DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 11/19/2025.
2. Claim 11 has been added.
3. Claims 1-11 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed on 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, the Applicant argues in substance that:
In regard to 101 rejection, the Applicant has provided arguments, (pages 9-12).
In response to argument:
a) In Response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Foremost, the decision of the Supreme Court in regard to Alice vs CLS Bank is succinctly discussed as follows. In their decision, Supreme Court has stated that the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract ideas (such as algorithms) into a patent eligible invention. Because the algorithm was an abstract idea, the claim had to supply a “new and useful" application of the idea in order to be patent eligible (Alice, Page 12). Furthermore, the additional limitations had to be significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself (Alice, page 7, 15).
Regarding independent Claim 1, we recognize that the limitations “calculate a vibration feature quantity Pv(t) based on expressions below from acceleration values for respective x, y, and z components, the acceleration values being included in the measurement value which has been acquired, PV(t)=… where NFFT is the number of taps of Fast Fourier Transform (FFT), p(fi)2=px(fi)2+py(fi)2+pz(fi)2 where px(fi), py(fi), and pz(fi) are power values in a frequency band fi which have been obtained by FFT from the acceleration values for the respective x, y, and z components, and
f0 to fn_m are a DC component and a near frequency band thereof; and calculate a road vibration coefficient ρ based on the vibration feature quantity Pv(t) which has been calculated and an expression below,
Pv(t)=ρ.v(t)2 where v(t) is a velocity of the vehicle, and ρ is a road vibration coefficient which is a parameter indicating a relationship between the road surface and the vehicle”, as abstract ideas. The abstract idea of claim 1 can be characterized as processes, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes and/or mathematical concepts.
Beyond the abstract idea, we next look at additional elements that can be considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In particular, the claim limitations “a computer processor, and acquires a measurement value which has been measured by a sensor provided in a vehicle while the vehicle is traveling on a road surface” are additional elements.
The claim limitation “acquires a measurement value which has been measured by a sensor provided in a vehicle while the vehicle is traveling on a road surface”, is recited at a high level of generality, and are considered to be insignificant data gathering steps. As shown in the prior art, Jean et al. US 11530932 (hereinafter, Jean), (Abstract, column 7, lines 15-20), and Takasuka et al. US 20200348167 (hereinafter, Takasuka), ([0003], Fig. 2), both show that acquires a measurement value which has been measured by a sensor provided in a vehicle while the vehicle is traveling on a road surface is nothing more than data collection activity for gathering parameters using a well-known conventional sensor components and activity previously known in the industry in order to execute an abstract idea, which does not further limit and integrate the abstract idea in practical application, and as such, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Further, the claim recites “a computer processor”, but said limitation is recited at a high level of generality, (i.e., as a generic computer structure performing a generic computer function of processing information). As shown in the prior art, Jean (Abstract, column 7, lines 15-20), and Takasuka ([0003], Fig. 2), both show that “a computer processor”, is well-understood and purely conventional in the relevant art and would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to apply the abstract idea(s) and/or activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the combination of these additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to “significantly more” than the identified abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The representative claim 1 recites:
4. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The representative claim 1 recites:
An information processing device, comprising a computer processor configured to:
acquires a measurement value which has been measured by a sensor provided in a vehicle while the vehicle is traveling on a road surface;
calculate a vibration feature quantity Pv(t) based on expressions below from acceleration values for respective x, y, and z components, the acceleration values being included in the measurement value which has been acquired, PV(t)=… where NFFT is the number of taps of Fast Fourier Transform (FFT),
p(fi)2=px(fi)2+py(fi)2+pz(fi)2 where px(fi), py(fi), and pz(fi) are power values in a frequency band fi which have been obtained by FFT from the acceleration values for the respective x, y, and z components, and
f0 to fn_m are a DC component and a near frequency band thereof; and calculate a road vibration coefficient ρ based on the vibration feature quantity Pv(t) which has been calculated and an expression below,
Pv(t)=ρ.v(t)2 where v(t) is a velocity of the vehicle, and ρ is a road vibration coefficient which is a parameter indicating a relationship between the road surface and the vehicle.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under 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 claims are considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under 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 limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Next, under 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations in the claim are only: a computer processor, and acquires a measurement value which has been measured by a sensor provided in a vehicle while the vehicle is traveling on a road surface. The limitation “a computer processor” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer structure performing a generic computer function of processing information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
Further, the claim limitation “acquires a measurement value which has been measured by a sensor provided in a vehicle while the vehicle is traveling on a road surface”, is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., data gathering steps) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic sensor.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional limitation recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer component, and data gathering steps provided in a vehicle using a generic sensor). Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record Jean et al. US 11530932 (hereinafter, Jean), (Abstract, column 7, lines 15-20), and Takasuka et al. US 20200348167 (hereinafter, Takasuka), ([0003], Fig. 2), Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 11, add further details of the identified abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claims 6-8, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 9-10, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
8. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
9. Claims 1 and 6-8 recites the limitation “f0 to fn_m” are a DC component and a near frequency band thereof.” However, the claim terms “f0 to fn_m” is unclear. The claim does not clearly define the terms f0 and fn_m” explicitly as shown in claim 11. This term is not defined or identified in any of the mathematical expression recited, thereby rendering the definition of the subject-matter unclear. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Examiner’s Notes
10. Claims 1-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, and 112 second paragraph, and claim objections, set forth in this Office action.
11. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Heirich et al. (“Measurement and Analysis of Train Motion and Railway Track Characteristics with Inertial Sensors” cited in IDS) discloses a measurements of train motion with a low-cost inertial measurement unit (IMU) based on micro electro mechanical systems (MEMS). The measurements were recorded on-board a train during normal passenger transport service on a network with dense urban railway environment as well as a rural, regional network environment. As the train motion is dependent on the track, local track characteristics are inferred from the train motion measurements. Suzuki et al. (WO 2015141199) discloses a road surface condition estimation device comprises a tire-side device and a vehicle-side device. The tire-side device is provided with a vibration detection unit which is attached to the back surface of the tread of a tire mounted on the vehicle, and which outputs a detection signal corresponding to the magnitude of vibration of the tire; a signal processing unit which comprises a ground-contacting segment extraction unit for extracting the ground-contacting segment, which is the portion of the tread contacting the ground in a single rotation of the tire that corresponds to the arrangement position of the vibration detection unit, and a high-frequency level calculation unit which calculates the level of a high-frequency component of the detection signal in the ground-contacting segment. Koumura et al. (WO 2014115259 ) discloses a vibration analysis technique using vibration measured as a vehicle travels on an actual road, the vehicle vibration analysis technique being capable of distinguishing various forms of vibrational input and detecting a vibration characteristic. In this vibration analysis technique, a vehicle is caused to travel on a road surface, the height of which shifts at various wavelengths along the direction of progress of the vehicle, and a transfer function is computed for a vibration characteristic values at locations of a vehicle body corresponding to at least two vibrational input values as partial regression coefficients by multiple regression analysis, using vibration characteristic values at locations of the vehicle body measured during travel as target coefficients, and using at least two vibrational input values that give rise to the vibration characteristic values as explanatory variables. The prior art of record does not teach or make obvious the claim invention in claims 1 and 7 “calculates a vibration feature quantity Pv(t) based on expressions below from acceleration values for respective x, y, and z components, the acceleration values being included in the measurement value which has been acquired, PV(t)=… where NFFT is the number of taps of FFT, p(fi)2=px(fi)2+py(fi)2+pz(fi)2 where px(fi), py(fi), and pz(fi) are power values in a frequency band fi which have been obtained by FFT from the acceleration values for the respective x, y, and z components, and calculates a road vibration coefficient ρ based on the vibration feature quantity Pv(t) which has been calculated and an expression below, Pv(t)=ρ.v(t)2 where v(t) is a velocity of the vehicle, and ρ is a road vibration coefficient which is a parameter indicating a relationship between the road surface and the vehicle” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
The prior art of record does not teach or make obvious the claim invention in claims 6 and 8 “calculates a vibration feature quantity Pv(t) based on expressions below from acceleration values for respective x, y, and z components, the acceleration values being included in the measurement value which has been acquired, PV(t)=… where NFFT is the number of taps of FFT, p(fi)2=px(fi)2+py(fi)2+pz(fi)2 where px(fi), py(fi), and pz(fi) are power values in a frequency band fi which have been obtained by FFT from the acceleration values for the respective x, y, and z components, and calculates v(t) based on the vibration feature quantity Pv(t) which has been calculated, an expression below, and a road vibration coefficient ρ which has been set in advance, Pv(t)=ρ.v(t)2 where v(t) is a velocity of the vehicle, and ρ is a road vibration coefficient which is a parameter indicating a relationship between the road surface and the vehicle” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Conclusion
12. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, and/or paragraphs, and/or pages in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
13. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYOB HAGOS whose telephone number is (571)272-3508. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Shelby Turner can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Eyob Hagos/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857