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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/7/2025, have been fully considered and the examiner’s responses are given below.
The specification objection is withdrawn.
The claim objections are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are not withdrawn:
Applicant argues the following on page 11:
PNG
media_image1.png
149
868
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
The use of a mounted sensor involves using generic computing components to practice the judicial exception, which cannot be a practical application. The determination and use of road state information and road section information even when the position of the road has changed are abstract ideas and insignificant extra solution activity.
Applicant argues the following on page 12:
PNG
media_image2.png
98
874
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
With regards to step 2B of the 101 analysis, there appears to be no inventive concept. Not considering the abstract ideas, the devices, memory, processors, sensors, and displays are merely generic computing components. Causing a display device to output the determination result is insignificant extra solution activity in the form of outputting data.
The 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections are withdrawn.
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 1-9 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.
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites “a road surface diagnostic device comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: acquire position information of a plurality of points on a road, the plurality of points being located within a mesh, the position information being collected from a moving body equipped with a GPS sensor and moving within the mesh, the mesh being obtained by dividing a ground surface into a predetermined size; acquire, using a mounted sensor, sensor information of the plurality of points collected from the moving body, the sensor information including at least one of an image and an acceleration, using at least one of: an imaging device of a drive recorder mounted on the moving body to capture road surface images, and an acceleration sensor mounted on the moving body to detect road surface unevenness as vibration; based on the sensor information, determine a state of the road for each of the plurality of points; extrapolate a line up to boundaries of the mesh by performing straight line approximation or curve approximation between the plurality of points; generate a road section by setting intersections between the line and the boundaries of the mesh as a start point and an end point of the road section; based on the state of the road determined for each of the plurality of points, determine a state of the road section; and cause a display device to output a determination result of the state of the road section”.
The limitations of acquiring position information, acquiring sensor information, and determining a state of the road, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by a “processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the processor “acquiring information and determining a state” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing steps of acquiring information and determining a state of the road. For example, the processor “acquiring position and sensor information, and determining a state of the road” in the context of this claim encompasses the user observing position information, images, and acceleration, and determining the state of the road based on the images and acceleration information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitations of extrapolating a line, generating a road section, and determining a state of the road section, as drafted, is also a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by a “processor”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the by a “processor” language, the claim encompasses the user thinking of extrapolating a line, determining a road section, and determining a state of the road section. Thus, these limitations are also mental processes.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites using a processor to perform acquiring, extrapolating, generating, and determining. The processor in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of acquiring, extrapolating, generating, and determining) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of a road surface diagnostic device, a memory, a processor, a moving body, a GPS sensor, a mounted sensor, an imaging device, a drive recorder, an acceleration sensor, and a display device to perform acquiring, capturing, detecting, determining, extrapolating, generating, and outputting 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. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim 1.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claim, for example by linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device or controlling movement of a vehicle based on the feature. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Independent claim 1 recites (emphasis added):
“a road surface diagnostic device comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: acquire position information of a plurality of points on a road, the plurality of points being located within a mesh, the position information being collected from a moving body equipped with a GPS sensor and moving within the mesh, the mesh being obtained by dividing a ground surface into a predetermined size; acquire, using a mounted sensor, sensor information of the plurality of points collected from the moving body, the sensor information including at least one of an image and an acceleration, using at least one of: an imaging device of a drive recorder mounted on the moving body to capture road surface images, and an acceleration sensor mounted on the moving body to detect road surface unevenness as vibration; based on the sensor information, determine a state of the road for each of the plurality of points; extrapolate a line up to boundaries of the mesh by performing straight line approximation or curve approximation between the plurality of points; generate a road section by setting intersections between the line and the boundaries of the mesh as a start point and an end point of the road section; based on the state of the road determined for each of the plurality of points, determine a state of the road section; and cause a display device to output a determination result of the state of the road section”.
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of the claims.
Yonekawa (US 20190163994 A1) teaches analyzing cracks within a mesh.
Yonekawa, however, does not teach extrapolating a line up to boundaries of the mesh by performing straight line approximation or curve approximation between the plurality of points, and generating a road section by setting intersections between the line and the boundaries of the mesh as a start point and an end point of the road section.
Dorum (US 20140244153 A1) teaches extrapolating a line by performing curve approximation between the plurality of points.
Dorum, however, does not teach the mesh and generating a road section by setting intersections between the line and the boundaries of the mesh as a start point and an end point of the road section.
These differences between the subject matter of claim 1 and the prior art are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any available evidence in the remaining prior art. Accordingly, claim 1 recites allowable subject matter.
Claims 8 and 9 recite allowable subject matter because these claims are similar to claim 1.
Claims 2-7 recite allowable subject matter based upon their dependency from claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (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 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 are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). 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.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669