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 .
Amended claims 1 thru 4 have been entered into the record. Claim 5 has been cancelled.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to claim 4 overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection from the previous office action (9/18/2025). The U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
The amendments to move the limitations of claim 5 (now cancelled) into claim 1 overcomes the prior art rejections from the previous office action (9/18/2025). The prior art rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 regarding the drawing objections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the reference signs recited in the specification (SP, GXR, DC, GYE, DG, A1, A2, A3, DW1, DW2, DW3, DW4, and IJ) are not structural components or reference characters that can be indicated with a lead line (argument page 6). The examiner respectfully disagrees, and points to Figure 1 as an example. Figure 1 has reference characters that indicate steering angle SA, wheels speed WS, longitudinal acceleration GX, lateral acceleration GY, vertical acceleration GZ, location coordinates PC, and brake operation amount BRA. Each of these reference characters are not structural components, but are still shown in Figure 1. If the objected to reference characters are not necessary to be shown in a drawing, then there is not a need for both the actual name (i.e. “vehicle speed”) and the reference character (i.e. “SP”) to be included throughout the specification. The specification should be amended to remove the objected to characters. The drawing objections are maintained as recited below.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the claimed features cannot be performed in the human mind because calculation of rotational speeds of the vehicle that occur while the vehicle is moving cannot be practically performed, and that the human mind cannot reasonably determine that there is a wheel loosening while the vehicle is operating. The examiner respectfully disagrees based on the applicant’s assumption that the vehicle is operating while the calculations take place. There are no claim limitations that require the vehicle to be in motion to perform the wheel loosening determinations and calculations. The lateral accelerations and rotational speed are acquired (by sensors), and a person can then gather the data from the sensors and determine is there is a loose wheel on the vehicle. The claims do not include any warning, alert, notification, message, or control of the vehicle to stop, based on the determinations and calculations. The gathered data is merely analyzed, which may be performed in the human mind. There is not a practical application performed in the claims that uses the determinations and calculations. Therefore, the 101 rejections of claims 1 thru 4 are maintained.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: From P[0025], reference sign “SP” (vehicle speed) is not in the drawings. From P[0030], reference sign “GXR” (requested longitudinal acceleration) is not in the drawings. From P[0040], reference sign “DC” (collected data) is not in the drawings. From P[0044], reference sign “GYE” (estimated lateral acceleration) is not in the drawings. From P[0046], reference sign “DG” (acceleration error) is not in the drawings. From P[0047], reference signs “A1” (first prescribed error), “A2” (second prescribed error) and “A3” (third prescribed error) are not in the drawings. From P[0050], reference sign “DW1” (first wheel speed error) is not in the drawings. From P[0051], reference signs “DW2” (second wheel speed error), “DW3” (third wheel speed error) and “DW4” (fourth wheel speed error) are not in the drawings. From P[0053], reference sign “IJ” (determination information) is not in the drawings. 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. 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 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 thru 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a device (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 update issued by the USPTO as now incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
An information processing device comprising one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
acquire an actual lateral acceleration over a prescribed period that is predetermined, the actual lateral acceleration being an actual measured value of a lateral acceleration of a vehicle detected by an acceleration sensor mounted on the vehicle,
acquire an estimated lateral acceleration over the prescribed period based on a parameter different from the actual lateral acceleration, the estimated lateral acceleration being an estimated value of the lateral acceleration,
calculate an error of the actual lateral acceleration with respect to the estimated lateral acceleration based on the estimated lateral acceleration and the actual lateral acceleration acquired over the prescribed period, and
determine that there is wheel loosening in the vehicle on condition that the calculated error is equal to or greater than a prescribed value that is predetermined, wherein when the error is an acceleration error, the one or more processors are configured to:
acquire a rotational speed of a right front wheel of the vehicle over the prescribed period,
acquire a rotational speed of a left front wheel of the vehicle over the prescribed period,
acquire a rotational speed of a right rear wheel of the vehicle over the prescribed period,
acquire a rotational speed of a left rear wheel of the vehicle over the prescribed period,
based on the rotational speed of the right front wheel and the rotational speed of the left front wheel acquired over the prescribed period, calculate a first wheel speed error that is an error between the rotational speed of the right front wheel and the rotational speed of the left front wheel,
based on the rotational speed of the right rear wheel and the rotational speed of the left rear wheel acquired over the prescribed period, calculate a second wheel speed error that is an error between the rotational speed of the right rear wheel and the rotational speed of the left rear wheel,
based on the rotational speed of the right front wheel and the rotational speed of the right rear wheel acquired over the prescribed period, calculate a third wheel speed error that is an error between the rotational speed of the right front wheel and the rotational speed of the right rear wheel,
based on the rotational speed of the left front wheel and the rotational speed of the left rear wheel acquired over the prescribed period, calculate a fourth wheel speed error that is an error between the rotational speed of the left front wheel and the rotational speed of the left rear wheel,
identify two greatest values out of the first wheel speed error, the second wheel speed error, the third wheel speed error, and the fourth wheel speed error that have been calculated, and
on condition that the calculated acceleration error is equal to or greater than the prescribed value, identify a wheel associated with the identified two greatest values out of the right front wheel, the left front wheel, the right rear wheel, and the left rear wheel as a wheel that is most likely to be loose.
The above underlined limitation constitutes “a mental process” because it is an observation/evaluation/judgment/analysis that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). For instance, a person could calculate errors from the provided data and determine conditions from the calculations, and analyze the acquired rotational speed to calculate the errors and identify which wheel(s) is loose. Accordingly, the claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), 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. 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.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
An information processing device comprising one or more processors (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
acquire an actual lateral acceleration over a prescribed period that is predetermined, the actual lateral acceleration being an actual measured value of a lateral acceleration of a vehicle detected by an acceleration sensor mounted on the vehicle (extra-solution activity (data gathering) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)),
acquire an estimated lateral acceleration over the prescribed period based on a parameter different from the actual lateral acceleration, the estimated lateral acceleration being an estimated value of the lateral acceleration (extra-solution activity (data gathering) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)),
calculate an error of the actual lateral acceleration with respect to the estimated lateral acceleration based on the estimated lateral acceleration and the actual lateral acceleration acquired over the prescribed period, and
determine that there is wheel loosening in the vehicle on condition that the calculated error is equal to or greater than a prescribed value that is predetermined, wherein when the error is an acceleration error, the one or more processors ((using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) are configured to:
acquire a rotational speed of a right front wheel of the vehicle over the prescribed period (extra-solution activity (data gathering) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)),
acquire a rotational speed of a left front wheel of the vehicle over the prescribed period (extra-solution activity (data gathering) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)),
acquire a rotational speed of a right rear wheel of the vehicle over the prescribed period (extra-solution activity (data gathering) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)),
acquire a rotational speed of a left rear wheel of the vehicle over the prescribed period (extra-solution activity (data gathering) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)),
based on the rotational speed of the right front wheel and the rotational speed of the left front wheel acquired over the prescribed period, calculate a first wheel speed error that is an error between the rotational speed of the right front wheel and the rotational speed of the left front wheel,
based on the rotational speed of the right rear wheel and the rotational speed of the left rear wheel acquired over the prescribed period, calculate a second wheel speed error that is an error between the rotational speed of the right rear wheel and the rotational speed of the left rear wheel,
based on the rotational speed of the right front wheel and the rotational speed of the right rear wheel acquired over the prescribed period, calculate a third wheel speed error that is an error between the rotational speed of the right front wheel and the rotational speed of the right rear wheel,
based on the rotational speed of the left front wheel and the rotational speed of the left rear wheel acquired over the prescribed period, calculate a fourth wheel speed error that is an error between the rotational speed of the left front wheel and the rotational speed of the left rear wheel,
identify two greatest values out of the first wheel speed error, the second wheel speed error, the third wheel speed error, and the fourth wheel speed error that have been calculated, and
on condition that the calculated acceleration error is equal to or greater than the prescribed value, identify a wheel associated with the identified two greatest values out of the right front wheel, the left front wheel, the right rear wheel, and the left rear wheel as a wheel that is most likely to be loose.
For the following reasons, the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of one or more processors, this limitation amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitations of: acquire an actual lateral acceleration over a prescribed period that is predetermined, the actual lateral acceleration being an actual measured value of a lateral acceleration of a vehicle detected by an acceleration sensor mounted on the vehicle; acquire an estimated lateral acceleration over the prescribed period based on a parameter different from the actual lateral acceleration, the estimated lateral acceleration being an estimated value of the lateral acceleration; and acquire rotational speed of each wheel, merely provide data gathering to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding claim 1, the additional limitation of one or more processors, this limitation amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitations of: acquire an actual lateral acceleration over a prescribed period that is predetermined, the actual lateral acceleration being an actual measured value of a lateral acceleration of a vehicle detected by an acceleration sensor mounted on the vehicle; acquire an estimated lateral acceleration over the prescribed period based on a parameter different from the actual lateral acceleration, the estimated lateral acceleration being an estimated value of the lateral acceleration; and acquire rotational speed of each wheel, these additional limitations have been reevaluated, and it has been determined that such limitations are not unconventional as they merely consist of data gathering which are recited at a high level of generality. See OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); or buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Further, adding preliminary steps of gathering data to a process that only recites performing calculations and determining if there is a loose wheel (a mental process) does not add a meaningful limitation to device that determines there is a loose wheel. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g).
The dependent claims 2 thru 4 do not provide additional elements or a practical application to become eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The dependent claims are directed to:
Claim 2 - when the prescribed value is a first prescribed value, the one or more processors (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) are configured to: on condition that the calculated error is less than the first prescribed value, determine that the vehicle is in a first state in which there is no wheel loosening, on condition that the calculated error is equal to or greater than the first prescribed value and less than a predetermined second prescribed value that is a value greater than the first prescribed value, determine that the vehicle is in a second state in which there is wheel loosening, and on condition that the calculated error is equal to or greater than the second prescribed value, determine that the vehicle is in a third state in which a degree of wheel loosening is greater than in the second state.
Claim 3 - every time the one or more processors (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) determines the degree of wheel loosening, store the degree of wheel loosening (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and on condition that a newly determined degree of wheel loosening is greater than stored past degree of wheel loosening, store the newly determined degree of wheel loosening in association with information on a date and time when determination of the newly determined degree of wheel loosening was made (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claim 4 - send determination information to outside of the information processing device (extra-solution activity (data outputting), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), the determination information including a determination result as to whether there is wheel loosening.
These limitations are extra-solution activity, or part of the abstract idea. They do not constitute a practical application of the abstract idea.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner points out the combined limitations of claim 1 would require a certain, specific configuration of the vehicle wheels. Namely, the wheels would require a single lug nut at the center axle of the wheel to meet the claim limitations. Claim 1 determines rotational speeds of each wheel and compares differences in the rotational speed. These determinations are then meant to lead to a determination of a loose wheel. If the wheels used a typical 4 or 5 lug nut configuration on each wheel (common for passenger cars), then there could not be a difference in rotational speeds of the wheels. There could be a difference in rotational speed if there is wheel slippage (slippery road conditions), but it would not be because of a loose wheel. Therefore, the examiner interprets the loose wheel of the claims as having a single lug nut attached at the center of the wheel/axle (see NPL images of wheel/lug nut configuration or center lock wheels from the previous office action of 9/18/2025).
Related Art
The examiner points to Watanabe PGPub 2008/0015764 A1 as related art, but not relied upon for any rejection. Watanabe is directed to a comparison of actual lateral G’s from a sensor to the estimated lateral G’s, and judges whether the actual lateral G’s are within a lower and upper threshold limit (P[0034] and Figure 4).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE W HILGENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-9635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662