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 .
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: definition module, mixture module, trend module, periodicity module, cascading module, training module in claim 8 (computer program on a processor [0176-0177]).
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 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims recite a memory, which includes transitory waves that are not patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The aforementioned claims are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Regarding claim 1 and 8, the claim recites, in part, “…defining a…network… obtaining…data…inputting… data…outputting…vector …fusing…features…determine… vector… determining…function…”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The additional element of a “computer” is just a generic computing device. Invocation of generic computing devices to perform or aid the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into practical application because the claim does not include limitations that purport the improvement to the function of a computer or another technology, apply the abstract idea by way of a particular machine, or effect a tangible transformation in state of a particular article (MPEP 2106.05). Rather, the abstract ideas are instead merely generally linked to a particular technical field (MPEP 2106.04(3)).
Claims 3-7, 10-17, 19-20 do not recite any elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application, nor are significantly more than the judicial exception, being directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering and outputting, or mathematical concepts (MPEP 2016.06(a)(2), 2106.05(d), 2106.04(a)(2)).
Claims 2, 9, 18 integrate the abstract idea into practical application by performing vehicle routing or traffic scheduling based on the congestion level of each road segment in the future period.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 9, 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claims 1 and 8 the prior art is silent on:
An apparatus for constructing a road congestion prediction model, comprising: a definition module configured to define a road traffic network as a directed weighted graph, and obtain historical dynamic traffic features of each road segment in the road traffic network as sample data, wherein the sample data comprises recent dynamic traffic features and periodic dynamic traffic features; a mixture module configured to input the sample data into a preset mixture of adaptive graph learners (MAGL) model for learning, determine an encoded representation of contextual traffic dynamics of each road segment, and output a probability prediction vector; a trend module configured to input the recent dynamic traffic features into a preset trend expert model, and output a trend distribution vector of a predicted probability of future traffic conditions; a periodicity module configured to fuse the periodic dynamic traffic features based on a preset periodic expert model to determine a periodicity prediction vector; a cascading module configured to perform cascading aggregation on the probability prediction vector, the trend distribution vector, and the periodicity prediction vector to obtain an aggregated logit vector; and a training module configured to determine an objective function based on the aggregated logit vector, and perform congestion prediction training on the MAGL model, the trend expert model, and the periodic expert model through supervised learning to obtain a road congestion prediction model.
US10795350B2 is considered the closest prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights