to produce a series of location detection events each associated with a respective location and location detection event time stamp, and vehicle related information as taught by Hembury with the teachings of McQuade (in view of Hembury), with the motivation of “statewide or other jurisdiction registering and monitoring of vehicle locations” and “identify vehicles in a location of interest at a particular time, not only presently, but for a specified period of time in the past” (Hembury ¶[0002], ¶[0013]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the first dataset comprising vehicle location data obtained by monitoring a location of the mobile wireless device in which the location is determined from satellites to produce a series of location detection events each associated with a respective location and location detection event time stamp, and vehicle related information as taught by Hembury in the system of McQuade (in view of Hembury), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to the following:
calculating a time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location based on a comparison of the roadside sensor location with respective locations and location detection event time stamps of the series of location detection events;
McQuade (of McQuade in view of Hembury), as shown in ¶[0030], ¶[0049] details storing the result of a vehicle at an inspection station (i.e. roadside sensor) and defined rules regarding the frequency (i.e. time) of how often a vehicle is required to be inspected, but does not explicitly state calculating a time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location based on a comparison of the roadside sensor location with the respective locations and location detection event time stamps of the series of location detection events. However, Hembury teaches this limitation comparing the vehicle GPS data for a particular period of time and radar / sensor data (i.e. roadside sensor data, per McQuade) for the same period of time, comparing all digital data for the location and the vehicle location timestamps to spot-check the vehicle at a particular time, i.e. calculating a time of vehicle encountering the roadside sensor location (Hembury ¶[0059-60], ¶[0065]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include calculating a time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location based on a comparison of the roadside sensor location with respective locations and location detection event time stamps of the series of location detection events as taught by Hembury in the system of McQuade (in view of Hembury), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to the following:
comparing, prior to the vehicle passing the vehicle traffic control site, the calculated time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location to times of a set of data output events of the data produced by the one or more sensors to determine a temporal correspondence between a data output event of the set of data output events and the calculated time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location;
determining an association between the vehicle and the data output event based on the determined temporal correspondence; and
McQuade, as shown in Fig 1, ¶[0027], ¶[0029-30], ¶[0035], ¶[0049] details identifying a GPS location data output event(s) to determine the vehicle is approaching the inspection station / roadside sensor location, matching the location data of the inspection station / roadside sensor with the GPS location data of the vehicle device that includes the vehicle ID, including the consideration of rules for specific vehicles, specific times, and specific locations, and storing the result (i.e. determining an association); and Hembury, as shown in ¶[0059-60], ¶[0065] above, details calculating a time of vehicle encountering the roadside sensor location; but McQuade/Hembury does not explicitly state comparing, prior to the vehicle passing the vehicle traffic control site, the calculated time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location to times of a set of data output events of the data produced by the one or more sensors to determine a temporal correspondence between a data output event of the set of data output events and the calculated time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location; determining an association between the vehicle and the data output event based on the determined temporal correspondence. However, Feng teaches these limitations recording a toll settlement match (i.e. determined association between the vehicle and the data output event) for the vehicle when the toll station provides data of a vehicle passing a roadside toll station with vehicle images and vehicle passing time (i.e. roadside sensor data output event) that aligns with the toll confirmation information sent by the vehicle including the GPS coordinates, the passing time, and the license plate (i.e. calculated time at which the vehicle entered the roadside sensor location), matching both license plate and the passing time of the vehicle (i.e. comparing the calculated time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location to times of data out events produced by the sensors), noting that the roadside toll station collects data output events for all passing vehicles in a settlement report (i.e. plural data output events), hence the calculated time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location is matched (i.e. determined to temporally correspond) to times of the plural data output events and the data output event is selected (determined association between the vehicle and the data output event) among data from all passing vehicles based on this match (i.e. when times match there is temporal correspondence between and association between the vehicle and a data output event) (Feng ¶[0060-63], ¶[0174]; In particular note the bolded portions of the following passages. See ¶[0060] “The toll stations belonging to different owners have their own toll station computer systems (72), toll station image recognition system devices (721) and toll station image recognition system software (722). Each toll station captures the pictures of passing vehicles with its self-provided toll station image recognition video camera (723), identifies the physical license plates of the vehicles, and then includes them into an intraday settlement report made by the toll station computer system (72) together with the vehicle passing times, and transmits this report to the road toll collection computer and software system (70) via the wired data communication network special for toll stations (71)”. See ¶[0063] “The Toll confirmation information sent by a vehicle comprises the current GPS coordinates, the electronic license plate, the traveling direction, and the passing time of the vehicle and the code number of the toll station”. See ¶[0062] “The road toll collection computer and software system (70) store the legal toll standards of all the toll stations. The system is an independent financial settlement unit, in charge of inspecting and checking the toll confirmation sent back by the vehicle when it is passing a toll station and the settlement report sent by the toll station computer system (72). If the toll confirmation information of a vehicle is received and the license plate number and passing time of the vehicle are also included in the settlement report, the road toll collection computer and software system (70) will send the toll confirmation corresponding to the vehicle to a road toll collection settlement system (701) to perform toll settlement”. Also see ¶[0174] noting that Vehicle (V1) sends a data point with time 10:00:00/04/14/2008 and Vehicle (V2) sends a data point with time 10:00:01/04/14/2008 (i.e. the vehicle is sending a plurality of records).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include comparing, prior to the vehicle passing the vehicle traffic control site, the calculated time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location to times of a set of data output events of the data produced by the one or more sensors to determine a temporal correspondence between a data output event of the set of data output events and the calculated time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location; determining an association between the vehicle and the data output event based on the determined temporal correspondence as taught by Feng with the teachings of McQuade in view of Hembury, with the motivation of “brand new information acquisition and information service means” and that the “in-vehicle terminal platform is open and hence many applications can be accessed” (Feng ¶[0001], ¶[0008-9]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include comparing, prior to the vehicle passing the vehicle traffic control site, the calculated time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location to times of a set of data output events of the data produced by the one or more sensors to determine a temporal correspondence between a data output event of the set of data output events and the calculated time at which the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor location; determining an association between the vehicle and the data output event based on the determined temporal correspondence as taught by Feng in the system of McQuade in view of Hembury, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
McQuade (in view of Hembury in view of Feng, applying that the vehicle locations for passing over sensors are reported by the roadside sensors, per Hembury ¶[0059] above, and applying that the association is based on times of the data output events with the time the vehicle encountered the roadside sensor, per Feng above) also teaches the following:
taking one or more actions contemporaneously with the transit of the vehicle between the roadside sensor location and the vehicle traffic control site based on the determining the association, including sending a signal to the mobile wireless device prior to the vehicle passing the vehicle traffic control site, the signal being indicative of whether the vehicle is permitted to bypass the vehicle traffic control site (McQuade Fig 4, ¶[0008-9], ¶[0040], ¶[0049] details sending a signal whether the vehicle may bypass an inspection station as the vehicle is approaching the inspection location (noting the vehicle has passed the sensor of Hembury and is approaching the inspection location of McQuade, i.e. between) based on the vehicle satisfying the location-based match criteria after it has been detected, with communications regarding bypass performed by the remote computing system).
Claim 8:
Claim 8 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 3 and therefore claim 8 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 3.
Claim 9:
Claim 9 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 4 and therefore claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 4.
Claim 31:
McQuade in view of Hembury in view of Feng, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Feng also teaches the following:
wherein the central processing system accesses the second dataset (Feng ¶[0059-62], ¶[0193] details the toll station computer system (of each toll station) sends a settlement report to the road toll collection computer and software system that includes pictures of passing vehicles and this information is sent to the toll collection settlement system) and receives the first dataset without a direct communication link between the mobile wireless device carried by the vehicle and the one or more sensors at the roadside sensor location (Feng ¶[0062-63], ¶[0071] details the in-vehicle terminal sends its GPS coordinates and license plate information regarding its passing time to the road toll collection settlement system at the central station, and if the license plate information is also included in the settlement report the toll settlement is performed, noting that there is no communication between the vehicle device that sends the GPS coordinates and the toll station taking the images, i.e. sensors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include wherein the central processing system accesses the second dataset and receives the first dataset without a direct communication link between the mobile wireless device carried by the vehicle and the one or more sensors at the roadside sensor location as taught by Feng with the teachings of McQuade in view of Hembury (in view of Feng), with the motivation of “brand new information acquisition and information service means” and that the “in-vehicle terminal platform is open and hence many applications can be accessed” (Feng ¶[0001], ¶[0008-9]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include wherein the central processing system accesses the second dataset and receives the first dataset without a direct communication link between the mobile wireless device carried by the vehicle and the one or more sensors at the roadside sensor location as taught by Feng in the system of McQuade in view of Hembury (in view of Feng), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 34:
McQuade in view of Hembury in view of Feng, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Hembury also teaches the following:
wherein the one or more electronic commands include sending a notification to a law enforcement service (Hembury ¶[0037-38], ¶[0061] details alerting law enforcement to approach the vehicle based on the comparator match result).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include wherein the one or more electronic commands include sending a notification to a law enforcement service as taught by Hembury in the system of McQuade (in view of Hembury in view of Feng), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 35:
Claim 35 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 7 and therefore claim 35 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 7.
Claim 37:
Claim 37 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 34 and therefore claim 37 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 34.
Claim 32 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US patent application publication US 2012/0139696 A1 to McQuade in view of US patent application publication 2011/0015971 to Hembury in view of US patent application publication 2006/0142933 A1 to Feng, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2004/0021579 A1 to Oursler et al.
Claim 32:
McQuade in view of Hembury in view of Feng, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 1. McQuade does not teach, but Oursler teaches the following:
wherein the one or more sensors at the roadside sensor location produce data concerning vehicles in a first lane (Oursler ¶[0027-30] details sensors produce data regarding vehicles in a first lane prior to a second lane), and
one or more additional sensors detect vehicles in a second lane at the roadside sensor location (Oursler ¶[0031-33] details roadside sensors that detect vehicles in a second lane following the first lane), and
the association between the vehicle and the data output event is recorded depending on the lack of detection of a vehicle in the second lane by the one or more additional sensors (Oursler ¶[0025], ¶[0030-31], ¶[0056] details recording whether the vehicle passes or fails bypassing the inspection station at the second lane, and data is recorded in the database with respect to the identified vehicle and its history information when the vehicle is identified, i.e. depending on the detection / lack of detection of a vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include wherein the one or more sensors at the roadside sensor location produce data concerting vehicles in a first lane, and one or more additional sensors detect vehicles in a second lane at the roadside sensor location, and the association between the vehicle and the data output event is recorded depending on the lack of detection of a vehicle in the second lane by the one or more additional sensors as taught by Oursler with the teachings of McQuade in view of Hembury in view of Feng, with the motivation to “significantly reduce[] traffic in the station, delays on the highway and in the station, and results in more efficient use of the inspectors’ time” (Oursler ¶[0015]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include wherein the one or more sensors at the roadside sensor location produce data concerting vehicles in a first lane, and one or more additional sensors detect vehicles in a second lane at the roadside sensor location, and the association between the vehicle and the data output event is recorded depending on the lack of detection of a vehicle in the second lane by the one or more additional sensors as taught by Oursler in the system of McQuade in view of Hembury in view of Feng, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 33 and 36 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2012/0139696 A1 to McQuade et al. in view of US patent application publication 2011/0015971 A1 to Hembury in view of US patent application publication 2006/0142933 A1 to Feng, as applied to claims 1 and 7, and further in view of US patent application publication 2011/0238300 A1 to Schenken (with support in provisional patent application 61/316,664 filed on 23 March 2010).
Claim 33:
McQuade in view of Hembury in view of Feng, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. With respect to the following:
wherein the mobile wireless device initiates producing the series of location detection events upon the mobile wireless device entering a pre-defined geographic area,
McQuade, as shown in Fig 3 ¶[0008], ¶[0013], ¶[0026-27] details the mobile wireless device producing current GPS location data of vehicles, and determining whether they are within a defined geofence, but does not explicitly state that the mobile device initiates producing the series of location detection events upon the device entering a predefined geographic area. However, Schenken teaches this limitation, with the mobile device constantly collecting sensor and telematics data when the vehicle is in use, and once the device determines that the device and vehicle has entered a pre-defined geofence then the mobile device transmits and initiates communication that causes the telematics / GPS data being collected to be transmitted to a monitoring server (Schenken ¶[0041], ¶[0049], ¶[0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include wherein the mobile wireless device initiates producing the series of location detection events upon the mobile wireless device entering a pre-defined geographic area as taught by Schenken with the teachings of McQuade in view of Hembury in view of Feng, with the motivation that “monitoring driver behavior, vehicle cargo, vehicle operating conditions, and vehicle environments can be very important” and “a solution is needed to automatically trigger/initiate the collection of data” (Schenken ¶[0002]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include wherein the mobile wireless device initiates producing the series of location detection events upon the mobile wireless device entering a pre-defined geographic area as taught by Schenken in the system of McQuade in view of Hembury in view of Feng, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
McQuade (in view of Hembury in view of Feng in view of Schenken) also teaches the following:
the vehicle encountering the roadside sensor location after the mobile wireless device initiates producing the series of location detection events (McQuade Fig 1, Fig 4, ¶[0009], ¶[0013] details receiving the GPS data produced from the vehicle device before the vehicle approaches the inspection station with weight sensors, i.e. vehicle encounters roadside sensor location after mobile wireless device initiates producing the series of location detection events).
Claim 36:
Claim 36 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 33 and therefore claim 36 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 33.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 7-8, and 31-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, 15-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,327,434 B2 (hereinafter ‘434).
Claims 1-20:
Claim 1 does not correspond to the ‘434 patent, however it is an obvious modification to claim 1 of the ‘434 patent. First, claim 1 of this Application omits limitations and elements from claim 1 of ‘434, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inventions to remove functionalities when the functionality is not desired. Refer to MPEP 2144.04(II)(A), referencing In re Larson, 340 F .2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965).
Claim 7 does not correspond to the ‘434 patent, however it is an obvious modification to claim 17 of the ‘434 patent. First, claim 7 of this Application omits limitations and elements from claim 17 of ‘434, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inventions to remove functionalities when the functionality is not desired. Refer to MPEP 2144.04(II)(A), referencing In re Larson, 340 F .2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965). Second, claim 7 of this Application includes the limitation “the signal being indicative of whether the vehicle is permitted to bypass the vehicle traffic control site” which is broader than the corresponding limitation in ‘434 claim 17 “the signal being indicative of whether the vehicle is permitted to bypass the vehicle inspection site”. However, this is an obvious variation (broader description of a vehicle inspection site) and ‘434 teaches this limitation (‘434 claim 17), and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would make these modifications to ‘434 with the motivation that “public and private road operators seek methods and systems for regulating vehicle traffic that allows them to cost effectively monitor, screen, and toll vehicles traveling on public roads” (‘434 col 1 ln 19-21).
Claim 8 does not correspond to the ‘434 patent, however it is an obvious modification to claim 1 of the ‘434 patent. First, claim 8 of this Application omits limitations and elements from claim 1 of ‘434, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inventions to remove functionalities when the functionality is not desired. Refer to MPEP 2144.04(II)(A), referencing In re Larson, 340 F .2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965).
Claim 31 does not correspond to the ‘434 patent, however it is an obvious modification to claim 1 of the ‘434 patent. First, claim 31 of this Application omits limitations and elements from claim 1 of ‘434, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inventions to remove functionalities when the functionality is not desired. Refer to MPEP 2144.04(II)(A), referencing In re Larson, 340 F .2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965).
Claim 32 does not correspond to the ‘434 patent, however it is an obvious modification to claim 15 of the ‘434 patent, applying the same modifications that are applied as stated above regarding claim 1.
Claim 33 does not correspond to the ‘434 patent, however it is an obvious modification to claim 16 of the ‘434 patent, applying the same modifications that are applied as stated above regarding claim 1.
Claim 34 does not correspond to the ‘434 patent, however it is an obvious modification to claim 10 of the ‘434 patent, applying the same modifications that are applied as stated above regarding claim 1.
Claim 35 does not correspond to the ‘434 patent, however it is an obvious modification to claim 17 of the ‘434 patent, applying the same modifications that are applied as stated above regarding claim 7.
Claim 36 does not correspond to the ‘434 patent, however it is an obvious modification to claim 18 of the ‘434 patent, applying the same modifications that are applied as stated above regarding claim 7.
Claim 37 does not correspond to the ‘434 patent, however it is an obvious modification to claims 10 and 17 of the ‘434 patent, applying the same modifications that are applied as stated above regarding claim 7. First, claim 37 of this Application omits limitations and elements from claims 10 and 17 of ‘434, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inventions to remove functionalities when the functionality is not desired. Refer to MPEP 2144.04(II)(A), referencing In re Larson, 340 F .2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965). Second, claim 37 of this Application includes the limitation “the signal being indicative of whether the vehicle is permitted to bypass the vehicle traffic control site” which is broader than the corresponding limitation in ‘434 claim 17 “the signal being indicative of whether the vehicle is permitted to bypass the vehicle inspection site”. However, this is an obvious variation (broader description of a vehicle inspection site) and ‘434 teaches this limitation (‘434’ claim 17), and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would make these modifications to ‘434 with the motivation that “public and private road operators seek methods and systems for regulating vehicle traffic that allows them to cost effectively monitor, screen, and toll vehicles traveling on public roads” (‘434 col 1 ln 19-21).
Claims 3-4, 9 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,327,434 B2 (hereinafter ‘434), as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and in further view of US patent application publication 2012/0139696 A1 to McQuade.
Claim 3 does not correspond to the ‘434 patent, however it is an obvious modification to claim 1 of the ‘434 patent. First, apply the same modifications that are applied as stated above regarding Applicant claim 1. Second, claim 1 of ‘434 does not include wherein the vehicle traffic control site includes a vehicle inspection site. However, this is an obvious variation and McQuade teaches this remaining limitation (McQuade ¶[0008-9]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would make these modifications to ‘434 with the motivation to “enable reliable operators to be efficiently pre-screened, so that regulatory or enforcement agencies can focus their time and effort performing inspections on vehicle operators that may be statistically more likely to be operating with one or more safety conditions that place the public at risk” (McQuade ¶[0005]).
Claim 4 does not correspond to the ‘434 patent, however it is an obvious modification to claim 1 of the ‘434 patent. First, apply the same modifications that are applied as stated above regarding Applicant claim 3. Second, claim 1 of ‘434 does not include wherein the vehicle traffic control site includes a vehicle screening area or a weigh station. However, this is an obvious variation and McQuade teaches this remaining limitation (McQuade ¶[0009], ¶[0012]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would make these modifications to ‘434 with the motivation to “enable reliable operators to be efficiently pre-screened, so that regulatory or enforcement agencies can focus their time and effort performing inspections on vehicle operators that may be statistically more likely to be operating with one or more safety conditions that place the public at risk” (McQuade ¶[0005]).
Claim 9 does not correspond to the ‘434 patent, however it is an obvious modification to claim 17 of the ‘434 patent. First, apply the same modifications that are applied as stated above regarding claim Applicant claim 8. Second, claim 17 of ‘434 does not include wherein the vehicle traffic control site includes a vehicle screening area or a weigh station. However, this is an obvious variation and McQuade teaches this remaining limitation (McQuade ¶[0009], ¶[0012]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would make these modifications to ‘434 with the motivation to “enable reliable operators to be efficiently pre-screened, so that regulatory or enforcement agencies can focus their time and effort performing inspections on vehicle operators that may be statistically more likely to be operating with one or more safety conditions that place the public at risk” (McQuade ¶[0005]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Jeff Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
BRIAN TALLMAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/BRIAN A TALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights