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 .
This action is responsive to communication filed on 05/20/2026. Claims 21-36 are pending. Claims 1-20 have been cancelled. Claims 21, 23, 25, and 34 have been amended. Entry of this amendment is accepted and made of record.
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 25 and 34 objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “the least one” recited in claim 21 (see last line of page 2 of the claim listing), recited in claim 25, (see line 10 on page 4 of the claim listing) and claim 34 (see line 12 on page 6 of the claim listing) should be corrected as -- the at least one-- in order to avoid antecedent basis issues. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see section III. on page 8 of the remarks, filed 05/20/2026, with respect to amended claim 23 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(d) rejections of claim 23 has been withdrawn based on the amendments to claim 23 by correcting the dependency issue under 35 USC 112(d).
Applicant’s arguments, see first paragraph of section V. on pages 9-10 of the remarks, filed 05/20/2026, with respect to amended claims 21-23, 25-30 and 34-36 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejections of independent claims 21, 25, and 34, and with respect to respective dependent claims 22-24, 26-33 and 35-36 has been withdrawn because the combination of Karabacak and Kearns fails to teach or suggest the claimed invention, particularly the specific model and its implementation as now recited in amended independent claims 21, 25 and 34.
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/20/206 with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 made to claims 21-36 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claims 21-36 rejected under 35 USC 101, applicant argues that the claims as amended clearly recite a patent-eligible practical application of an improved technology (see first paragraph of section IV on page 8 of the remarks) and that the claimed invention is not merely an abstract idea but describes a specific technical solution to a technical problem: accurately determining load values exerted by a vehicle on a trafficway. Applicant submits that the amendments to independent claims transform the claims by rooting them in a concrete, physical concept that goes far beyond merely “applying” a mathematical concept on an generic computer, (see second paragraph on section IV on page 8).
In response, the examiner disagrees and submits that the claim as amended do not recite additional claim elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claimed language do not reflect the alleged improvement to the operation of the computer and that the alleged improvements mentioned is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) and as such is not indicative of a practical application of abstract idea.
The alleged improvement is part of the abstract idea as it is geared to concepts related to mathematical calculations for determining load value exerted by at least one wheel of the vehicle traveling along a trafficway from strain measurements gathered and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional argued limitation is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and because the data for performing the algorithm must be necessarily obtained and because the results of the algorithm are merely output as part of insignificant post-solution activity and are not used in any particular manner as to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Furthermore the technical solution to a technical problem of “accurately determining load values exerted by a vehicle on a traffic way” is not reflected by the claimed language. The claims as such are directed to an abstract idea for determining at least one load exerted by at least one wheel of a vehicle traveling along a trafficway. The claims recite concepts/algorithms, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion in which in which a model defining a relationship between the at least one load and at least strain value is defined, the relationship being adjustable through at least one model parameter…the current condition being selected from the group consisting of…; conducting a training phase… during which given load values are applied to the trafficway resulting in given strain values measured by the at least one strain gauge… determines at least one value for the at least one model parameter…; and conducting a production phase… applies at least one measured strain value… to the model of the trafficway with the at least one value that has been determined for the at least one model parameter, and obtains from the model the at least one load exerted by the at least one wheel of the vehicle traveling along a trafficway. The additional claim elements recited amounts to mere generic computer i.e. processing system, which is used as a tool to perform the judicial exception and mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality (i.e. strain gauge) generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use.
Although the data collection requires physical sensor components, however the recitation of strain gauges embedded in the trafficway, is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use as it is not improving the technology or technological field, do not integrate the judicial exception in to a practical application as to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., physical calibration process where loads are physically applied to the trafficway to generate strain, which is then measured to determine the model parameters) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that the claims define the model as representing the physical properties of the trafficway and the causal relationship between load and strain, and submits that this is not an abstract mathematical relationship but a digital representation of real-work physical system and that the model is further specified as being adjustable via parameters reflecting tangible, real-world conditions like temperature, vehicle speed, or wheel location, which are physical variables, not abstract concepts. Applicant further submits that the integration of real-world physical and conditions into the model’s structure demonstrates a practical application that is inextricably tied to a specific technological field—infrastructure monitoring (see section IV antepenultimate paragraph on page 9 of the remarks).
In response the examiner disagrees and submits that the relationships between load and strain are directed to mathematical concept and relationships in which the model is being adjustable via parameters i.e. temperature, vehicle speed, or wheel locations which are physical variables/values being manipulated as to make determinations/calculations of at least one value for the at least one model parameter which is being determined from given load values and given strain values measured; and to determine at least one load exerted by the at least one wheel of the vehicle traveling along a trafficway by applying at least one measured strain value to the model with the at least one value that has been determined for the at least one parameter. The claim do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional claim elements amount to the recitation of general purpose computer and to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality generally linking the judicial exception to a field of use and the results of the algorithms are merely outputted as part of insignificant post solution activities and are not used in any particular manner as to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues that the combination of a specific physical apparatus, a physically-grounded model and a physical calibration process transforms a general-purpose processor into a specialized tool for weigh-in-motion. Applicant submits that this constitutes a significant improvement to the technology or traffic monitoring system by enabling more accurate and reliable load determination and further submits that this constitutes a significant improvement to the technology of traffic monitoring system by enabling more accurate and reliable load determination (see section IV penultimate paragraph on page 9 of the remarks).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., physical calibration process, a general purpose processor tool for weight-in-motion) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The examiner further submits that the claimed language do not reflect an improvement to the technology or technical field or to the operation of the computer.
In the instant application claims it is noted that a processing system is being recited, however the recited processing system amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea recited by the claims and as such is not indicative of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application since as such it merely amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
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 21-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, “2019 PEG’). The patent subject
matter eligibility analysis is threefold. First, via step 1, determine that the claim belongs
to a valid statutory class. Second, via step 2A, identify that an abstract idea is claimed in
prong one and if so, identify whether additional elements are recited that integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application in prong two. Finally, in step 2B, determine
whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 1, applied to the present application, the claims belong to
one of the statutory classes of a process (method claims 21-33, and 35-36), and system (claim 34) with substantially similar claim language as the method of claims 21 and 25.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two prongs. Prong 1 requires the
examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the
abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts,
mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
With respect to step 2A, prong one, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The claim(s) 21, 25 and 34 recite(s) concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for determining at least one load exerted by at least one wheel of a vehicle…, defining a relationship between the at least one load and the at least one strain value, the relationship being adjustable through at least one model parameter, wherein the at least one model parameter comprises a parameter reflecting a current condition affecting the relationship between the at least one load and the at least one strain value, the current condition being selected from the group consisting of: a temperature of the trafficway, a speed of the vehicle, and a location of a wheel imprint of the trafficway…; …determines at least one value for the at least one model parameter that makes the relationship defined by the model correspond with the given load values and the given strain values; and … applies at least one measured strain value from the at least one strain gauge to the model of the model of the trafficway with the at least one value that has been determined for the at least one model parameter, and obtains from the model the at least one load exerted by the at least one wheel of the vehicle traveling along a trafficway (claims 21 and 25); determine the weight of the vehicle based on the at least one load obtained from the model (claim 25); defining a relationship between the at least one load and the at least one strain value, the relationship being adjustable through at least one model parameter, wherein the at least one model parameter comprises a parameter reflecting a current condition affecting the relationship between the at least one load and the at least one strain value, the current condition affecting the relationship between the at least one load and the at least one strain value, the current condition being selected from the group consisting of: a temperature of the trafficway, a speed of the vehicle, and a location of a wheel imprint on the trafficway… at least one value for the at least one model parameter that has been determined in a training phase in which given load values and given strain values measured by the at least one strain gauge in response to the given load values have been applied to the model of the trafficway to determine the at least one value for the at least one model parameter, wherein the processor is configured to apply at least one measured strain value from the least one strain gauge to the model of the trafficway with the at least one value that has been determined for the at least one model parameter, and to obtain from the model the at least one load exerted by the at least one wheel of the vehicle traveling along a trafficway (claim 34) and which also include characterization of the data used to implement the judicial exception.
The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. Although, the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea at Prong 1 of the 101 analysis.
Prong 2, of Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This requires additional element(s) in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “processor” amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; the “strain gauge…; measured strain values”, “strain values measured by at least one strain gauge in the surface layer of the trafficway…” recited by the claims, is mere gathering recited at high level of generality and the results of the algorithm are merely output as part of insignificant post-solution activity and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements
are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does
not recite a specific machine. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or
reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. The claim does not
contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which
describe a particular technology or technical field, which is being improved by the use of
the abstract idea. (This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from
Diamond v Diehr, in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing
process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the
mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of
a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a
better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite
carrying out any comparable technological process.) Instead the additional elements in
the claim appear to merely be generic computing elements and insignificant extra-
solution activity - merely gathering the relevant data necessary which is the input for the
mental process/math in the abstract idea, and then outputting a result of the abstract
idea. Based on these considerations, the additional elements in the claim do not appear
to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Instead, the claim would tend
to monopolize the abstract idea itself, across a wide variety of different practical
applications in the general field-of-use.
Step 2B of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the
additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract
idea itself. The considerations in this case are essentially the same as the
considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion
that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements amounts the recitation of a general purpose computer “processor” and to mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, claims 21, 25 and 34 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 22-24, 26-33 and 35-36, when each is analyzed as a whole, are similarly held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claims only recite further limitations which are part of the abstract idea discussed previously, and do not recite any additional elements which are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to make the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations merely add further details as to the type of data being received/input and used with the mental process and/or math steps recited in the independent claims, and also further calculations and math, so they are properly viewed as part of the recited abstract idea at Prong 1.
Claims 22-24, 26-33 and 35-36 further expands on the abstract idea by appending additional steps which can be considered to describe concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, which includes data characterization.
Dependent claims 22-24, 26-33 and 35-36merely expands on the abstract idea by reciting additional concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, i.e. modifying at least one of the plurality of model parameters (claim 22-23); the model includes a scaling function, which is adjustable through the at least one model parameter (claim 26), the at least one load obtained from the model is based on a plurality of measured strain values that is assumed to correspond to strain caused by a single wheel (claim 29); determines the weight of the vehicle on the basis of a plurality of respective loads obtained from the model, whereby the respective loads are assumed to be exerted by respective wheels of a single vehicle (claim 30); compressing, a plurality of measured strain values using a wavelet compression technique to obtain compressed data and decompressing, the compressed data (claim 31); wherein the wavelet compression technique uses a basis wavelet that represents a shape of deformation of the surface layer of the trafficway caused by a load exerted by a wheel of a vehicle (claim 32); applying a wavelet transformation to a some or all of the plurality of measured strain values to obtain a plurality of coefficients; and losslessly encoding some or all of the obtained plurality of coefficients, or quantized versions thereof (claim 33).
Note that the use of a neural network recited in claim 24 was treated as an additional element that fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it amounts to a general processing computer to implement the abstract idea.
The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. Although, the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea at Prong 1 of the 101 analysis.
Prong 2, of Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This requires additional element(s) in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because, the “processor” amounts to a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea and the model implemented as a neural network, (claim 4), amounts to the implementation of the abstract idea on a generic computer and also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (neural networks) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h); and computing system (claim 19) which amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; and because the “strain gauges… optical fiber strain gauges” measuring strain values (claims 11, 12 and 15), “…transmitting the compressed data…” (claim 15), memory and non-transitory machine-readable media storing program instructions (claims 19 and 20), is mere gathering recited at high level of generality and the results of the algorithm are merely output as part of insignificant post-solution activity and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements
are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does
not recite a specific machine. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or
reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. The claim does not
contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which
describe a particular technology or technical field, which is being improved by the use of
the abstract idea. (This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from
Diamond v Diehr, in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing
process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the
mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of
a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a
better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite
carrying out any comparable technological process.) Instead the additional elements in
the claim appear to merely be generic computing elements and insignificant extra-
solution activity - merely gathering the relevant data necessary which is the input for the
mental process/math in the abstract idea, and then outputting a result of the abstract
idea. Based on these considerations, the additional elements in the claim do not appear
to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Instead, the claim would tend
to monopolize the abstract idea itself, across a wide variety of different practical
applications in the general field-of-use.
Step 2B of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the
additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract
idea itself. The considerations in this case are essentially the same as the
considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion
that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements amounts to mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, claims 21-36 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Reasons to overcome the Prior Art
Regarding claim 21-36, currently rejected under 35 USC 101, the closest prior art of record either in singularly or in combination do not expressly or explicitly discloses the subject matter disclosed by the claims without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YARITZA H PEREZ BERMUDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/YARITZA H. PEREZ BERMUDEZ/
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights