DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 1-16 are rejected.
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The claim of this instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim of copending Application. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Double Patenting Rejections will not be revisited and be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is to be found.
US 11718307 Claims 1 and 3 to claim 1; 1-16 to 1-16 of the instant Application.
US 20190299948 Claims 1-8 to claim 1-16. Contact with a wheel … contactless sensor.
US 20230073598 Claims 1-12 to claims 1-16.
US 20230382390 Clams 1-6 to claims 1-16.
A patentee or applicant may disclaim or dedicated to the public the entire term, or any terminal part of the term of a patent. 35 U.S.C. 253. The statue does not provide for a terminal disclaimer of only a specified claim or claims. The terminal disclaimer must operate with respect to all claims in the patent. MPEP 804.02.
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 “1-16” are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
On January 7, 2019, the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claim 15 reads:
A road surface friction coefficient calculation method comprising:
setting a different road surface friction coefficient for each of road surface conditions;
making a majority decision on the road surface conditions,
based on n pieces of sensor data periodically obtained by a predetermined sensor during a predetermined period; and
determining a road surface friction coefficient in front of a vehicle,
based on the road surface friction coefficient corresponding to the road surface condition determined by the majority decision.
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 15 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims 1-16 are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, calculating, determining).
The method in claim 15 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. The abstract ideas are:
setting a different road surface friction coefficient for each of road surface conditions;
making a majority decision on the road surface conditions,
determining a road surface friction coefficient in front of a vehicle,
Analyzing the abstract idea we can understand that the abstract idea with the given examples.
setting a different road surface friction coefficient for each of road surface conditions; Agreeing on a value to remember.
making a majority decision on the road surface conditions, Thinking about the value and planning.
determining a road surface friction coefficient in front of a vehicle, looing at the road and thinking about the friction coefficient.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [receiving data, data gathering, data output] further addressed in WUEC; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 15 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. While the claim does recite that the method is for:
based on n pieces of sensor data periodically obtained by a predetermined sensor during a predetermined period; and Apply it level, data gathering, also technology linking
based on the road surface friction coefficient corresponding to the road surface condition determined by the majority decision. Apply it level, data gathering, also technology linking
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 15 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field.
Claim 15 further recites WURC extra steps of:
“by a predetermined sensor during a predetermined period; insignificant extra solution; data gathering.
Analyzing the WURC steps of the abstract idea with the given examples.
we can understand that the abstract idea falls within the WURC Activity MPEP 2106.05(d)(1) Evaluation
improvement consideration WURC consideration MPEP.05(a);
mere instructions to apply an exception consideration MPEP 2106.05(f)
insignificant extra-solution activity consideration MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generic computer performing merely generic computer functions, data gathering, populating tables, sending and receiving data or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 15 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 15 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1 and 16, Apply it level, generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2. Abstract idea. Thinking about a range
3. mathematical function
4-14. Abstract idea. Thinking about a range, Apply it, linking.
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.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase " relatively small, and majority decision " renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by " relatively small, and majority decision "), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The specifications do not give a clear indication of how relative “relatively” is. There is no indication of bounds for “relatively; small; or majority” One of ordinary skill in the art would be confused of the boundaries or the limitations recited.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Claim 8 the limitation of “out of the road surface conditions” is not clearly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 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.
(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 1-5, 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ko US 20170066450.
1. A road surface friction coefficient calculation apparatus to be applied to a vehicle, the road surface friction coefficient calculation apparatus comprising:
an obtainer configured to acquire n pieces of sensor data periodically obtained by a predetermined sensor during a predetermined period; and 124; the curve guidance apparatus 10 may include a sensor (not shown) for sensing at least one of the road rank information, the road width information, and the information of the number of lanes of the road.
a determiner configured to determine a road surface condition in front of the vehicle by making a majority decision on road surface conditions, based on the n pieces of sensor data acquired by the obtainer, 125; the factor capable of influencing the degree of risk of the curve section, a kind of pavement of a road surface (e.g., an asphalt pavement, a concrete pavement, etc.) may be considered.
wherein the determiner is configured to set a different road surface friction coefficient for each of the road surface conditions, and 125; a kind of pavement of a road surface (e.g., an asphalt pavement, a concrete pavement, etc.) may be considered.
determine a road surface friction coefficient in front of the vehicle, based on the road surface friction coefficient corresponding to the road surface condition determined by the majority decision. 133; may judge the degree of risk of the curve section positioned at the front of the moving body as well as provide guidance of speed which is safe for driving the curve section positioned at the front of the moving body to the user.
2. The road surface friction coefficient calculation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the determiner is configured to set a range for each of the road surface conditions as the road surface friction coefficient, and 133; as well as provide guidance of speed which is safe for driving the curve section positioned at the front of the moving body to the user.
determine the road surface friction coefficient in front of the vehicle, based on the range of the road surface friction coefficient corresponding to the road surface condition determined by the majority decision. 151; by considering various environmental variables such as a road surface state (e.g., a road friction coefficient) of the road, a tire state (e.g., a tire friction coefficient), Also 133.
3. The road surface friction coefficient calculation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the determiner is configured to set a mathematical function for each of the road surface conditions as the road surface friction coefficient, and 150; the centrifugal force computing unit 14-2 may compute the centrifugal force for the circumscribed circle using the following Equation 2.
determine the road surface friction coefficient in front of the vehicle, based on the mathematical function of the road surface friction coefficient corresponding to the road surface condition determined by the majority decision.126; may also change [determine] a surface friction coefficient. {151 road surface state (e.g., road friction coefficient)} Also 133.
4. The road surface friction coefficient calculation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the determiner is configured to set one or more values for each of the road surface conditions as the road surface friction coefficient, and 126; may also change [set] a surface friction coefficient. {151 road surface state (e.g., road friction coefficient)}
determine the road surface friction coefficient in front of the vehicle, based on the one or more values of the road surface friction coefficient corresponding to the road surface condition determined by the majority decision. 133; may judge the degree of risk of the curve section positioned at the front of the moving body as well as provide guidance of speed which is safe for driving the curve section positioned at the front of the moving body to the user.
5. The road surface friction coefficient calculation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the determiner is configured to set the road surface friction coefficient and a threshold for each of the road surface conditions, set each of the thresholds to a relatively small value as the corresponding road surface friction coefficient becomes relatively small, and make the majority decision using the thresholds as determination criteria. 19; In the judging of the degree of risk of the curve section [based road surface friction coefficient], the degree of risk of the curve section in which the vehicle is to be driven [majority decision] may be judged by comparing the computed centrifugal force with a preset threshold value. [20 also shows relationship; first to second is higher … second for first is smaller]
Also 122; Since magnitude of the centrifugal force is increased in proportion to the mass of the vehicle, the degree of risk felt by the driver of a vehicle having light mass in relation to the curve section will be relatively smaller than that of a vehicle having heavy mass. Therefore, the weight computing unit 14-3 may set the weight to “1” or a “value smaller than 1” or a “value greater than 1” according to the mass of the vehicle.
7. The road surface friction coefficient calculation apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the determiner is configured to change one or more of the thresholds set for the road surface conditions in accordance with a set mode.164; the first and second threshold values described above may be changed based on the link attribute information. 91; The link attribute information may include at least one of identifier of the link, road type information [road surface condition i.e. 125; asphalt or concrete]. Also 23. computing a weight for adjusting the first threshold value and the second threshold value based on the link attribute information; and adjusting the first threshold value and the second threshold value based on the computed weight.
8. The road surface friction coefficient calculation apparatus according to claim 5, wherein,
as a result of the majority decision, when a count value of number of pieces of the sensor data is not greater than or equal to the threshold in any of the road surface conditions, the determiner is configured to determine the road surface friction coefficient in front of the vehicle, based on the road surface friction coefficient corresponding to the road surface condition having a smallest road surface friction coefficient out of the road surface conditions. 23; computing a weight for adjusting the first threshold value and the second threshold value based on the link attribute information; and adjusting the first threshold value and the second threshold value based on the computed weight. 181; whether or not the road on which the vehicle is to be driven after the predetermined time is the curve section may be judged in real time using existing retained link information [senor information], the curve guidance may be performed without needing the pre-survey [no previous data i.e. is not greater than] for the curve sections across the country,
9. The road surface friction coefficient calculation apparatus according to claim 5, wherein, as a result of the majority decision, when a count value of number of pieces of the sensor data is not greater than or equal to the threshold in any of the road surface conditions, the determiner is configured to perform weighting of the road surface friction coefficient of each of the road surface conditions in accordance with the count value, and determine the road surface friction coefficient in front of the vehicle, based on the weighted road surface friction coefficient.183; the threshold value of the degree of risk guidance is adjusted by reflecting the factors capable of influencing the degree of risk of the curve section. the road rank [road information] in a case in which the threshold value of the degree of risk guidance is varied according to the road rank, the road rank information may be set [weighted; see 103 and 106] so as to have a flag value of ‘1’ in the case of the highway, and a flag value of ‘0’ in the case of the general road.
10. The road surface friction coefficient calculation apparatus according to claim 5, wherein, as a result of the majority decision, when a count value of number of pieces of the sensor data is greater than or equal to the threshold in two or more of the road surface conditions out of the road surface conditions, the determiner is configured to determine the road surface friction coefficient in front of the vehicle, based on the road surface friction coefficients of the two or more road surface conditions in which the count value is greater than or equal to the threshold.91; The link attribute information may include at least one of identifier of the link, information representing whether or not the link is a bi-directional link or a uni-directional link, a start point and an end point of a reference link of a moving direction of the vehicle, a road number, a road name, a road length, road rank information, road type information, road width information, information of the number of lanes of the road, road slope information, and guidance code information (e.g., information guiding a speed limit, an enforcement point, and the like) as illustrated in Table 1. Further, the attribute information for the node may include direction attribute information. Also 23 and 191.
11. The road surface friction coefficient calculation apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the determiner is configured to make the majority decision by determining to which of the road surface conditions the road surface condition in front of the vehicle corresponds, based on the sensor data, and incrementing the count value corresponding to the determined road surface condition.23; The curve guidance method may further include: computing a weight for adjusting the first threshold value and the second threshold value based on the link attribute information [road sensor data in front of the vehicle]; and adjusting the first threshold value and the second threshold value based on the computed weight.
12. The road surface friction coefficient calculation apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the determiner is configured to make the majority decision by determining to which of the road surface conditions the road surface condition in front of the vehicle corresponds, based on the sensor data, and incrementing the count value corresponding to the determined road surface condition. 23; The curve guidance method may further include: computing a weight for adjusting the first threshold value and the second threshold value based on the link attribute information [road sensor data in front of the vehicle]; and adjusting the first threshold value and the second threshold value based on the computed weight.
13. The road surface friction coefficient calculation apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the determiner is configured to make the majority decision by determining to which of the road surface conditions the road surface condition in front of the vehicle corresponds, based on the sensor data, and incrementing the count value corresponding to the determined road surface condition. 23; The curve guidance method may further include: computing a weight for adjusting the first threshold value and the second threshold value based on the link attribute information [road sensor data in front of the vehicle]; and adjusting the first threshold value and the second threshold value based on the computed weight.
14. The road surface friction coefficient calculation apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a memory configured to store a data set in which the road surface friction coefficient is associated with each of the road surface conditions, wherein the determiner is configured to read, from the memory, the road surface friction coefficient corresponding to the road surface condition determined by the majority decision, and determine the road surface friction coefficient in front of the vehicle, based on the read road surface friction coefficient.91; The link attribute information may include at least one of identifier of the link, information representing whether or not the link is a bi-directional link or a uni-directional link, a start point and an end point of a reference link of a moving direction of the vehicle, a road number, a road name, a road length, road rank information, road type information, road width information, information of the number of lanes of the road, road slope information, and guidance code information (e.g., information guiding a speed limit, an enforcement point, and the like) as illustrated in [memory] Table 1. Further, the attribute information for the node may include direction attribute information. Also Fig.3 14-5
15.is rejected using the same rejections as made to claim 1.
16. is rejected using the same rejections as made to claim 1.
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 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko as applied to claim above, and further in view of Fujiwara 20100235061.
6. Ko teaches all of the limitations of claim 1; but does not explicitly teach, wherein the determiner is configured to set the number of pieces n of the sensor data used for the majority decision to a smaller number as a speed of the vehicle increases.
However, Fujiwara teaches 80; acceleration-state inclination factor .beta.a(SPD, ACCP) decreases as the vehicle speed SPD increases .
Therefore, it was well known at the time the invention was filed and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings with a reasonable expectation of success in order to control the speed of vehicle such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIHAR A KARWAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2747. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F; 11-7pm.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on 571-270-5744. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SIHAR A KARWAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3664