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 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 15 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1. A method for determining and characterizing road unevenness of a roadway, comprising the following steps: generating sensor data using at least one wheel speed sensor and/or at least one acceleration sensor of a motor vehicle driving on the roadway; and determining and characterizing the road unevenness by an arithmetic unit using the generated sensor data, wherein the characterizing of the road unevenness includes determining at least a length, a width, and a depth of the road unevenness.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be
analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of determining and characterizing road unevenness of a roadway. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “by the arithmetic unit”. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the arithmetic unit” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of by a arithmetic unit does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Similarly, with the other limitation of characterizing of the road unevenness includes determining at least a length, a width, and a depth of the road unevenness covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person looking at the data and analyzing it or evaluating based on certain criteria such as length, width or height.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception 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 judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of generating sensor data using at least one wheel speed sensor and/or at least one acceleration sensor of a motor vehicle driving on the roadway, arithmetic unit. The generating steps from the sensors and from the external source are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “arithmetic unit” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose vehicle control environment, i.e. a computer. The vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the determining and characterizing step.
Furthermore, claim 28 recites additional elements, “wheel speed sensor”. recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, devices, mounted on the vehicle.
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 practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra- solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC
v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 16-27 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application [provide concise explanation]. Therefore, dependent claims 16-27 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of [independent claim].
Therefore, claims 15-28 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 15, 20-23, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 20210012131).
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses a method for determining and characterizing road unevenness of a roadway (¶0069, “ accurately determine the front-rear length of a pothole ”), comprising the following steps:
generating sensor data using at least one wheel speed sensor and/or at least one acceleration sensor of a motor vehicle driving on the roadway (¶0013, “The front-rear length of the bump of the sensor recognition information may be determined by starting to accumulate distances by integrating a wheel speed with respect to a unit time from a point in time when a variation of wheel acceleration determined through a wheel speed sensor”); and
determining and characterizing the road unevenness by an arithmetic unit using the generated sensor data, wherein the characterizing of the road unevenness includes determining at least a length, a width, and a depth of the road unevenness (¶0011, “the camera recognition information and the sensor recognition information related to the obstacle may be at least one of a distance between the vehicle and the obstacle, a front-rear length and height of a bump, and a front-rear length and depth of a pothole.”).
Regarding claim 20, Kim discloses wherein characterizing the road unevenness includes determining the depth and/or height of the road unevenness based on an amplitude of a change in wheel speed and/or based on an amplitude of a change in a vertical acceleration measured by the at least one acceleration sensor (¶0013).
Regarding claim 21, Kim discloses wherein the characterizing of the road unevenness takes place based on the sensor data of the at least one wheel speed sensor, and wherein a result of the characterizing of the road unevenness is made plausible based on the sensor data of the at least one acceleration sensor (¶0013-0014).
Regarding claim 22, Kim discloses wherein the wheel speed sensor senses pulses as a function of a movement of a pulse wheel arranged on a wheel of the motor vehicle, and wherein the characterizing of the road unevenness includes determining the length of the road unevenness based on the basis of a number of changes in the pulses in the time period between driving onto and leaving the road unevenness (¶0068).
Regarding claim 23, Kim discloses wherein the determining of the road unevenness includes determining a position of the road unevenness relative to a reference point of the motor vehicle based on a determined cornering and/or individual wheel evaluation (¶0047).
Regarding claim 26, Kim discloses wherein the arithmetic unit is an arithmetic unit external to the motor vehicle; and wherein the sensor data are output to the arithmetic unit via an interface of the motor vehicle (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 28, claim 28 is rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claim 15.
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 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20210012131) in view of NAGAYAMA (JP 2017040486 A).
Regarding claim 16, Kim does not explicitly disclose but, NAGAYAMA teaches wherein the wheel speed sensor senses pulses as a function of a movement of a pulse wheel arranged on a wheel of the motor vehicle, wherein the arithmetic unit determines an angular profile of a wheel speed based on changes in the sensed pulses as a function of time, and wherein the arithmetic unit detects the road unevenness based on the determined angular profile of the wheel speed (page 08, lines 32-35, “road surface profile measuring apparatus and measuring method of the present invention, the angular velocity data ωf .sub.4 (h) sampled at the sampling frequency f .sub.4 measured by the angular velocity sensor”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the road surface characterization disclosed in Kim with the road surface profile taught in NAGAYAMA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted quickly and easily measure a road surface profile.
Regarding claim 17, NAGAYAMA further teaches wherein the arithmetic unit determines the road unevenness when a magnitude of an angular change in the wheel speed exceeds a threshold value (page 08, lines 32-35, “road surface profile measuring apparatus and measuring method of the present invention, the angular velocity data ωf .sub.4 (h) sampled at the sampling frequency f .sub.4 measured by the angular velocity sensor”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the road surface characterization disclosed in Kim with the road surface profile taught in NAGAYAMA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted quickly and easily measure a road surface profile.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20210012131) in view of MOERBE (DE 102018200330 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Kim does not explicitly disclose but, MOERBE teaches wherein the arithmetic unit calculates a frequency behavior of a wheel speed based on the sensor data generated by the wheel speed sensor, and wherein the arithmetic unit determines the road unevenness based on the calculated frequency behavior of the wheel speed (abstract).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the road surface characterization disclosed in Kim with the frequency behavior taught in MOERBE with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a more reliable damage detection.
Claims 19, 24, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20210012131) in view of KIMURA (JP 2020013537 A)
Regarding claim 19, Kim does not explicitly disclose but, KIMURA teaches wherein the arithmetic unit, for characterizing the road unevenness, determines a type and/or property of the road unevenness based on the sensor data (page 33, lines 1-2).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the road surface characterization disclosed in Kim with the frequency behavior taught in KIMURA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a more reliable damage detection.
Regarding claim 24, KIMURA teaches wherein the arithmetic unit determines and/or characterizes the road unevenness by taking into account a driving situation or a driver event, including a braking event or acceleration event or a steering event or a speed of the motor vehicle (page 05, lines 1-9).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the road surface characterization disclosed in Kim with the frequency behavior taught in KIMURA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a more reliable damage detection.
Regarding claim 25, KIMURA teaches wherein the arithmetic unit determines and/or characterizes the road unevenness using a machine learning model and/or statistical model which receives input data dependent on the sensor data (page 24, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 27, KIMURA teaches wherein the arithmetic unit is a control unit of an anti-lock brake system of the motor vehicle (page 05, line 14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dougherty (9,88,6856) discloses Systems, methods, and apparatuses are described for communicating the occurrence of incident near misses between vehicles. In one embodiment, for example, a controller receives sensor data related to an operation of a vehicle. The sensor data is analyzed to determine whether a near collision has occurred with respect to the vehicle. A warning message is generated and transmitted in response to the determination that a near collision occurred (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REDHWAN K MAWARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1535. The examiner can normally be reached mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at 571-272-5109. 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.
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667