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 .
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 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.
Claims status
In the amendment filed on December 23, 2025, claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9 and 10 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-15 are currently pending for examination.
Drawings
Amendments to the drawings filed on 12/23/2025 are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites “Reading” in line 3 which is supposed to be “reading”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claimed subject matter is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 1 and 9,
Step 1 — Judicial exception:
The claim is directed to the abstract idea of a fundamental data validation methodology. Specifically, the claim recites reading parameters, receiving parameters, forming a combination and assigning as a valid parameter. These steps are analogous to mental processes or methods of organizing human activity (i.e., monitoring reading parameters, comparing them against criteria and making a validity determination), which are well-established judicial exceptions (see, e.g., Bilski, Alice, and Federal Circuit cases addressing information gathering/processing and decision-making).
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A — Integration into a practical application:
The claim recites only “reading interface,” “linking unit,” and “assignment unit” — generic hardware components that could be implemented in any control system. This is insufficient to tie the claim to a particular machine. The claim does not recite any unconventional sensor hardware, specialized signal-processing techniques, particular data structures, novel methods of eliminating false positives, or other improvements to the technological functioning of the monitoring device. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under USPTO guidance.
Step 2B — Additional elements considered individually and as an ordered combination:
The additional elements (“reading interface,” “linking unit,” and “assignment unit”) are generic hardware components that could be implemented in any vehicle control system. The claim merely instructs to apply the abstract idea using conventional, well-understood, generic components.
There is no claimed unconventional arrangement, inventive algorithm, hardware-level improvement, or other element that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As such, the claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
For the reasons above, claims 1 and 9 are directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The dependent claims 4, 5, 7 and 10-15 are also metal process steps or the additional elements taken either individually or in combination do not result in the claim amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims 4, 5, 7 and 10-15 are also NOT eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 2,
Step 1 — Judicial exception:
The claim is directed to the abstract idea of a fundamental data validation methodology. Specifically, the claim recites reading parameters and assigning as a valid parameter. These steps are analogous to mental processes or methods of organizing human activity (i.e., monitoring reading parameters, comparing them against criteria and making a validity determination), which are well-established judicial exceptions (see, e.g., Bilski, Alice, and Federal Circuit cases addressing information gathering/processing and decision-making).
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A — Integration into a practical application:
There is no recitation of any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not recite any unconventional sensor hardware, specialized signal-processing techniques, particular data structures, novel methods of eliminating false positives, or other improvements to the technological functioning of the monitoring device. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under USPTO guidance.
Step 2B — Additional elements considered individually and as an ordered combination:
There is no recitation of any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There is no claimed unconventional arrangement, inventive algorithm, hardware-level improvement, or other element that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As such, the claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
For the reasons above, claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 2 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The dependent claims 3, 6 and 8 are also metal process steps or the additional elements taken either individually or in combination do not result in the claim amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims 3, 6 and 8 are also NOT eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 14 is drawn to a “computer program", per se, therefore, fail(s) to fall within a statutory category of invention.
A claim directed to a computer program itself is non-statutory because it is not:
A process, or
A machine, or
A manufacture, or
A composition of matter.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 15 is drawn to a machine-readable storage medium on which the computer program is stored, where the machine-readable storage medium can be transitory, i.e., is not explicitly limited as disclosed as only being non-transitory computer readable media; therefore, fail(s) to fall within a statutory category of invention.
A claim directed to a machine-readable storage medium on which the computer program is stored is non-statutory, where the machine-readable storage medium can be a signal, a carrier wave, or a data structure, per se, which are non-statutory as noted, infra.
A claim directed to a signal, a carrier wave, or a data structure, per se, is nonstatutory
because it is not:
A process, or
A machine, or
A manufacture, or
A composition of matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “the reading interface” without proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claims 10-12 are also rejected because they depend from the rejected claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balcar et al. (Balcar: US 20220172610) in view of Goldstein et al. (Goldstein: US 20220269899 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Balcar teaches a method for recognizing the validity of a vehicle parameter (Par [0005], [0023] and Fig. 13), the method comprising:
reading at least one first parameter and at least one second parameter, wherein the first parameter represents a first physical variable of the vehicle or a variable derived from the first physical variable, and the second parameter represents a second physical variable of the vehicle or a variable derived from the second physical variable (Fig. 13, steps 1312-1320 and Par [0005], [0025], height, length, velocity, thermal signature and other parameters ),
wherein further a distinguishing criterion for recognizing the validity of the vehicle parameter of the vehicle is read using a combination of the first and the second parameter (Par [0023] [0025][0058], “to use both the height and the length of the vehicle’s thermal signature to determine the classification of the vehicle” and Par [0066][0068]); and
receiving the first and second parameters from a reading interface (Par 117, a pixel decision algorithms 1214 to identify whether or not a particular pixel has triggered a thermal detection. …. The traffic detection module 1205 can use the pixel detections to identify vehicle length, height, volume, and velocity. The individual pixel detections, as well as vehicle length, height, volume, and velocity can be provided to a classification algorithm 1216 such as a trained neural network or another machine learning algorithm trained to identify vehicle classifications based on the inputs.) implemented in a hardware (Fig. 12, traffic detection module 1205 with algorithms 1214, 1216 and Par 114, application or program including instructions executable by the traffic detection device 103 using the processor 1202) and operatively coupled to at least one sensor configured to detect the vehicle (Fig. 12, 200 and Par 66, a neural network can be trained and utilized for vehicle classification. In order to develop the neural network, the type of vehicle classes can be defined so data can be collected by the sensors to train the neural network and Par 24, The traffic sensing device 103 can include passive pixel infrared array sensor or other multiple-pixel passive infrared sensor 200 and Par 27 );
forming in real time in the hardware (Fig. 12, traffic detection module 1205 with algorithms 1214, 1216 and Par 114, application or program including instructions executable by the traffic detection device 103 using the processor 1202) by a linking unit that is implemented in circuitry, a combination of the first and second parameter (Par 5-6, set of one or more vehicle parameters including a length, height, and Par 40, the length and height of a vehicle can be provided as inputs to a machine learning algorithm such as a neural network, the vehicle classification can be identified, and a predetermined width associated with the vehicle classification can be used in calculations to determine the vehicle volume and Par 58, neural network can be designed to use both the height and the length of the vehicle's thermal signature to determine the classification of the vehicle and Fig. 13, 1312-1320 and Par 142 and Par 21, the traffic data is collected in real-time);
assigning the vehicle parameter as a valid vehicle parameter if a combination of the first and the second parameter meets the distinguishing criterion (Par [0040][0060][0066][0068] and [0117], Fig. 12, “Classification Algorithm(s) 1216”, Fig. 13 “Identify Vehicle Classification”),
wherein the assigning is performed by an assignment unit implemented in the hardware and operatively coupled to a memory storing the distinguishing criterion (Fig. 12, traffic detection module 1205 with algorithms 1214, 1216 and Par 114, application or program including instructions executable by the traffic detection device 103 using the processor 1202 … the traffic detection module 1205 can include a discrete hardware element of the traffic detection device, and in other cases, can be stored in the memory 1204 and data 1206 for execution).
Balcar does not explicitly disclose a combination of the first and second parameter is formed as a tuple.
However, Goldstein teaches detecting a vehicle in a camera feed, and identifying a vehicle type of the detected vehicle (abstract) and further teaches forming the vehicles parameters as a tuple (Fig. 6, step 660-670 and Par 75, the inference computer may provide a tuple representing the vehicle shape, the number of axles, and Par 82).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Goldstein in order to compare the tuple to determine a valid vehicle type (Goldstein: Par 82).
Regarding Claims 13-15, the combination of Balcar and Goldstein teaches a device, a computer program and a machine readable storage medium (Balcar: Par 114) on which the computer program to perform the method as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Balcar and Goldstein teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein, in step of reading as the first or the second parameter a speed, a position, a recognized variable of the vehicle, or a parameter representing a quality of a physical measurement at a specific time, or a parameter formed from one of these physical variables each is read (Balcar: Fig. 13, steps 1312-1320 and Par [0005], [0025], height, length, velocity, thermal signature and other parameters).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Balcar and Goldstein teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein, in the step of assigning, the vehicle parameter is recognized as a non-valid vehicle parameter if the combination of the first and the second parameter does not meet the distinguishing criterion (Par 36, Each of the pixel areas can be associated with its own detection threshold in order to account for the areas in the pixel array where a vehicle is most likely to be detected, thus reducing the possibility of a false detection. and Table 2).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Balcar and Goldstein teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising a step of determining a property of the vehicle using a vehicle parameter that has been assigned as a valid vehicle parameter, in particular wherein the determined property of the vehicle represents a speed of the vehicle or a vehicle class into which the vehicle has been classified (Balcar: Fig. 12, “Classification Algorithm(s) 1216”, Fig. 13 “Identify Vehicle Classification” and Par [0040][0060][0066][0068] and [0117].).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 6 and 8-12 would be allowable if they overcome the rejections under U.S.C. 101 abstract idea and/or U.S.C 112 rejections as set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 23, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicants arguments on page 13-14 regarding 112 rejections to claim 9 are persuasive. Therefore, rejections to claim 9 under U.S.C 112 in the previous office actions are withdrawn. However, the amendments to claim 9 raises a new antecedent basis issue as set forth above.
Examiner notes that Applicants didn’t provide any arguments of rejections to claims 14-15 under U.S.C 101 for different reasons other than abstract idea.
Arguments regarding rejections under U.S.C 101 and prior art rejections are not persuasive.
On page 10-12 of the Applicant’s Response, applicants argue that “the subject matter therefore cannot be performed mentally or as a mathematical abstraction but requires a concrete processing pipeline executed by specific hardware modules.”, “Even if the Examiner deems the claims to involve an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), the claims integrate such concepts into a practical application, satisfying Step 2A, Prong 2 of the 2019 USPTO Eligibility Guidance. The claimed reading interface, linking unit, assignment unit, and sensor coupling collectively transform sensor input into validated outputs in real time, thereby improving the operational reliability of roadside monitoring systems. This is not analogous to classification or data analysis performed in software alone; rather, the invention improves the functioning of a physical sensing system by preventing erroneous sensor readings from being accepted as accurate in safety-critical and regulatory environments” and “the claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea, satisfying Step 2B, because the system architecture is neither generic nor conventional. The hardware linking unit configured to form real-time parameter tuples, the assignment unit coupled to threshold-region memory, and the distinguishing criterion based on multi- dimensional regions of acceptable combinations are not taught or suggested by conventional vehicle sensing systems, including Balcar. The invention does not merely classify objects but determines whether a sensed vehicle parameter (such as speed or class) is valid given multi-dimensional consistency constraints derived from physical sensor measurements”.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees because while the claims recite hardware components (reading interface, linking unit, assignment unit), these are described in generic, functional terms without specifying particular technical implementation or non-conventional configuration. “reading interface,” “linking unit,” and “assignment unit” — generic hardware components that could be implemented in any generic processing system. The claim does not explain why combining first and second parameters is necessary or what technical benefit this provides. This is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
On page 15 of the Applicant’s Response, applicants argue that “Balcar fails to disclose the real-time hardware linking and assignment architecture recited in the amended claims. The claimed invention requires forming combinations of parameters in real time as tuples using a dedicated linking unit implemented in circuitry and not merely computing associations in software or retrospectively. In Balcar, parameter correlations appear in the context of classification algorithms executed in software, often on generalized processor architectures (see FIG. 12 and paragraphs [0119]). Nothing in Balcar teaches a specialized linking unit that forms tuples as hardware-level data structures derived directly from sensor output”.
In response, Examine respectfully disagrees because the amended claim 1 does not require “dedicated” or “not merely computing associations in software”. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Balcar teaches in Fig. 12, traffic detection module 1205 with algorithms 1214, 1216 and in Par 114, application or program including instructions executable by the traffic detection device 103 using the processor 1202. Therefore, Balcar’s algorithms are implemented in processor/hardware together with program. It is noted that the claim does not exclude the program/software working with the hardware. Balcar further teaches in paragraph 21 and 76 that the data are collected in real-time. Therefore, the data are processed in real-time.
On page 16 of the Applicant’s Response, applicants argue that “the distinguishing criterion in the present invention is not merely a threshold or lookup value. The specification of the present invention describes the distinguishing criterion as a region of multi-dimensional tuples derived from observed combinations of parameters associated with valid measurements and stored for later evaluation (see, e.g., Spec. FIG. 2; region 200; subregion 220.). This region-based criterion is used to determine whether a measurement falls within known relationships indicative of accuracy, not whether a vehicle possesses attributes corresponding to a classification category. Balcar, in contrast, uses threshold logic to assign vehicles to types and does not construct or store multi-dimensional consistency regions for measurement validity. Even when Balcar refers to reducing false detections or threshold adjustments for pixel regions, these operations concern noise mitigation in classification, not assessment of whether a computed vehicle parameter is itself valid for output, enforcement, or downstream calculations (see paragraph [0076]). The present claims therefore recite novel functional relationships not disclosed or suggested by Balcar.”
In response, Examiner agrees that Balcar fails to disclose the argued subject matter. Therefore, claim 9 overcomes the prior art rejections. However, claim 1 does not require the argued limitation/subject matter.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nay Tun whose telephone number is (571)270-7939. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs from 9:00-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's Supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached on (571) 270-1210. 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).
/Nay Tun/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights