DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6,8,9,10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMASAKI et al (U.S.2020/0307645) and further in view of Gillett (U.S. 2019/0250619).
1. As per claim 6 YAMASAKI disclosed a road surface evaluation apparatus comprising a microprocessor configured to perform:
acquiring driving information of a vehicle which is traveling including acceleration information indicating acceleration of the vehicle, speed information indicating driving speed of the vehicle, and position information indicating a driving position of the vehicle [As illustrated in FIG. 1, the vehicle system 1000 according to this embodiment may include a vehicle exterior sensor 150, vehicle speed sensor 170, a control device 200, a vehicle braking and driving device 300, a steering device 400, an information presentation device 500, a navigation device 700, a communication device 800, and a database 950. The vehicle system 1000 is able to communicate with an external server 2000.] (Paragraph. 0026);
acquiring map information including information on a road on which the vehicle travels; acquiring weather information including information relating to weather [The present surrounding environment data acquirer 212 may acquire, on the basis of data detected by the vehicle exterior sensor 150, data such as weather, an air temperature, wind force, and the road surface state around the vehicle. Non-limiting examples of the road surface state may include dry, wet, and frozen, i.e., ice. It is to be noted that the weather around the vehicle may be acquired on the basis of an image of the sky captured by the vehicle exterior sensor 150. These pieces of data acquired by the present surrounding environment data acquirer 212 may be transmitted to the server 2000 through the communication device 800 together with positional data of the vehicle, and held in a database 2010 of the server 2000. This makes it possible for other vehicles accessing the server 2000 to acquire and use these pieces of data] (Paragraph. 0034); deriving road surface roughness values representing roughness of a road surface for a section traveled by the vehicle based on the acceleration information of the vehicle [When the vehicle exterior sensor 150 detects, for example, the image and the temperature frontward of the vehicle, the road surface friction coefficient calculator 210 may calculate, in real time, the coefficient of friction on the road surface on the basis of, for example, the image and the temperature frontward of the vehicle detected by the vehicle exterior sensor 150. In one specific but non-limiting example, the road surface friction coefficient calculator 210 may acquire, for example, a color of the road surface frontward of the vehicle and road surface roughness frontward of the vehicle from the image of the camera of the vehicle exterior sensor 150. The road surface friction coefficient calculator 210 may acquire an outside air temperature and a road surface temperature from a non-contact thermometer of the vehicle exterior sensor 150.] (Paragraph. 0035);
determining, based on the weather information, whether the section includes a bad weather location where weather at a time when the vehicle traveled is bad weather, the bad weather being rain equal to or more than a predetermined rainfall amount, snow equal to or more than a predetermined snowfall amount, strong wind having a speed equal to or higher than a predetermined wind speed, a low temperature equal to or lower than a first predetermined temperature, or a high temperature equal to or higher than a second predetermined temperature [FIG. 6 schematically illustrates a table to be referred to in the scoring from the data illustrated in FIG. 4 to the data illustrated in FIG. 5. As illustrated in FIG. 6, with respect to, for example, the weather, scores 0, 1, 2, and 3 may be determined respectively for “fine”, “cloudy”, “rain”, and “snow”. Likewise, with respect to the wind force, the air temperature, and the road surface state, scores may be determined as summarized in the table in FIG. 6.] (Paragraph. 0047);
However, YAMASAKI did not explicitly disclose when the section includes the bad weather location, performing a correction including deleting a road surface roughness value corresponding to the bad weather location from the road surface roughness values corresponding to the section; and outputting the road surface roughness values corresponding to the section after the correction in association with the information on the road.
In the same field of endeavor Gillett disclosed, “The ABCS is associated with an environmental sensor array 407 that receives sensor data from the AB 100 and communicates the sensor data 421 such data including AB 100 speed, compass heading, absolute position, relative position or a combination thereof. The ABCS is associated at least one sensor that monitors motion of the AB 100 including rate of acceleration, pitch rate, roll rate, yaw rate or a combination thereof and the at least one sensor that monitors motion includes the accelerometer, the gyroscope, and the motor controller 212. It said while calculating a friction pie from the tire and the road surface state in the current running state, a command value to the output adjusting means calculates the braking amount corresponding to the braking operation amount, the output adjusting means, controls the operation of the a steering actuator 205 for the front drive wheel 107, the rear drive wheel 108 and brake operations of both by sending a command value to the braking force control means of the motor controller 212 and functions of the motor controller 212a,b, wherein the front brake 110a and rear brake 110b are activated by the brake-by-wire type braking control means 114, the braking control is engage by operators leaning backward motion, by operators engaging a brake throttle/switch 120 or a combination thereof. A rate of acceleration, pitch rate, roll rate, yaw rate output adjusting means constituted in the ABCS, wherein the braking force of the angular velocity detected when the stability limit or greater than the threshold of the friction pie, the general control unit of the command value it is determined that sudden braking send to the braking control means for establishing stability limit or threshold grip of the front and rear wheel tires such that traveling always is controlled (Paragraph. 0095).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to have incorporated The ABCS is associated with an environmental sensor array 407 that receives sensor data from the AB 100 and communicates the sensor data 421 such data including AB 100 speed, compass heading, absolute position, relative position or a combination thereof. The ABCS is associated at least one sensor that monitors motion of the AB 100 including rate of acceleration, pitch rate, roll rate, yaw rate or a combination thereof and the at least one sensor that monitors motion includes the accelerometer, the gyroscope, and the motor controller 212. It said while calculating a friction pie from the tire and the road surface state in the current running state, a command value to the output adjusting means calculates the braking amount corresponding to the braking operation amount, the output adjusting means, controls the operation of the a steering actuator 205 for the front drive wheel 107, the rear drive wheel 108 and brake operations of both by sending a command value to the braking force control means of the motor controller 212 and functions of the motor controller 212a,b, wherein the front brake 110a and rear brake 110b are activated by the brake-by-wire type braking control means 114, the braking control is engage by operators leaning backward motion, by operators engaging a brake throttle/switch 120 or a combination thereof. A rate of acceleration, pitch rate, roll rate, yaw rate output adjusting means constituted in the ABCS, wherein the braking force of the angular velocity detected when the stability limit or greater than the threshold of the friction pie, the general control unit of the command value it is determined that sudden braking send to the braking control means for establishing stability limit or threshold grip of the front and rear wheel tires such that traveling always is controlled as taught by Gillett in the method and system of YAMASAKI to increase the optimization of the steering control in an autonomous vehicle.
2. As per claim 8 YAMASAKI-Gillett disclosed wherein the microprocessor is configured to perform acquiring, together with the driving information of the vehicle, detection time information indicating a detection time of the acceleration and the driving position (YAMASAKI, Paragraph. 0037);
the correcting including deleting, from the road surface roughness values corresponding to the section (YAMASAKI, Paragraph. 0044), the road surface roughness value corresponding to the bad weather location the detection time associated with the road surface roughness value being within a period during which it is estimated that the bad weather continues at the bad weather location (YAMASAKI, Paragraph. 0047).
3. As per claim 9 YAMASAKI-Gillett disclosed wherein the microprocessor is configured to perform the correcting including deleting, from the road surface roughness values corresponding to the section (YAMASAKI, Paragraph. 0044), the road surface roughness value corresponding to the bad weather location the detection time associated with the road surface roughness value being within period during which it is estimated that an effect of the bad weather continues at the bad weather location (YAMASAKI, Paragraph. 0047).
4. As per claim 10 YAMASAKI-Gillett disclosed further comprising a memory connected to the microprocessor and configured to store an effect duration time indicating a time in which the effect of the bad weather on the road surface continues determined in advance for each type of weather in association with the position information of each of a plurality of locations included in the map information (YAMASAKI, Paragraph. 0026), wherein the microprocessor is configured to perform the correcting including reading the effect duration time corresponding to a position of the bad weather location and the bad weather from the memory to estimate a period in which the effect by the bad weather continues at the bad weather location based on the effect duration time (YAMASAKI, Paragraph. 0047).
5. As per claim 11 YAMASAKI-Gillett disclosed wherein the microprocessor is further configured to perform receiving an output instruction for the road surface roughness values, the output instruction including section information identifying the section, and wherein the microprocessor is configured to perform: the deriving including deriving the road surface roughness values corresponding to the section identified by the section information; and the outputting including outputting the road surface roughness values corresponding to the section after the correction (Gillett, Paragraph. 0095).
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.
6. Claims 6,8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 6 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, claim 6 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 6 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. Claim 6 recites:
A road surface evaluation apparatus comprising a microprocessor configured to perform: acquiring driving information of a vehicle which is traveling including acceleration information indicating acceleration of the vehicle, speed information indicating driving speed of the vehicle, and position information indicating a driving position of the vehicle;
acquiring map information including information on a road on which the vehicle travels; acquiring weather information including information relating to weather; deriving road surface roughness values representing roughness of a road surface for a section traveled by the vehicle based on the acceleration information the vehicle;
determining, based on the weather information, whether the section includes a bad weather location where weather at a time when the vehicle traveled is bad weather, the bad weather being rain equal to or more than a predetermined rainfall amount, snow equal to or more than a predetermined snowfall amount, strong wind having a speed equal to or higher than a predetermined wind speed, a low temperature equal to or lower than a first predetermined temperature, or a high temperature equal to or higher than a second predetermined temperature;
when the section includes the bad weather location, performing a correction including deleting a road surface roughness value corresponding to the bad weather location from the road surface roughness values corresponding to the section; and
outputting the road surface roughness values corresponding to the section after the correction in association with the information on the road.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining …” all the various data in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A road surface evaluation apparatus comprising a microprocessor configured to perform: acquiring driving information of a vehicle which is traveling including acceleration information indicating acceleration of the vehicle, speed information indicating driving speed of the vehicle, and position information indicating a driving position of the vehicle;
acquiring map information including information on a road on which the vehicle travels; acquiring weather information including information relating to weather; deriving road surface roughness values representing roughness of a road surface for a section traveled by the vehicle based on the acceleration information the vehicle;
determining, based on the weather information, whether the section includes a bad weather location where weather at a time when the vehicle traveled is bad weather, the bad weather being rain equal to or more than a predetermined rainfall amount, snow equal to or more than a predetermined snowfall amount, strong wind having a speed equal to or higher than a predetermined wind speed, a low temperature equal to or lower than a first predetermined temperature, or a high temperature equal to or higher than a second predetermined temperature;
when the section includes the bad weather location, performing a correction including deleting a road surface roughness value corresponding to the bad weather location from the road surface roughness values corresponding to the section; and
outputting the road surface roughness values corresponding to the section after the correction in association with the information on the road.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving and casting steps from / using sensor system(s) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information and casting rays to detect information for use in the determining and other steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The disqualifying, associating and sending steps are also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claim 6 further recite “a road surface evaluation apparatus comprising a microprocessor configured to perform: acquiring map information including information on a road on which the vehicle travels”; merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. In order to expedite prosecution, Examiner also notes that the mere recitation of “acquiring map information including information on a road on which the vehicle travels” in claim 6 are not significant enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since the claims do not include a positive recitation of “determining based on the weather information, whether the section includes a bad weather location where weather at a time when the vehicle traveled is bad weather” (if supported by the specification, such limitation is an example of a significant enough limitation to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 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 the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of receiving information and values/features detecting/detectable are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “creating the first map …,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere performance which in the instant application is creating a map is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 8-11 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 8-11 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 6.
Therefore, claim(s) 6, 8-11 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Response to applicant’s argument as follows:
A. Applicant argued that prior art did not disclose, “determining, based on the weather information, whether the section includes a bad weather location where weather at a time when the vehicle traveled is bad weather, the bad weather being rain equal to or more than a predetermined rainfall amount, snow equal to or more than a predetermined snowfall amount, strong wind having a speed equal to or higher than a predetermined wind speed, a low temperature equal to or lower than a first predetermined temperature, or a high temperature equal to or higher than a second predetermined temperature;
As to applicant’s argument YAMASAKI disclosed, “[FIG. 6 schematically illustrates a table to be referred to in the scoring from the data illustrated in FIG. 4 to the data illustrated in FIG. 5. As illustrated in FIG. 6, with respect to, for example, the weather, scores 0, 1, 2, and 3 may be determined respectively for “fine”, “cloudy”, “rain”, and “snow”. Likewise, with respect to the wind force, the air temperature, and the road surface state, scores may be determined as summarized in the table in FIG. 6.] (Paragraph. 0047);
B. Applicant argued that prior art did not disclose, “when the section includes the bad weather location, performing a correction including deleting a road surface roughness value corresponding to the bad weather location from the road surface roughness values corresponding to the section”.
As to applicant’s argument Gillett disclosed, “The ABCS is associated with an environmental sensor array 407 that receives sensor data from the AB 100 and communicates the sensor data 421 such data including AB 100 speed, compass heading, absolute position, relative position or a combination thereof. The ABCS is associated at least one sensor that monitors motion of the AB 100 including rate of acceleration, pitch rate, roll rate, yaw rate or a combination thereof and the at least one sensor that monitors motion includes the accelerometer, the gyroscope, and the motor controller 212. It said while calculating a friction pie from the tire and the road surface state in the current running state, a command value to the output adjusting means calculates the braking amount corresponding to the braking operation amount, the output adjusting means, controls the operation of the a steering actuator 205 for the front drive wheel 107, the rear drive wheel 108 and brake operations of both by sending a command value to the braking force control means of the motor controller 212 and functions of the motor controller 212a,b, wherein the front brake 110a and rear brake 110b are activated by the brake-by-wire type braking control means 114, the braking control is engage by operators leaning backward motion, by operators engaging a brake throttle/switch 120 or a combination thereof. A rate of acceleration, pitch rate, roll rate, yaw rate output adjusting means constituted in the ABCS, wherein the braking force of the angular velocity detected when the stability limit or greater than the threshold of the friction pie, the general control unit of the command value it is determined that sudden braking send to the braking control means for establishing stability limit or threshold grip of the front and rear wheel tires such that traveling always is controlled (Paragraph. 0095).
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the
examiner should be directed to Adnan Mirza whose telephone number is (571)-272-3885.
9. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday during normal
business hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the
examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313)-446-4821.
10. 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 un published 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).
/ADNAN M MIRZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667