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 Status
The claims filed on 8/21/2025 are entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are currently amended.
Claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are original.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103
Claims 11-14 and 16-19 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Koohbanani (US 2025/0162592 A1).
Claims 1-9 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koohbanani (US 2025/0162592 A1) in view of Sugawara (US 2024/0287748 A1).
Claims 15 and 20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koohbanani (US 2025/0162592 A1) in view of Engle (US 2021/0096570 A1).
Claim 10 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koohbanani (US 2025/0162592 A1) in view of Sugawara (US 2024/0287748 A1), further in view of Engle (US 2021/0096570 A1).
Applicant’s arguments with regard to the prior art rejections have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Sugawara fails to teach or suggest determining a trend line for the road, the trend line being indicative of future maintenance requirements of the road, and future maintenance requirements of similar roads, as taught by the disclosure of the present application. Further, Applicant respectfully submits that Sugawara fails to teach or suggest alerting a road management entity (RME) to a potential future maintenance issue associated with the roads, and associated with similar roads, if the RMS, or the multiplied RMS, exceeds the threshold RMS value. In other words, the deterioration index calculation unit (206) as disclosed by Sugawara predicts deterioration of the crack at the road surface at which data was collected. Nowhere does Sugawara indicate that the deterioration index calculation unit (206) can be applied to roads that are separate from the road at which data was collected.”
The argument is not persuasive. The amended claim limitations, subject to broadest reasonable interpretation, are taught by Sugawara or Koohbanani.
With regards to independent claim 1, the claim has been amended to recite “determining a trend line for the road, the trend line being indicative of future maintenance requirements of the road, and future maintenance requirements of similar roads, based on the RMS”. As pointed out by Applicant, “Sugawara discloses a deterioration index calculated by a deterioration index calculation unit (206) based on sensor information. Values of the deterioration index are calculated by the deterioration index calculation unit (206) for the "crack rate," the "crack width," the "size of pot hole," and the "International Roughness Index (IRI)" detected by a deterioration detection unit (205). See Sugawara at Paragraph [0050]. The deterioration index calculation unit (206) predicts deterioration of a crack of a road surface based on time series information about the crack width, time series information about the crack rate, and time series information about ground surface displacement information (displacement information about the ground surface). See Sugawara at Paragraph [0048]. In other words, Sugawara relies on the deterioration index calculation unit (206) to predict future deterioration of the road.” Here, Sugawara teaches a trend line being indicative of future maintenance requirements of a road, which is necessarily indicative of future maintenance requirements of similar roads. Because similar roads have similar characteristics or face similar conditions, the trend line determined for any specific road is indicative of future maintenance requirements of similar roads, i.e. a trend line for a specific road is necessarily associated with similar roads by virtue of their similarity.
With regards to independent claims 11 and 16, the claims have been amended to recite “alerting a road management entity (RME) to a potential future maintenance issue associated with the roads, and associated with similar roads …”. Koohbanani, not Sugawara, is relied upon for these claims. However, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive for similar claim interpretation reasons. Koohbanani discloses “The pit supervisors 112 may be instructed by the road quality monitoring system 1 via an alert signal to their computer or smart device to take action on either the high scoring road segments or the high scoring shovels or dismiss alerts” (see para. 0141-0142). Here, Koohbanani describes an alert for a road or road segment which is “associated with the roads, and associated with similar roads”. Because similar roads have similar characteristics or face similar conditions, the alert for any specific road is necessarily “associated with” similar roads by virtue of their similarity.
For the above reasons, the prior art rejections are maintained herein.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Koohbanani (US 2025/0162592 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Koohbanani discloses a system for predicting road deterioration, the system comprising:
memory hardware in communication with data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations (see para. 0079) comprising:
determining a road maintenance score (RMS) for roads based on collected sensor data from vehicles traveling on the roads (see para. 0089);
multiplying the RMS by a multiplier to create a multiplied RMS value, the multiplier being larger for roads experiencing traffic volumes that exceed a predetermined traffic threshold and smaller for roads experiencing traffic volumes that are below the predetermined traffic threshold (see para. 0119);
comparing the multiplied RMS value to a threshold RMS value (see para. 0141-0142); and
alerting a road management entity (RME) to a potential future maintenance issue associated with the roads, and associated with similar roads, if the multiplied RMS exceeds the threshold RMS value (see para. 0141-0142).
Regarding claim 12, Koohbanani discloses the system of Claim 11, wherein collecting sensor data from a plurality of vehicles includes collecting data from at least one vehicle sensor (see para. 0080-0081, 0086).
Regarding claim 13, Koohbanani discloses the system of Claim 12, wherein the at least one vehicle sensor includes at least one of a camera, a suspension displacement sensor, an accelerometer, and a wheel rotation sensor (see para. 0089).
Regarding claim 14, Koohbanani discloses the system of Claim 11, wherein alerting an RME to a potential future maintenance issue includes issuing tiered alerts to the RME based on a degree to which the RMS exceeds the threshold RMS value (see para. 0141-0142).
Regarding claim 16, Koohbanani discloses a system for predicting road deterioration, the system comprising:
memory hardware in communication with data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations (see para. 0079) comprising:
collecting sensor data from a plurality of vehicles traveling over a road, the sensor data including at least one of image data, video data, suspension displacement data, and wheel rotation data (see para. 0089);
determining a road maintenance score (RMS) for the road based on the collected sensor data (see para. 0089);
comparing the RMS for the road to a threshold RMS value (see para. 0141-0142); and
alerting a road management entity (RME) to a potential future maintenance issue associated with the road, and associated with similar roads, if the RMS exceeds the threshold RMS value (see para. 0141-0142).
Regarding claim 17, Koohbanani discloses the system of claim 16, further comprising multiplying the RMS by a multiplier to create a multiplied RMS value, the multiplier being larger for roads experiencing traffic volumes that exceed a predetermined traffic threshold and smaller for roads experiencing traffic volumes that are below the predetermined traffic threshold (see para. 0119).
Regarding claim 18, Koohbanani discloses the system of claim 17, wherein comparing the RMS to the threshold RMS value includes comparing the multiplied RMS value to the threshold RMS value (see para. 0141-0142).
Regarding claim 19, Koohbanani discloses the system of Claim 16, further comprising issuing tiered alerts to the RME based on a degree to which the RMS exceeds the threshold RMS value (see para. 0141-0142).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koohbanani (US 2025/0162592 A1) in view of Sugawara (US 2024/0287748 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Koohbanani discloses a system for predicting road deterioration, the system comprising:
memory hardware in communication with data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations (see para. 0079) comprising:
collecting sensor data from a plurality of vehicles traveling over a road (see para. 0080-0081, 0086);
determining a road maintenance score (RMS) for the road based on the collected sensor data (see para. 0089); and
Koohbanani does not explicitly disclose, but Sugawara teaches determining a trend line for the road, the trend line being indicative of future maintenance requirements of the road, and future maintenance requirements of similar roads, based on the RMS (see para. 0086).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Koohbanani to include the feature taught by Sugawara.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification because it is useful to display a graph of time series information about the deterioration (see para. 0086).
Regarding claim 2, Koohbanani discloses wherein collecting sensor data from a plurality of vehicles includes collecting data from at least one vehicle sensor (see para. 0080-0081, 0086).
Regarding claim 3, Koohbanani discloses wherein the at least one vehicle sensor includes at least one of a camera, a suspension displacement sensor, an accelerometer, and a wheel rotation sensor (see para. 0089).
Regarding claim 4, Koohbanani discloses issuing an alert to a road management entity (RME) when the RMS exceeds a threshold value (see para. 0141-0142).
Regarding claim 5, Koohbanani discloses issuing tiered alerts to the RME based on a degree to which the RMS exceeds the threshold value (see para. 0141-0142).
Regarding claim 6, Koohbanani discloses multiplying the RMS by a multiplier before comparing the RMS to the threshold value, the multiplier being based on a road type (see para. 0119, wherein “road type” reasonably encompasses high-traffic/low-traffic roads).
Regarding claim 7, Koohbanani discloses wherein the multiplier is larger for roads experiencing traffic volumes that exceed a predetermined traffic threshold and smaller for roads experiencing traffic volumes that are below the predetermined traffic threshold (see para. 0119).
Regarding claim 8, the combination set forth with regards to base claim 1 teaches updating the trend line based on sensor data received from vehicles traveling over the road (see Sugawara, para. 0086).
Regarding claim 9, Koohbanani discloses creating a feature map that identifies features of the road based on the collected sensor data (see para. 0115).
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koohbanani (US 2025/0162592 A1) in view of Engle (US 2021/0096570 A1).
Regarding claims 15 and 20, Koohbanani does not explicitly disclose, but Engle teaches updating a vehicle navigation system with road conditions based on the collected sensor data (see para. 0032-0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Koohbanani to include the feature taught by Engle.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to determine smooth routes (see Engle, para. 0038).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koohbanani (US 2025/0162592 A1) in view of Sugawara (US 2024/0287748 A1), further in view of Engle (US 2021/0096570 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Koohbanani does not explicitly disclose, but Engle teaches updating a vehicle navigation system with road conditions based on the collected sensor data (see para. 0032-0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Koohbanani to include the feature taught by Engle.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to determine smoother routes (see Engle, para. 0038).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kaku (U 2024/0403834 A1) discloses recommending road infrastructure maintenance tasks based on vehicle sensor data and infrastructure map data. In one embodiment, a system includes a processor and a memory storing machine-readable instructions. The instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to infer a perceived infrastructure element by a motorist within an environment based on sensor data collected from a sensor system of a vehicle. The instructions, when executed by the processor, also cause the processor to retrieve map data associated with the environment. The map data indicates a mapped infrastructure element. The instructions, when executed by the processor, also cause the processor to recommend a maintenance task to be performed based on the map data and the sensor data.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights