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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary amendment filed on 9/8/23 has been entered.
Claims 10- 20 , are new claims.
Claims 1- 20 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/8/23 the information disclosure statement was considered by initialing the PTO Form 1449.
Drawings
4. The Examiner has approved drawings filed on 9/8/23.
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 1-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non- statutory subject matter ( an abstract idea without significantly more). The claims recite(s) method and a road deterioration diagnosing .
Step 1:
With regards to step(1), claim 8, is directed to a method , i.e. to one of statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A -1: Yes
With regards to 2A-1, the limitation as specified in the independent claim 8, recites ” detecting road deterioration based on at least one of an image and acceleration acquired from a moving body”, as drafted , is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the elements in the mind as mental process using a generic processor and a memory as a tool to perform an abstract idea -see (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Similarly, the limitation of “detecting, based on a sound acquired together with at least one of the image and acceleration used in the road deterioration detection, road surface condition at the time when the sound is acquired ”, as drafted , is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the elements in the mind as mental process using a generic processor and a memory as a tool to perform an abstract idea-- (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Similarly, the limitation of “ determining reliability of the road deterioration detection result based on the detected road surface condition”, as draft is a process that, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation , is directed to mental process as a tool to perform an abstract idea .
When viewed under the broadest most reasonable interpretation, the instant claims are directed to judicial exception – an abstract idea belong to the group of mental process. Particularly, steps of detecting road deterioration by analyzing images based on accelerations , sound data collected by vehicle to detect result based on the road surface condition can reasonably be performed mentally . For example, “detecting” “ determining” ( step is a data gathering ) in step may be performed by processes , which may be practically performed in human mind and are examples of “mental processes” include observations , evaluations , judgments and opinion fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Reference may be made to the July 2024 PEG and those various limitations drawn to the mental processing grouping(s),to include those of example 47 claim 2 .The claims/limitations in question are recited at a high level of generality and lack any specifics precluding such ‘performing’, ‘determining’, ‘implementing’, ‘executing’, etc., from being interpreted under the mental processes grouping practically performed in the mind. As identified in the most recent PEG, even a form of automating that broadly/generically involves the use of a machine learning model, would fail to preclude the limitations in question from being drawn to the mental processes grouping ( see guidance with respect to ‘apply it’ consideration of MPEP2106.05(F)). Hence , the limitations of detecting road deterioration by analyzing images based on accelerations , sound data collected by vehicle to detect result based on the road surface condition can reasonably interpreted as mental steps. Dependent claims are similarly analyzed .
Step 2A -2: No
The above -identified additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As recited in steps detecting and determining is mere data gathering and thus are insignificant extract- solution activity. Limitations as recited in the claims are being performed by a computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer. These limitations only recite the outcome result based on the inspection or detecting road surface condition being normal or abnormal , without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished . The claims recite an abstract .
Step 2B: No
Because the claim fails under(2A) , the claim is further evaluated under(2B). The claim herein does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements of a memory and a processor taken separately or in combination perform conventional computer functions that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components “MPEP2106.05(f)”. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Independent claim 8 is therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 9, recites a non-transitory recording medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute ( instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practical the abstract idea. Claim 9, it is interpreted and thus rejected for 101 the same reasons as applied above in the rejection of claim 8 .
Claim 1 is device analogous to method claim 8, and is not patent eligible and similarly analyze as claim 8 .
All dependent claims 2 -7, 10- 15, 16- 20 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 because any additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. For these reasons, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuzunishi et al., (US. 20130173208 A1).
As to claim 1, Kuzunishi disclose a road deterioration diagnosing device abstract, inspection of road surface device, fig 1, element 10 , road surface inspection device), comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (see para 7, 62 and 83); and
at least one processor configured to access the at least one memory and execute the instructions ( see para 7, 57, 165 ) to :
detect road deterioration based on at least one of an image and acceleration (see para 30, para 35 measuring the acceleration in the gravitational direction by using G-sensor ) acquired by a moving body ( see para 33, moving body patrol car 3, see para 43 ) ;
detect, based on a sound acquired together with at least one of the image and acceleration used in the road deterioration detection ( see para 70, abnormality is detected in the acceleration while the patrol car is moving road surface , see para 73) , a road surface condition at the time when the sound is acquired ( see para 159, sensor mounted on patrol car 3, capturing sound from the road surface and detecting the deterioration using the driving sound to detect a crack or bump or groove) ; and
determine reliability of the road deterioration detection result based ( see para 70) on the detected road surface condition ( see para 152, see para 159, sensor mounted on patrol car 3, capturing sound from the road surface and detecting the deterioration using the driving sound to detect a crack or bump or groove).
Regarding claim 8, it is interpreted and thus rejected for the same reasons as applied above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, argument analogous those presented for claim 1 are applicable to claim 9. Regarding claim 9 Kuzunishi further teaches A non-transitory recording medium storing a program that causes a computer to perform processing ( see para 164-165, 168 ).
Claim(s) 1 -20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inoue Noriaki (JP 2007309832A ) Road surface state determination device and method.
As to claim 1, Inoue disclose a road deterioration diagnosing device ( fig 1, detecting the road surface condition determination device ( wet, snow etc.) , see para 15 abstract), comprising:
at least one memory storing (note, a memory unit 30 for storing road surface condition determination criteria that associate road surface images with road surface conditions for each road surface pavement type; instructions (see para 41, 44); and
at least one processor ( see para 22, microprocesses ) configured to access the at least one memory and execute the instructions to (see para 41, 44);
detect road deterioration based on at least one of an image and acceleration ( note, vehicle is accelerating in a direction corresponds to acceleration see para 42 , The road surface image capturing unit 70 is a camera mounted on the front of the vehicle body, and captures an image of the road surface ahead of the vehicle in the traveling direction using an imaging element such as a CCD (Charge Coupled Device) and converts the image into an electrical signal ) acquired by a moving body ( note, moving body corresponds to vehicle see para 22, 42 ) ;
detect, based on a sound acquired together with at least one of the image and acceleration ( see para 42) used in the road deterioration detection, a road surface condition at the time when the sound ( see para 22) is acquired ( see para 55 ); and
determine reliability of the road deterioration detection result based on the detected road surface condition ( see para 60 - 62).
As to claim 2, Inoue disclose the road deterioration diagnosing device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to (see para 22) : lower ( see para 53) the reliability of the road deterioration detection result in a case where a first condition ( see para 57, 58) is detected as the road surface condition compared to a case where the first condition is not detected as the road surface condition ( see para 61, 62).
As to claim 3, Inoue disclose the road deterioration diagnosing device according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to ( see para 22) : detect the road deterioration based on the image; and lower ( see para 12) the reliability of the road deterioration detection result in a case where the first condition (note, judging the road condition, see para 54, 55) is detected as the road surface condition compared ( see para 52, 53) to a case where the first condition is not detected as the road surface condition ( see para 56, 67) , wherein the first condition is a condition including one or more of water wetting ( see para 38) , snow, freeze, a manhole, and a joint ( see para 29, 53, 54) .
As to claim 4, Inoue disclose the road deterioration diagnosing device according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: detect the road deterioration based on the acceleration ( note, vehicle is accelerating in a direction corresponds to acceleration see para 42 ) ; and lower ( see para 12 ) the reliability of the road deterioration detection result in a case where the first condition (note, judging the road condition , see para 54, 55) is detected as the road surface condition (see para, 56 , 67) , compared to a case where the first condition is not detected as the road surface condition, wherein the first condition is a condition including one or more of snow, freeze, a manhole, and a joint( see para 29, 53, 54) .
As to claim 5, Inoue disclose the road deterioration diagnosing device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to ( see para 22): in a case where a second condition is detected as the road surface condition, exclude, from a road deterioration detection target, at least one of the image and the acceleration acquired together with the sound in which the second condition is detected ( note, road surface condition acquisition unit that acquires the road surface condition of the road surface being traveled from an information source external to the vehicle, wherein the road surface condition determination unit, when the first road surface condition and the acquired road surface condition are different, changes the memory contents of the memory unit so that the road surface condition corresponding to the running sound becomes the acquired road surface condition in accordance with the road surface condition determination criterion for audio, and when the second road surface condition and the acquired road surface condition are different, changes the memory contents of the memory unit so that the road surface condition corresponding to the road surface image becomes the acquired road surface condition in accordance with the road surface condition determination criterion for image, ( see para 11 ) .
As to claim 6, Inoue disclose the road deterioration diagnosing device according to claim 5, wherein the at least one processor ( see para 22) is further configured to execute the instructions to: exclude, from the road deterioration detection target, the image acquired together with the sound in which the second condition is detected in a case where the second condition is detected as the road surface condition (note, second road surface condition are different and the acquired road surface image does not satisfy a predetermined condition, it outputs the first road surface condition to another device, and if the first road surface condition and the second road surface condition are different and the acquired road surface image satisfies the predetermined condition, it outputs the second road surface condition to another device ( para 11 ); and
detect the road deterioration based on the image that is the road deterioration ( see para 44- 45) detection target, wherein the second condition is a condition including one or more of water ( see para 43, 54) wetting ( see para 38, 39) , snow ( see para 29, 43 ), freeze ( see para 2, 29 ), a manhole, and a joint ( see para 12 ) .
Regarding claim 7, it is interpreted and thus rejected for the same reasons as applied above in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, it is interpreted and thus rejected for the same reasons as applied above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, argument analogous those presented for claim 1 are applicable to claim 9. Regarding claim 9 Inoue further teaches A non-transitory recording medium storing a program that causes a computer to perform processing ( note, Microprocess is an integrated circuit that contains all the functions of a central processing unit of a computer, and control program corresponds to non- transitory computer, para 22).
Regarding claim 10, it is interpreted and thus rejected for the same reasons as applied above in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, it is interpreted and thus rejected for the same reasons as applied above in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, it is interpreted and thus rejected for the same reasons as applied above in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, it is interpreted and thus rejected for the same reasons as applied above in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, it is interpreted and thus rejected for the same reasons as applied above in the rejection of claim 20.
Regarding claim 15, it is interpreted and thus rejected for the same reasons as applied above in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 16, it is interpreted and thus rejected for the same reasons as applied above in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, it is interpreted and thus rejected for the same reasons as applied above in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, it is interpreted and thus rejected for the same reasons as applied above in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, it is interpreted and thus rejected for the same reasons as applied above in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, it is interpreted and thus rejected for the same reasons as applied above in the rejection of claim 6.
Other prior art cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent toapplicant's disclosure. US. Patent Number: , US PGPUB NO. 20200156646 A1, 20190162848 A1 .
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEELA C CHAWAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7446. The examiner can normally be reached M- F 8 am -5.00 pm Flex.
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, Park Chan can be reached at 571-272-7409. 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.
/SHEELA C CHAWAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2669