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 .
Applicant cancelled claims 1-12,16, 21 and 26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/26 regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully
considered but they are not persuasive.
Prong One Step 2A:
The applicant argues that the claims merely involve mathematics but do not recite mathematical concepts.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument because the claim language itself explicitly recites mathematical operations and mathematical relationships. Specifically, the claims recite:
“computing …root mean square values”;
“determining…vehicle transfer functions”;
“vehicle transfer functions…mathematically relate vehicle vertical acceleration root mean square values and international roughness index values”;
“estimating an international roughness index value…based on…vehicle transfer functions”.
Unlike Example 39, where the claims recited a specific neural-network training
process without reciting the mathematical calculations themselves, the present claims explicitly require determining and applying mathematical relationships between measured variables. The claimed “vehicle transfer functions” are not merely underlying mathematics used by the invention, they are affirmative claim limitations that define mathematical relationships between RMS acceleration values and IRI values and are used to generate the claimed estimate. Accordingly, the claims recite a mathematical concept under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
The Thales decision is distinguishable. In Thales, the claims were directed to a
specific arrangement of internal sensors and a particular method of using the sensors to determine orientation. The Federal Circuit emphasized that the claims were not directed to the equations themselves but to an improved physical tracking system. Here, the claims do not improve the sensors, vehicle bus, acquisition devices, or data collection mechanisms. Rather, the claims use conventional sensors data as inputs to derive a mathematical model and estimate an IRI value.
Mental Process
The applicant is correct that some aspects of the claimed method involve physical data collection. However, the Office Action need not rely on mental process grouping if the claims recite a mathematical concept. Under the 2019 PEG, recitation of any one abstract ides grouping is sufficient. Thus, even assuming the claims are not directed to a mental process, the claims still recite a mathematical concept.
Prong Two-Integration into a Practical Application
The applicant argues that the claims improve the technical field of pavement monitoring by providing more accurate IRI estimation.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument because an improvement in the accuracy of the mathematical model or estimation itself is not necessary a technological improvement under Step 2A Prong Two. The claims do not recite any improvement to:
Vehicle sensors;
Acquisition devices;
Vehicle buses;
Cloud computing systems;
Data acquisition techniques; or
Road measurement hardware.
Instead, the claims collect conventional acceleration, speed, and location data and
use those data to derive and apply vehicle-specific transfer functions. The claimed result is an estimate IRI value, which is information.
The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that claims directed to collecting
Information, analyzing information using mathematical techniques, and producing a result remain abstract even when performed in a technological environment. See for example, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.
The fact that the claims are performed in vehicles and use vehicle data does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims merely apply the mathematical model in the field of road roughness estimation.
The Diehr analogy is also distinguishable. In Diehr, the Arrhenius equation was used to control an ongoing industrial rubber-curing process that physically transformed uncured rubber into cured rubber. Here, the estimated IRI value is not used to control a vehicle, modify a road, adjust suspension settings, after sensor operation, or perform any other technological action. The claims terminate with the generation of an estimated IRI value.
The applicant further argues that the claims recite acquisition devices, vehicle buses, cloud computing systems, and electronic control units.
The examiner reminds the applicant that these elements are recited at a high level of generality and perform their ordinary functions of:
acquiring data;
transmitting data;
storing data; and
processing data.
The claims do not recite any technological improvement to these components.
Merely limiting an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or implementing it on generic computing components does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B-Berkheimer
The applicant argues that the Office Action has not provided the factual
determination, as required by the Berkheimer Memo, as to how or why the combination of these particular claim limitations is “well-understood, routine, and conventional”.
The examiner reminds the applicant that the rejection is not based on a finding that
every limitation individually is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Rather, the claim, as a whole lacks, an inventive concept because the additional elements beyond the mathematical concept consist of:
collecting acceleration data;
collecting speed data;
collecting location data;
computing RMS values;
generating transfer functions; and
applying the transfer functions to estimate IRI.
The vehicle sensors, vehicle busses, acquisition devices, cloud systems, and
ECUs are described in the specification as conventional components performing their conventional functions.
Moreover, the asserted novelty of using vehicle-type-specific transfer functions does not establish an inventive concept. As explained in cases such as SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC and Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., a new or more accurate mathematical model remains an abstract idea if the improvement lies solely in the mathematical analysis itself.
In conclusion
The applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The claims explicitly recite mathematical concepts including root mean square values, determining vehicle transfer functions that mathematically relate RMS acceleration values and IRI values, and estimating an IRI value using those transfer functions. The additional elements merely collect conventional vehicle sensor data and apply the mathematical relationships in the field of road roughness estimation. The claims do not improve vehicle sensors, acquisition devices, vehicle buses, cloud computing systems, or any other technology, nor do they use the estimated IRI value to control or transform a physical process. Accordingly, the claims recite a mathematical concept and fail to integrate that concept into a practical application. Furthermore, the additional elements amount to no more than conventional data gathering and computer implementation of the mathematical concept and therefore do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is therefore maintained.
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 13-15, 17-20, 22--25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a process (claim 13, a method) or a machine (claims 18 and 23, a system), which are statutory categories.
However, evaluating claim 13, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is
directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea using the grouping of a mathematical relationship/mental process. The limitations include:
computing, for each of the given vehicle types and/or models, respective first root mean square values of the respective first vertical acceleration values; for each of the given vehicle types and/or models, determining one or more vehicle transfer functions specific to the given vehicle type and/or model and that mathematically relate respective vehicle vertical acceleration root mean square values and international roughness index values at the one or more given constant speeds, based on the known international roughness index values or road profiles, the respective first vehicle geo-referencing data, the respective first vehicle speed data, and the respective first root mean square values; and in an international roughness index estimation stage: computing second root mean square values of the second vertical acceleration values; and estimating an international roughness index value for the given road or road segment based on at least one vehicle transfer function specific to the given vehicle type and/or model determined in the preliminary stage and on the second root mean square values and the driving speed of the given motor vehicle.
Next, Step 2A, Prong Two evaluates whether additional elements of the claim “integrate the abstract idea into a practical application” in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B, consideration is given to additional elements that may make the abstract idea significantly more. Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements that make the claim significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional elements of “collecting, for each of one or more motor vehicles of different given vehicle types and/or of different given vehicle models, first vertical acceleration values measured at one or more given constant speeds on one or more roads or road segments associated with known international roughness index values or known road profiles; respective first vehicle geo-referencing data of the measured respective first vehicle vertical acceleration values; and respective first vehicle speed data indicative of the one or more given constant speeds associated with the measured respective first vehicle vertical acceleration values” and “acquiring second vertical acceleration values measured on a given motor vehicle driven at a driving speed on a given road or road segment” are considered insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data that is not sufficient to integrate the claim into a particular practical application. The act of data gathering by the sensors is considered insufficient to elevate the claim to a practical application.
The examiner notes that applying conventional mathematical analysis to conventional data using conventional vehicle hardware does not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea.
The limitations have been considered individually and as a whole and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 14-15 and 17 do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claim merely extends (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because it merely adds details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
4.2. Claims 18 and 23 are rejected 35 USC § 101 for the same rationale as in claim 13.
Regarding claim 18, This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements (i.e., cloud computing system) amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas. As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Regarding claim 23, This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements (i.e., cloud computing system) amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas. As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 19, 20, 22, 24, 25 and 27, either depending of claim 18 or claim 13, do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claim merely extends (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because it merely adds details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Examiner’s Notes
Claims 13 and 18 distinguish over the prior art of record because none the prior
art of record teaches or fairly suggests computing, for each of the given vehicle types and/or models, respective first root mean square values of the respective first vertical acceleration values; for each of the given vehicle types and/or models, determining one or more respective vehicle transfer functions specific to the given vehicle type and/or model and that mathematically relate respective vehicle vertical acceleration root mean square values and international roughness index values at the one or more given constant speeds, based on the known international roughness index values or road profiles, the respective first vehicle geo-referencing data, the respective first vehicle speed data, and the respective first root mean square values; and in an international roughness index estimation stage: acquiring second vertical acceleration values measured on a given motor vehicle driven at a driving speed on a given road or road segment; computing second root mean square values of the second vertical acceleration values; and estimating an international roughness index value for the given road or road segment based on at least one vehicle transfer function specific to the given vehicle type and/or model determined in the preliminary stage and on the second root mean square values and the driving speed of the given motor vehicle, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Claim 18 distinguishes over the prior art of record because none the prior art of
record teaches or fairly suggests
compute, for each of the given vehicle types and/or models, respective first root mean square values of the respective first vertical acceleration values; and for each of the given vehicle types and/or models, determine one or more respective vehicle transfer functions specific to the given vehicle type and/or model and that mathematically relate respective vehicle vertical acceleration root mean square values and international roughness index values at the one or more given constant speeds, based on the known international roughness index values or road profiles, the respective first vehicle geo-referencing data, the respective first vehicle speed data, and the respective first root mean square values; and for each of the one or more motor vehicles, a respective electronic control unit installed onboard the motor vehicle and coupled to the respective second acquisition device, and configured in an international roughness index estimation stage to: acquire, from the respective second acquisition device, second vertical acceleration values measured on the respective motor vehicle driven at a driving speed on a given road or road segment; compute second root mean square values of the second vertical acceleration values; and estimate an international roughness index value for the given road or road segment based on at least one vehicle transfer function specific to the given vehicle type and/or model determined in the preliminary stage and on the second root mean square values and the driving speed of the respective motor vehicle, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the applicant.
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.
Contact information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MOHAMED CHARIOUI whose telephone number is (571)272-2213. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 6 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached on (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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).
Mohamed Charioui
/MOHAMED CHARIOUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights