DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s response to election/restriction filed on 02/06/2026.
Applicant had elected, without traverse, Invention I and had asserted that claims 1-4, 7-10 and 14-15 read on the elected Invention. The requirement is made FINAL.
Claims 5-6 and 11-13 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II.
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.
Claim 1-4, 7-10, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, A computer system for prediction of road surface operating conditions of a vehicle, the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to:
receive at least a portion of a shared operating conditions model from a remote statistics processor;
receive real-time sensor measurement data from sensors of the vehicle;
determine a vehicle-specific operating conditions model based on the portion of the shared operating conditions model and the real-time sensor measurement data; and
use the vehicle-specific operating conditions model to predict upcoming operating conditions for the vehicle.
Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes – the claim recited a system for prediction of road surface operating conditions of a vehicle including at least one functional limitation(s) / step(s).
Step 2A: Prong one of 2A Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Process.
Claim(s) is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes. ‘
The claim 1 recites the limitations (i) “determine a vehicle-specific operating conditions model based on the portion of the shared operating conditions model and the real-time sensor measurement data” and “… predict upcoming operating conditions for the vehicle.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that cover performance of these limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processing circuitry,” a remote statistics processor” and “sensors” and nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For instance, the claim encompasses a remote user (i) mentally defines a vehicle specific operation condition model – for instance, a 4WD vehicle - based on historical data related to road condition and vehicle sensor data and (ii) predicts the road condition ahead of the vehicle using historical road condition and vehicle sensor data to properly control the vehicle and increase driver and passenger safety.
Step 2A: Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
Claim(s) is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception 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”).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the flowing additional elements: (i) “receive at least a portion of a shared operating conditions model from a remote statistics processor” and “receive real-time sensor measurement data from sensors of the vehicle.” The receive limitation(s) / step(s) are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., as a general means for gathering information related to recorded road condition from a database and sensor data from a vehicle) for using in the determine and predict limitations / steps and amount to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity – per MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim recites “processing circuitry” that facilitates the determining and predict limitations / steps is a general electronic device that “apply” the otherwise mental steps using generic or general-purpose computer and is recited at a high level of generality to mere automate the mental steps as indicated above.
The claim recited “a remote statistics processor” as a general computer element for performing insignificant extra solution activity to obtain stored information by a generic computer component.
The claim recited “sensors” as generically electronic element(s) for performing insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data from vehicle surrounding - per MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even in the combination, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Invention Concept – No
The claim(s) is evaluated whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “receive” step(s) was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the claim recites additional element that amount to significant more than the judicial exception. Per MPEP 2106.05(g), mere receiving / gathering and applying data are deemed to be directed to insignificant application.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The specification does not provide any indication that the “processing circuitry,” a remote statistics processor” and “sensor” are anything other than possible generic, off the-shelf electronic component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that the 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 (as it is here). The limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instruction to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the additional element “one or more sensor(s) for prediction of road surface operating conditions of the vehicle” is evaluated in Prong 2 of 2A. Here, the “sensors” is recited as generically electronic element(s) for performing insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data from vehicle surrounding - per MPEP 2106.05(g). There is no inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the additional element “wherein the one or more sensor(s) of the vehicle comprise at least one visual sensor visual sensors” is recited as generically electronic element(s) for performing insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data from vehicle surrounding to determine road condition ahead of the vehicle - per MPEP 2106.05(g). There is no inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the claim limitations recited features on alternative form of rejected claim 3; therefore, the claim does not contain additional element with respect to the first alternative limitation that would integrate the identified mental exception, as cited on claim(s) above, into a practical application in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. There is no inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, A computer-implemented method for prediction of road surface operating conditions of a vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving, by processing circuitry of a computer system, at least a portion of a shared operating conditions model from a remote statistics processor;
receiving, by the processing circuitry, real-time sensor measurement data from sensors of the vehicle;
determining, by the processing circuitry, a vehicle-specific operating conditions model based on the portion of the shared operating conditions model and the real-time sensor measurement data; and
using, by the processing circuitry, the vehicle-specific operating conditions model to predict upcoming operating conditions for the vehicle.
Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes – the claim recited a method for prediction of road surface operating conditions of a vehicle including at least one functional limitation(s) / step(s).
Step 2A: Prong one of 2A Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Process.
Claim(s) is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes. ‘
The claim 7 recites the limitations (i) “determining, by the processing circuitry, a vehicle-specific operating conditions model based on the portion of the shared operating conditions model and the real-time sensor measurement data” and “… predict upcoming operating conditions for the vehicle.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that cover performance of these limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processing circuitry,” a remote statistics processor” and “sensor” and nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For instance, the claim encompasses a remote user (i) mentally defines a vehicle specific operation condition model – for instance, a 4WD vehicle - based on historical data related to road condition and vehicle sensor data and (ii) predicts the road condition ahead of the vehicle using historical road condition and vehicle sensor data to properly control the vehicle and increase driver and passenger safety.
Step 2A: Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
Claim(s) is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception 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”).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the flowing additional elements: (i) “receiving, …., at least a portion of a shared operating conditions model from a remote statistics processor” and “receiving, …, real-time sensor measurement data from sensors of the vehicle.” The receiving limitation(s) / step(s) are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., as a general means for gathering information related to recorded road condition from a database and sensor data from a vehicle) for using in the determining and predict limitations / steps and amount to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity – per MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim recites “processing circuitry” that facilitates the determining and predict limitations / steps is a general electronic device that “apply” the otherwise mental steps using generic or general-purpose computer and is recited at a high level of generality to mere automate the mental steps as indicated above.
The claim recited “a remote statistics processor” as a general computer element for performing insignificant extra solution activity to obtain stored information by a generic computer component.
The claim recited “sensors” as generically electronic element(s) for performing insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data from vehicle surrounding - per MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even in the combination, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Invention Concept – No
The claim(s) is evaluated whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “receiving” step(s) was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the claim recites additional element that amount to significant more than the judicial exception. Per MPEP 2106.05(g), mere receiving / gathering and applying data are deemed to be directed to insignificant application.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The specification does not provide any indication that the “processing circuitry,” a remote statistics processor” and “sensor” are anything other than possible generic, off the-shelf electronic component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that the 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 (as it is here). The limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instruction to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the claim does not contain additional element that would integrate the identified mental exception, as cited on claim(s) above, into a practical application in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. There is no inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the additional element “wherein the portion of the shared operating conditions model is determined by a location of the vehicle and/or a time of reception of the portion of the shared operating conditions model” is evaluated in Prong 1 of 2A. The “determined” limitation / step encompasses a remote user mentally determines road condition based on vehicle location and time. Hence, the claim recites mental processes and is not eligible.
The claim does not contain additional element that would integrate the identified mental exception, as cited on claim(s) above, into a practical application in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. There is no inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the claim does not contain additional element that would integrate the identified mental exception, as cited on claim(s) above, into a practical application in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. There is no inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 14 is directed to software per se.
The additional element “… for performing, … the method of claim 7” is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for similar reason presented above for rejected claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, the additional element “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry … ” is evaluated in Prong 2 of 2A. Here, the “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” is recited a general computer element for performing insignificant extra solution activity to store instruction(s) to be executed by a generic computer component.
The additional element “… to performing the method of claim 7” is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for similar reason presented above for rejected claim 7.
The specification does not provide any indication that the “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” is anything other than possible generic, off the-shelf electronic component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that the 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 (as it is here). The limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instruction to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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 1-4, 7-10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roy Chowdhury et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0041261 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Roy Chowdhury et al. disclose a vehicle system for estimating a road surface condition and road friction comprising processing circuitry (e.g., on-board processor comprising a trained ML model 32 – par. 16 and 22) configured to:
receive at least a portion of a shared operating conditions model from a remote statistics processor (e.g., receiving stored road friction estimate (RSF) from a cloud computer by other vehicles passing through a location (par. 11, 6 and Figure 1));
receive real-time sensor measurement data from sensors of the vehicle (e.g., processing vehicle sensor / camera data (14) while the vehicle is driving at a given location (par. 11 and 16 and Figures 1 and 2));
determine a vehicle-specific operating conditions model (e.g., determining / training a ML model 32 (par. 16-17) ) based on the portion of the shared operating conditions model and the real-time sensor measurement data (e.g., based on received road friction estimate (RSF) from a cloud computer (par. 11, 6 and Figure 1) and processed vehicle sensor / camera data (14) (par. 11 and 16 and Figures 1 and 2)); and
Note: publication of the specification discloses “vehicle-specific operating conditions model” as mathematical model (par. 78 and 71).
use the vehicle-specific operating conditions model to predict upcoming operating conditions for the vehicle (e.g., “to predict the RFE 34 for the vehicle for each geo-spatial location” based on sensor data and road surface condition (RSC) data – par. 16 and Figure 2).
Regarding claim 2, Roy Chowdhury et al. disclose a vehicle system for estimating a road surface condition and road friction comprising the computer system and one or more sensor(s) for prediction of road surface operating conditions of the vehicle (e.g., Figure 2 shows a vehicle comprising on-board trained ML model 32, which requires a processor (par. 16) and vehicle sensor / camera (par. 18)).
Regarding claim 3, Roy Chowdhury et al. disclose a vehicle system for estimating a road surface condition and road friction, wherein the one or more sensor(s) of the vehicle comprise at least one visual sensor (e.g., vehicle sensor / camera (par. 18) ) to predict the RFE 34 for the vehicle for each geo-spatial location” based on sensor data and road surface condition (RSC) data – par. 16 and Figure 2),
alternative limitation).
Regarding claim 4, the claim limitation(s) recite features on alternative form of rejected claim 3; therefore, Roy Chowdhury et al.’s invention still read on the claimed combination alternative form.
Regarding claim 7, Roy Chowdhury et al. disclose a vehicle method for estimating a road surface condition and road friction, the method comprising:
receiving, by processing circuitry of a computer system (e.g., on-board processor comprising trained ML model 32 – par. 16 and 22), at least a portion of a shared operating conditions model from a remote statistics processor (e.g., receiving stored road friction estimate (RSF) from a cloud computer by other vehicle passing through a location (par. 11, 6 and Figure 1));
receiving, by the processing circuitry (e.g., on-board processor – par. 16 and 22), real-time sensor measurement data from sensors of the vehicle (e.g., processing vehicle sensor / camera data (14) while the vehicle is driving at a given location (par. 11 and 16 and Figures 1 and 2));
determining, by the processing circuitry (e.g., on-board processor – par. 16 and 22), a vehicle-specific operating conditions model (e.g., determining / training a ML model 32 (par. 16-17) ) based on the portion of the shared operating conditions model and the real-time sensor measurement data (e.g. , based on received road friction estimate (RSF) from a cloud computer (par. 11, 6 and Figure 1) and processed vehicle sensor / camera data (14) (par. 11 and 16 and Figures 1 and 2)); and
Note: publication of the specification discloses “vehicle-specific operating conditions model” as mathematical model (par. 78 and 71).
using, by the processing circuitry (e.g., on-board processor – par. 16 and 22), the vehicle-specific operating conditions model to predict upcoming operating conditions for the vehicle (e.g., “to predict the RFE 34 for the vehicle for each geo-spatial location” based on sensor data and road surface condition (RSC) data – par. 16 and Figure 2).
Regarding claim 8, Roy Chowdhury et al. disclose a vehicle method for estimating a road surface condition and road friction, further comprising causing, by the processing circuitry, the sensor measurement data to be uploaded to the remote statistics processor (e.g., road surface estimate detected by on-board vehicle sensors is transmitted to cloud entity / server, which contains sensor data (par. 3 and 11 and Figures 1 and 2)).
Regarding claim 9, Roy Chowdhury et al. disclose a vehicle method for estimating a road surface condition and road friction, wherein the portion of the shared operating conditions model is determined by a location of the vehicle (e.g., road surface condition (RSC) is computed in the cloud for specific location and this information is probed by individual vehicles – par. 6 and 15)
Regarding claim 10, Roy Chowdhury et al. disclose a vehicle method for estimating a road surface condition and road friction, wherein the vehicle-specific operating conditions model provides respective certainty metrics for road surface operating condition type(s) (e.g., the type of trained ML model 32 comprises a supervised classification model that reads the sensor data, as well as RSC data 36, to predict the RFE 34 for the vehicle for each geo-spatial location – par. 16) , and wherein the upcoming operating conditions for the vehicle are predicted by road surface operating condition type selection based on the certainty metrics (e.g., “to predict the RFE 34 for the vehicle for each geo-spatial location” based supervised classification model – par. 16 and Figure 2).
Regarding claim 14, Roy Chowdhury et al. disclose computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry, the method of claim 7 (e.g., one or more software programs, each of which includes an ordered listing of executable instructions for implementing logical functions for estimating a road surface condition and road friction as cited on rejected claim 7 – par. 23).
Regarding claim 15, Roy Chowdhury et al. disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 7 (e.g., a software in memory include one or more software programs, each of which includes an ordered listing of executable instructions for implementing logical functions. The software in the memory includes a suitable operating system (O/S) and programs by be executed by a processor to estimate a road surface condition and road friction as cited on rejected claim 7 – par. 23).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jorge O. Peche whose telephone number is (571)270-1339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Khoi H. Tran can be reached at 571 272 6919. 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.
/Jorge O Peche/Examiner, Art Unit 3656