CTNF 18/683,598 CTNF 74876 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. The preliminary amendment filed on February 14, 2024 has been considered. Drawings The drawings are objected to because letters are small, 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3): See Figs. 1, 2, and 5. 06-22 AIA The drawings are objected to because box 1 should be provided with descriptive text label – device – (see MPEP 608.02(b)(II) FP 6.22). The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "106" and "206" have both been used to designate “a wireless communication channel” (specification, page 19, lines 16-17). The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the pulse wheel (claim 11), arithmetic unit is an external arithmetic (claim 18) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: - claim 13, “a road unevenness” (lines 1-2) should be – the road unevenness --. Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: arithmetic unit (claims 11-20). Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the following analysis is made: Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category. Under step 2A, prong 1, claim(s) 11 and 20 recite an abstract idea of “determining and characterizing the road unevenness by an arithmetic unit using the generated sensor data, wherein the characterizing of the road unevenness includes determining an edge shape of the road unevenness” (evaluation, mental process). The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor (arithmetic unit) does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)). Under step 2A, prong 2, the claim limitations are not integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)). An interface configured to receive generated sensor data from at least one wheel speed sensor and/or at least one wheel-specific acceleration sensor of a motor vehicle driving on the roadway is directed to an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. An interface configured to receive generated sensor data from at least one wheel speed sensor and/or at least one wheel-specific acceleration sensor of a motor vehicle driving on the roadway is directed to a well-understood, routine and conventional activities known in the industry, have been found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the claimed judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The remaining dependent claims 12-19 do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. Claims 14 and 18 are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. Claims 12-18 are directed to an abstract idea. Claim 19 recites a generic processor. Accordingly, claims 1 and its dependent claims 2-19 and claim 20 are patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 11, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Huang (US 2021/0162832) . Regarding claims 11 and 20, Huang discloses a method and device for determining and characterizing road unevenness of a roadway (Abstract, lines 1-2; paragraph 0132, lines 1-3), comprising the following steps: generating sensor data using at least one wheel speed sensor of a motor vehicle driving on the roadway (paragraph 0131, lines 3-7); and determining and characterizing the road unevenness by an arithmetic unit (30, paragraph 0063, lines 1-3) using the generated sensor data (senses bump, pothole, paragraph 0132, lines 1-2), wherein the characterizing of the road unevenness includes determining an edge shape (senses bump, pothole, paragraph 0132, line 2) of the road unevenness (senses bump, pothole, paragraph 0132, lines 1-2). Regarding claim 20, Huang further discloses an interface configured to receive the generated sensor data (interface between module 31/30 and speed sensor, paragraph 0064, lines 1-6). It is noted that generating sensor data using at least one wheel-specific acceleration sensor of a motor vehicle is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alternative form. Regarding claim 17, Huang discloses the arithmetic unit (31/30) determines the edge shape of the road unevenness (determines a bump, pothole, road surface roughness, paragraph 0064, lines 1-2) using a statistical model (algorithm of 31 executed by a processor, paragraph 0141, lines 1-8) which receives input data dependent on the sensor data (31 receives sensor data, paragraph 0064, lines 1-5). It is noted that determining the edge shape of the road unevenness using a machine learning model is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alternative form . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Nihei et al. (JP 2008261883) . Regarding claim 12, Huang discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above except 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 determines the edge shape based on the determined angular profile of the wheel speed. Nihei et al. discloses a wheel speed sensor senses pulses as a function of a movement of a pulse wheel arranged on a wheel of the motor vehicle (rotation detection as wheel speed sensor, page 6, paragraph 5, line 3), wherein the arithmetic unit (ECU 3) determines an angular profile of a wheel speed (rotation detection as wheel speed sensor, page 6, paragraph 5, line 3) based on changes in the sensed pulses as a function of time (detection of wheel rotation as a function of time, Fig. 1), and wherein the arithmetic unit (ECU 3) determines the edge shape based on the determined angular profile of the wheel speed (determination of rough road based on rotation wheel speed, page 5, paragraph 2, lines 5-7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Huang with determined angular profile of the wheel speed as disclosed by Nihei et al. for the purpose of determines the edge shape of the road . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Leeb et al. (DE 102017223634) . Regarding claim 14, Huang discloses the sensor data of the at least one wheel-specific acceleration sensor includes a vertical acceleration of the wheel (paragraph 0056, lines 1-5), and wherein the arithmetic unit determines the road unevenness (controls vehicle based on road surface status, Abstract, including road unevenness, paragraph 0132, lines 1-3). However, Huang does not disclose determines the edge shape of the road unevenness as a function of a time profile of the vertical acceleration. Leeb et al. discloses determining an edge shape (detecting pothole, page 4, paragraph 6, lines 9-10) of the road unevenness as a function of a time profile of the vertical acceleration (Fig. 1B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Huang with determining an edge shape of the road unevenness as a function of a time profile of the vertical acceleration as disclosed by Leeb et al. for the purpose of evaluating a road surface condition. Regarding claim 18, Huang discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above except 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. Leeb et al. discloses an arithmetic unit is an arithmetic unit (40) external to the motor vehicle (40 is a central computer that generates road condition records 52’s/50’s in database 42, Fig. 4, of different vehicles, page 5, paragraph 2); and wherein the sensor data (36’s) are output to the arithmetic unit via an interface of the motor vehicle (36’s output data to 40, Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Huang with an external arithmetic unit as disclosed by Leeb et al. for the purpose of generating road condition records of different vehicles . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Huth et al. (DE 102013225586) . Regarding claim 16, Huang discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above except the arithmetic unit calculates a frequency behavior of a wheel speed and/or a vertical acceleration of a wheel based on the generated sensor data, and wherein the arithmetic unit determines the edge shape of the road unevenness based on the calculated frequency behavior of the wheel speed and/or the vertical acceleration of the wheel. Huth et al. discloses an arithmetic unit (electronic control unit 96) calculates a frequency behavior of a wheel speed (frequency analysis, page 2, paragraph 9, lines 1-2) of a wheel based on the generated sensor data (pulses of wheel speed sensors are analyzed, page 2, paragraph 9, lines 2-3), and wherein the arithmetic unit determines the edge shape (detecting road bumps by means vertical acceleration data, page 2, paragraph 2, lines 1-2) of the road unevenness based on the calculated frequency behavior of the wheel speed of the wheel (on the basis of the processed signals, an assumption of the condition of road surface can be made, page 2, paragraph 9, lines 9-11, the condition of the road surface includes unevenness, page 2, paragraph 11, lines 6-8). It is noted that a frequency behavior of a vertical acceleration of a wheel is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alternative form. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Huang with calculating a frequency behavior of a wheel speed as disclosed by Huth et al. for the purpose of evaluating a condition of a road surface. Regarding claim 19, Huang discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above except the arithmetic unit is a control unit of an anti-lock brake system of the motor vehicle. Huth et al. discloses an arithmetic unit is a control unit of an anti-lock brake system of the motor vehicle (ABS control, page 3, paragraph 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Huang with a control unit as disclosed by Huth et al. for the purpose of controlling an anti-lock brake system . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Nihei et al . as applied to claim s 11 and 12 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 2017/0024617) . Regarding claim 13, Huang as modified by Nihei et al. discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above except the arithmetic unit determines the road unevenness when a magnitude of the vertical acceleration exceeds a first threshold value and determines the edge shape by comparing the magnitude of the vertical acceleration to at least a second threshold value. Yamaguchi et al. discloses an arithmetic unit (30) determines the road unevenness when a magnitude of the vertical acceleration exceeds a first threshold (paragraph 0053, lines 17-19) value and determines the edge shape (determines bumpy, paragraph 0053, lines 17-19) by comparing the magnitude of the vertical acceleration to at least a second threshold value (very uneven or bumpy is based on more than one threshold, paragraph 0053, lines 17-19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Huang as modified with one or more thresholds as disclosed by Yamaguchi et al. for the purpose of determines the road unevenness and determining road edge shape . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Leeb et al . as applied to claim s 11 and 14 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 2017/0024617) . Regarding claim 15, Huang as modified by Leeb et al. discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above except the arithmetic unit determines the road unevenness when a magnitude of the vertical acceleration exceeds a first threshold value and determines the edge shape by comparing the magnitude of the vertical acceleration to at least a second threshold value. Yamaguchi et al. discloses an arithmetic unit (30) determines the road unevenness when a magnitude of the vertical acceleration exceeds a first threshold (paragraph 0053, lines 17-19) value and determines the edge shape (determines bumpy, paragraph 0053, lines 17-19) by comparing the magnitude of the vertical acceleration to at least a second threshold value (very uneven or bumpy is based on more than one threshold, paragraph 0053, lines 17-19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Huang as modified with one or more thresholds as disclosed by Yamaguchi et al. for the purpose of determines the road unevenness and determining road edge shape. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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 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). /MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 April 23, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/683,598 Page 2 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/683,598 Page 3 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/683,598 Page 4 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/683,598 Page 5 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/683,598 Page 6 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/683,598 Page 7 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/683,598 Page 8 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/683,598 Page 9 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/683,598 Page 10 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/683,598 Page 11 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/683,598 Page 12 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/683,598 Page 13 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/683,598 Page 14 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/683,598 Page 15 Art Unit: 2857
Prosecution Insights