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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“An information processing device that acquires information on a road surface on which a vehicle travels, the information processing device comprising one or more processors configured to detect fluctuation in a rotational speed of each wheel of the vehicle, determine whether the fluctuation in the rotational speed of a left wheel of the vehicle and the fluctuation in the rotational speed of a right wheel of the vehicle are synchronized, acquire a time lag between time of occurrence of the fluctuation in the rotational speed of a first wheel on a front side of the vehicle and time of occurrence of the fluctuation in the rotational speed of a second wheel on a rear side of the vehicle, and determine a condition of the road surface using the determination result as to whether the fluctuation in the rotational speed of the left wheel of the vehicle and the fluctuation in the rotational speed of the right wheel of the vehicle are synchronized and the time lag, and control the vehicle based on the determined condition of the road surface.”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional element”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
The steps of “determine whether the fluctuation in the rotational speed of a left wheel of the vehicle and the fluctuation in the rotational speed of a right wheel of the vehicle are synchronized… and determine a condition of the road surface using the determination result as to whether the fluctuation in the rotational speed of the left wheel of the vehicle and the fluctuation in the rotational speed of the right wheel of the vehicle are synchronized and the time lag” are treated as belonging to mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “determine whether the fluctuation in the rotational speed of a left wheel of the vehicle and the fluctuation in the rotational speed of a right wheel of the vehicle are synchronized… and determine a condition of the road surface using the determination result as to whether the fluctuation in the rotational speed of the left wheel of the vehicle and the fluctuation in the rotational speed of the right wheel of the vehicle are synchronized and the time lag” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping. This mental step represents a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. In the context of this claim, this step encompasses making a determination (judgement) about the fluctuation in the rotational speed of the left and right wheel of the vehicle are synchronized and the time lag.
. Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that
integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
Claim 1: An information processing device that acquires information on a road surface on which a vehicle travels, the information processing device comprising one or more processors configured to detect fluctuation in a rotational speed of each wheel of the vehicle and acquire a time lag between time of occurrence of the fluctuation in the rotational speed of a first wheel on a front side of the vehicle and time of occurrence of the fluctuation in the rotational speed of a second wheel on a rear side of the vehicle and control the vehicle based on the determined condition of the road surface.
Claim 9: A vehicle, comprising: one or more wheel speed sensors configured to detect a rotational speed of each wheel of the vehicle; and one or more processors configured to detect fluctuation in the rotational speed of each wheel of the vehicle based on the rotational speed of each wheel received from the one or more wheel speed sensors, acquire a time lag between time of occurrence of the fluctuation in the rotational speed of a first wheel on a front side of the vehicle and time of occurrence of the fluctuation in the rotational speed of a second wheel on a rear side of the vehicle and control the vehicle based on the determined condition of the road surface.
Claim 10: An information processing method for acquiring information on a road surface on which a vehicle travels, the information processing method comprising: detecting fluctuation in a rotational speed of each wheel of the vehicle; acquiring a time lag between time of occurrence of the fluctuation in the rotational speed of a first wheel on a front side of the vehicle and time of occurrence of the fluctuation in the rotational speed of a second wheel on a rear side of the vehicle and control the vehicle based on the determined condition of the road surface.
The above steps of an information processing device that acquires information on a road surface on which a vehicle travels, the information processing device comprising one or more processors configured to detect fluctuation in a rotational speed of each wheel of the vehicle and acquire a time lag between time of occurrence of the fluctuation in the rotational speed of a first wheel on a front side of the vehicle and time of occurrence of the fluctuation in the rotational speed of a second wheel on a rear side of the vehicle are generically recited and represent mere data gathering steps (insignificant extra-solution activity) necessary to execute the abstract idea and controlling the vehicle based on the determined condition of the road surface represents an extra-solution activity because the limitation uses the data from the sensors to control the vehicle which is incidental to the primary process.
The additional elements in Claim 9 such as one or more processors is an example of generic computer equipment (components) that is generally recited and, therefore, is not qualified as a particular machine.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps, i.e. to detect fluctuation in a rotational speed of each wheel of the vehicle, acquiring a time lag, and controlling the vehicle based on the determined condition of the road surface are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record including references in the submitted IDS (6/29/2023) by the Applicant (Yamada and Jeno).
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-8 provide additional features/steps which are either part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising mathematical/mental/organizing human activity process steps (Claims 2-8) or adding additional elements/steps that are not meaningful as they are recited in generality and/or not qualified as particular machine/ and/or eligible transformation and, therefore, do not reflect a practical application as well as not qualified for “significantly more” based on prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pg. 7-8) “For example, fluctuation in a rotation speed of each of the four wheels of the vehicle (front left, front right, rear left, rear right) are detected using sensors… None of the limitations listed from a) to e) above, nor any combination thereof, can be practically performed by the human mind, even with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, the claims do not recite an abstract idea of mental processes and are eligible under Step 2A, Prong One, of the Alice-type §101 analysis. Furthermore, the aforementioned features integrate any alleged abstract idea into the practical application of controlling the vehicle based more appropriately on the road surface condition. Thus, the claims are patent-eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two”.
Examiner disagrees and submits that “For example, fluctuation in a rotation speed of each of the four wheels of the vehicle (front left, front right, rear left, rear right) are detected using sensors… None of the limitations listed from a) to e) above, nor any combination thereof, can be practically performed by the human mind, even with the aid of pen and paper” the claim limitation does not include sensors and making a judgement of the synchronization and time lag in the left and right wheel based on the rotational speed.
Examiner disagrees and submits that the claims lack meaningful additional and/or significantly more elements that would indicate “controlling the vehicle based more appropriately on the road surface condition”.
Applicant argues (pg. 8) “Even if the claims are not eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two, a further analysis is performed under Step 2B. This analysis determines whether the additional limitations add "significantly more" that is not merely a conventional, routine, or well-known activity... Further, limitations d) and e) above explicitly state that the road surface condition is determined based on two factors obtained from limitations b) and c) above, and that the vehicle is controlled based on the determined road surface condition. This makes the claimed invention, an ordered combination of limitations a) through e), a unique and non-conventional solution to the technical problem of accurately estimating the condition/shape of the road surface, which has traditionally been difficult to achieve. See specification as filed, at [0007], [0011], [0064]-[0065], and [0076].”
Examiner disagrees and submits that the claims lack meaningful additional and/or significantly more elements that would indicate an improvement to the technical problem of accurately estimating the condition/shape of the road surface., i.e., controlling the vehicle; making it stop, slow it down, or apply brakes.
35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-10 has been withdrawn.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARAH ZAAB whose telephone number is (571)272-4973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4:30 pm.
/SHARAH ZAAB/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights