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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/14/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on Chinese Patent Application No CN202411637612.1, filed on November 15, 2024.
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 speed limit control optimization model, a road network perception module, a control model, a scenario construction module and a traffic state acquisition module as in SPEC (paras 30-33 and 130-133) in claims 1, 3 and 6-8.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Re Claim 1:
Claim 1 recites:
A method for active control of variable speed limits on highways, comprising:
(a) constructing a mixed traffic flow scenario that accounts for driver individuality and setting scenario parameters;
(b) based on the mixed traffic flow scenario, acquiring traffic state data for a merging road scenario, comprising an on-ramp and upstream and downstream areas of a main lane;
and (c) training an agent using the traffic state data as state variables to obtain a speed limit control optimization model, wherein diverse training scenarios are generated by Poisson distribution during training, an optimal speed limit value and an appropriate speed control location are selected within each control cycle T, and a moving bottleneck is generated using a moving bottleneck variable speed limit (MVSL) constructed based on connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs).
Under Step 1 Claim 1 is a method claim same as claims 2-7 and 9-10.
Under Step 2A -Prong 1:
The identified claim limitations that recite an abstract idea fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in Section 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019. These fall under mental process.
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claim 1 recites “a method for active control of variable speed limits on highways, comprising: (a) constructing a mixed traffic flow scenario that accounts for driver individuality and setting scenario parameters; (b) based on the mixed traffic flow scenario, acquiring traffic state data for a merging road scenario, comprising an on-ramp and upstream and downstream areas of a main lane; and (c) training an agent using the traffic state data as state variables to obtain a speed limit control optimization model, wherein diverse training scenarios are generated by Poisson distribution during training, an optimal speed limit value and an appropriate speed control location are selected within each control cycle T, and a moving bottleneck is generated using a moving bottleneck variable speed limit (MVSL) constructed based on connected
Under Step 2A - Prong 2; the claims recite the additional element of “autonomous vehicles (CAVs) “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea without a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Under Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1-7 and 9-10 are not patent eligible.
Therefore, the system claim 8 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 outlined above.
Claim 10 recites “wherein a computer program is stored on the computer-readable storage medium; and the computer program is configured to be executed by a processor”. As mentioned a computer storage medium as in the specification (paras 129-130). The “computer-readable storage medium” is the same situation of the BRI of machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, “The computer readable storage medium may be any available medium that can be accessed by the computer or a data storage device, such as a server or a data center, which is integrated with one or more available media. The available medium may be a magnetic medium (for example, a floppy disk, a hard disk, a magnetic tape), an optical medium (for example, a DVD), a semiconductor medium (for example, a solid state disk (SSD)), or the like”. Since the specification only provides examples of what the computer storage medium can be, it does not limit it to non-transitory readable medium. Software per se and transitory signals per se are not statutory categories.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-10 Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim 1 and thus correspond to Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-10 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-5869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
