DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not written in narrative form. Instead, the abstract has been written as a run-on sentence that generally mimics the claim. The abstract should be in narrative form, which should include a series of complete sentences. Correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a collecting unit” first recited in claim 1 and “a traffic information generating unit” first recited in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Regarding claim 1, using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the claim is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does the claim fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a machine which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The functions performed by the system recited in claim 1 contain functions that may be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. The claim recites a function of generating traffic information about the target road based on the collected detection information, wherein an event set area for detecting at least one lane in the target road is set within the detection area. This is equivalent to a person mentally determining information, for example a number of vehicles passing through the event area, based on the collected detection information. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[Mental processes] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, if one was presented with detection information for a detection area, one could mentally generate traffic information about the target road.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites a collecting unit configured to collect detection information for a detection area of at least one fusion sensor installed in a target road from the fusion sensor. This limitation is equivalent to mere data gathering which, when recited at a high level of generality as in the instant case, is an insignificant extra-solution activity and does not constitute a practical application of the recited abstract idea.
Also, as noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the functions of the invention are performed by a “local server”, i.e. a computer. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not merely insignificant extra-solution activities. As discussed above, collecting detection information is equivalent to an insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of a data gathering is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Also, as set forth below in the rejections related to prior art, using a sensor to collect detection information for a detection area is a function that is known in the art of vehicle navigation and control.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claim 12 is commensurate in scope with claim 1 with the exception that the claim is directed to a method. Therefore, the same subject matter eligibility analysis can be applied to claim 12 as was applied to claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-20 further limit the abstract idea of the independent claim without adding significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. For example, claims 2 and 13 limit what type of sensor is used to collect the detection information. However, the collection of the detection information is still recited at a high level of generality and as such, does not constitute a practical application of the recited abstract idea. As a further example, claims 4 and 15 further limits what type of traffic information is generated to at least one of traffic information for each time point, traffic information for each lane, traffic information for each type of traffic object, and traffic information for each traffic event. However, one can still mentally generate these types of traffic information in the human mind. Therefore, the claim still recites a mental process. As a final example, claim 11 limits that the system transmits the traffic information to a central server. This is equivalent to merely transmitting the result of the mental process which, when recited at a high level of generality as in the instant case, is an insignificant extra-solution activity and does not constitute a practical application of the recited abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 11-15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ding (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0177491).
Regarding claim 1, Ding teaches a local server for controlling road traffic, comprising: a collecting unit configured to collect detection information for a detection area of at least one fusion sensor installed in a target road from the fusion sensor (Paragraph 0029 The traffic monitoring system 200 is designed for traffic monitoring, incorporating various components organized to enhance traffic surveillance, object detection, and data analysis. The radar sensor 202 and the image sensor 204 intricately connected to the fusion processor 206.); and a traffic information generating unit configured to generate traffic information about the target road based on the collected detection information (Paragraph 0029 The radar sensor 202 is configured to obtain a first dataset. The first dataset includes a first spatial coordinates and velocity of traffic objects. In some embodiments, the first dataset the first dataset is a radar point cloud having the first spatial coordinates and Doppler speed information of the traffic objects, the first dataset being captured according to a coverage area of the radar sensor that is fixedly mounted.), wherein an event set area for detecting at least one lane in the target road is set within the detection area (Paragraph 0059 At block 404, a second dataset is obtained from the image sensor 204. The second dataset includes a second spatial coordinates of the traffic objects. The image sensor is fixedly mounted to observe the traffic. For example, the traffic monitoring system 200 is installed at an intersection equipped with a camera that is fixedly mounted for capturing images of a road.).
Regarding claim 12, the claims is commensurate in scope with claim 1 with the exception that the claim is directed to a method. Therefore, the same prior art can be applied to claim 12 as was applied to claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Ding teaches the system/method of claims 1 and 12 as set forth above. Ding further teaches wherein the fusion sensor includes a camera sensor and a radar sensor (Paragraph 0029 The traffic monitoring system 200 is designed for traffic monitoring, incorporating various components organized to enhance traffic surveillance, object detection, and data analysis. The radar sensor 202 and the image sensor 204 intricately connected to the fusion processor 206.).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Ding teaches the system/method of claims 1 and 12 as set forth above. Ding further teaches wherein the detection information includes at least one of location information and type information of a traffic object located in the detection area, the total number of traffic objects driving in the detection area, a driving speed of each traffic object, an average driving speed in each lane of the detection area, and the number of lane changes (Paragraph 0029 The radar sensor 202 is configured to obtain a first dataset. The first dataset includes a first spatial coordinates and velocity of traffic objects. In some embodiments, the first dataset the first dataset is a radar point cloud having the first spatial coordinates and Doppler speed information of the traffic objects, the first dataset being captured according to a coverage area of the radar sensor that is fixedly mounted.).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Ding teaches the system/method of claims 1 and 12 as set forth above. Ding further teaches wherein the traffic information generating unit is further configured to generate traffic information about an expanded detection area including the detection areas of each fusion sensor (Paragraph 0030 In some embodiments, the second dataset is an image data including an arrangement of pixels that create the second spatial coordinates of the of traffic objects, the second dataset being captured according to a field of view of the image sensor that is fixedly mounted.), and the traffic information includes at least one of traffic information for each time point, traffic information for each lane, traffic information for each type of traffic object, and traffic information for each traffic event (Paragraph 0084 The output of the object tracking process serves as relevant input for adaptive traffic control, congestion management, incident detection, and other intelligent traffic management systems.).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Ding teaches the system/method of claims 1 and 12 as set forth above. Ding further teaches wherein when a plurality of fusion sensors is installed at an intersection, the plurality of fusion sensors generates detection information including information about traffic objects entering into and exiting from an intersection overlap detection area formed by detection areas detected by the plurality of fusion sensors (Paragraph 0018 Referring to FIG. 1 illustrates a traffic intersection 100 that is equipped with monitoring devices 120-1 and 120-2 mounted on traffic lights. The monitoring devices 120-1 and 120-2 are strategically positioned to oversee traffic flow and objects within respective fields of view of each of the monitoring devices 120-1 and 120-2. [see FIG. 1]).
Regarding claim 11, Ding teaches the system of claim 1 as set forth above. Ding further teaches a transmitting unit configured to transmit the traffic information to a center server interworking with a plurality of local servers (Paragraph 0024 Moreover, data from the monitoring devices 120-1 and 120-2 is efficiently transmitted in real-time to a monitoring center 140.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Utsumi (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0395136).
Regarding claim 5, Ding teaches the system of claim 1 as set forth above. However, Ding does not teach wherein the event set area is an area for detecting an occurrence of a predetermined event in the lane, and the predetermined event includes at least one of a speed violation event, a lane change event, a dedicated lane violation event, and a backward driving event.
Utsumi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system for monitoring traffic conditions. The system monitors an area of an intersection to detect a predetermined event which is a speed violation event (Paragraph 0074 The control unit 13 detects an excess of the speed limit by the vehicle (S203). Specifically, in a case where the speed of the vehicle measured by the measurement unit 12 exceeds a limit value, the control unit 13 determines that the vehicle exceeds the speed limit.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ding with the teachings of Utsumi which teaches monitoring an area of an intersection to detect a predetermined event which is a speed violation event in order to change the traffic signal to prevent the speeding vehicle from entering the intersection (See Utsumi Paragraph 0075 The control unit 13 sets all of the traffic lights A to D (FIG. 7) including the traffic lights B and D facing another vehicle traveling in a direction intersecting with the vehicle to the light color indicating prohibition to go forward (red light) (S204).).
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Chakravarty (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0136871).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Ding teaches the system/method of claims 1 and 12 as set forth above. However, Ding does not teach wherein when a first fusion sensor and a second fusion sensor are installed in the target road and a traffic object is located in an overlap detection area where a first detection area of the first fusion sensor and a second detection area of the second fusion sensor are overlapped, the traffic information generating unit is configured to analyze similarity between information about the traffic object collected from the first fusion sensor and the second fusion sensor.
Chakravarty, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system for monitoring traffic. The system comprises two sensors with overlapping fields of view (Paragraph 0030 The fields of view 216, 218 overlap, meaning that objects in the traffic scene 200 that occur in the intersection 220 of fields of view 216, 218 will be represented in respective images acquired by the cameras 208, 210 at substantially a same time, i.e., where both images are acquired within a short time period, for example one second.). The system analyzes similarity between a detected object in the field of view of both sensors (Paragraph 0031 Determining the location of an object based on two or more images acquired by two or more cameras 208, 210 depends upon camera localization. Camera localization herein means determining respective locations of the two or more fields of view 216, 218 of the two or more cameras 208, 210 with respect to the traffic scene 200 in real world coordinates. Once the locations of the fields of view 216, 218 for the cameras 208, 210 are located, objects located in images acquired by cameras 208, 210 can be determined in real world coordinates.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ding with the teachings of Chakravarty which teaches two sensors with overlapping fields of view wherein the system analyzes similarity between a detected object in the field of view of both sensors in order to more accurately determine the position of detected objects (See Chakravarty Paragraph 0014 Accuracy and reliability of data from sensors in a traffic infrastructure system can be improved by acquiring two or more images from two or more sensors having overlapping fields of view.).
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Tsushima (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0197811).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Ding teaches the system/method of claims 1 and 12 as set forth above. However, Ding does not teach wherein when a shadow section occurs near respective points where a first fusion sensor and a second fusion sensor installed in the target road are located, the traffic information generating unit is configured to track a movement of a traffic object based on distance information of the shadow section and similarity between information about the traffic object entering into and exiting from the shadow section.
Tsushima, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system for detecting the presence of vehicles using sensors. The system comprises two sensors with a blind spot between the fields of view of the sensors (Paragraph 0053 In the system-mounted vehicle 71, the sensor 4a is attached to the center of a front portion, and the sensor 4b is attached to the right side of a rear portion. Each of a sensing range 83a of the sensor 4a and a sensing range 83b of the sensor 4b corresponds to an inside of an individual fan shape indicated by a broken line.). The system tracks movements of objects that pass through the blind spot by projecting the motion of the object before and after it enters the blind spot (Paragraph 0052 When an obstacle 66 such as a vehicle passes through a blind spot area 65, the course prediction device 1 predicts a course of the obstacle 66 in the blind spot area 65 between a pre-passage course 67 and a post-passage course 68, as a predicted course 64, and interpolates the course between the pre-passage course 67 and the post-passage course 68.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ding with the teachings of Tsushima which teaches two sensors with a blind spot between the fields of view of the sensors wherein the system tracks movements of objects that pass through the blind spot by projecting the motion of the object before and after it enters the blind spot in order to predict the motion of objects which cannot be directly detected due to a blind spot (See Tsushima Paragraph 0012 Therefore, according to the present invention, a course prediction device can be provided that calculates a blind spot area formed in a sensing range of a sensor so as to acquire the blind spot area dynamically, and predicts a course in the blind spot area of an object entering the dynamically obtained blind spot area.).
Claim(s) 9, 10, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Cruc (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20090024309).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Ding teaches the system/method of claims 8 and 18 as set forth above. However, Ding does not teach wherein the traffic information generating unit is configured to analyze at least one of a degree of congestion for the intersection overlap detection area and a degree of congestion for traffic axes for respective directions at the intersection based on the detection information collected from the plurality of fusion sensors.
Cruc, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system for monitoring traffic. The system analyzes traffic congestion for different directions at an intersection based on sensor information (Paragraph 0062 As the central tracking station 140 tracks a plurality of vehicles on a roadway, the central tracking station generates traffic flow data, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. For example, the central tracking station 140 can determine the volume and average speed of traffic along various sections of the roadway at a given time.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ding with the teachings of Cruc which teaches analyzing traffic congestion for different directions at an intersection based on sensor information in order to relieve traffic congestion (See Cruc Paragraph 0063 For example, if the generated traffic flow data is showing significant traffic volume and congestion on a road section 420 (see FIG. 4) of roadway 410, the central tracking station 140 may transmit a traffic control signal to a traffic light 425 at the intersection 430 to change the timing of the traffic light such that the congestion on the road section 420 is relieved.).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Ding in view of Cruc teaches the system/method of claims 9 and 19 as set forth above. However, Ding does not teach wherein the traffic information generating unit is configured to determine whether a signal change cycle for the intersection is appropriate based on the analyzed degrees of congestion.
Cruc, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system for monitoring traffic. The system determines whether to change a traffic signal based on an analysis of congestion in different directions at an intersection (Paragraph 0063 In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, the central tracking station 140 may use the generated traffic flow data to change the operation of traffic control devices associated with the roadway. For example, if the generated traffic flow data is showing significant traffic volume and congestion on a road section 420 (see FIG. 4) of roadway 410, the central tracking station 140 may transmit a traffic control signal to a traffic light 425 at the intersection 430 to change the timing of the traffic light such that the congestion on the road section 420 is relieved.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ding with the teachings of Cruc which teaches determining whether to change a traffic signal based on an analysis of congestion in different directions at an intersection in order to relieve traffic congestion (See Cruc Paragraph 0063 For example, if the generated traffic flow data is showing significant traffic volume and congestion on a road section 420 (see FIG. 4) of roadway 410, the central tracking station 140 may transmit a traffic control signal to a traffic light 425 at the intersection 430 to change the timing of the traffic light such that the congestion on the road section 420 is relieved.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of the record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Martin – U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0201353
Muthiah – U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0292684
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK D MOHL whose telephone number is (571)272-8987. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/PATRICK DANIEL MOHL/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights