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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species I (Claims 1-9) without a traverse in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged.
Species II (Claims 10—14) are withdrawn by the Examiner from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to Claim 1, the limitation ““measuring, with an audio sensor installed in a road section, a tire friction sound generated by contact between a tire of a vehicle and a road surface of the road section” is indefinite as it is unclear how such narrowly-defined measurement occurs. It is unclear how the friction sound versus other sounds is measured when it is known to one with ordinary skill in the art that such measuring would inherently include measuring other related sounds from additional acoustic sources such as related to vehicle propulsion system as well as sound produced due to tire thread, road/pavement material/texture, vehicle speed, road wetness, road condition/unevenness/profile, as known in the art, for example, from Browne [0028] and Duan [0026] and is confirmed by the instant application in [0120, 0137], as published.
For the purpose of a compact prosecution, the Examiner treated this limitation as determining a tire/ pavement/surface interaction sound (noise) which fits the instant application definition of “road surface noise/tire friction sound” [0156], as published.
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 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“A road surface condition determination device comprising:
one or more processors: and memory storing instructions thereon, the instructions when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to:
obtain, in real time, a time-domain signal by measuring with an audio sensor installed in a road section, a tire friction sound generated by contact between a tire of a vehicle and a road surface of the road section:
generate a current composite waveform from the time-domain signal;
compare the current composite waveform with a predefined reference composite waveform;
convert the time-domain signal into a frequency-domain signal responsive to a difference between the current composite waveform and the reference composite waveform being equal to or greater than a threshold value;
obtain, from the frequency-domain signal, a frequency characteristic representing the tire friction sound;
and output, in real time, an estimated road surface condition of the road section based on the frequency characteristic.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, the steps of “generate a current composite waveform from the time-domain signal”, “convert the time-domain signal into a frequency-domain signal responsive to a difference between the current composite waveform and the reference composite waveform being equal to or greater than a threshold value” and “obtain, from the frequency-domain signal, a frequency characteristic representing the tire friction sound” are treated as belonging to the mathematical concepts grouping while the steps of “compare the current composite waveform with a predefined reference composite waveform” and “estimate(ed) road surface condition of the road section based on the frequency characteristic representing the tire friction sound” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping. These mental steps represent a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “compare a frequency characteristic of a source waveform, identified from the frequency-domain signal” and “estimate(ed) road surface condition of the road section based on the frequency characteristic representing the tire friction sound” in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually evaluating frequency spectrum of a source waveform and comparing it with a predefined reference composite waveform and making a determination/judgement about road surface conditions based on the frequency characteristic corresponding to tire friction characteristic.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 5 and 6.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: A road surface condition determination device comprising: one or more processors: and memory storing instructions thereon, the instructions when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to: obtain, in real time, a time-domain signal by measuring with an audio sensor installed in a road section, a tire friction sound generated by contact between a tire of a vehicle and a road surface of the road section: generate a current composite waveform from the time-domain signal; outputting an estimated road surface condition.
In Claim 5: A road surface condition determination method and similar additional elements to Claim 1;
In Claim 6: A road surface condition determination device and similar additional elements to Claim 1.
The additional elements in the preambles of the independent claims are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The additional elements in the claims such as a memory comprising instructions; and a processor … executing the instructions are examples of generic computer equipment (components) that are generally recited and, therefore, are not meaningful and are not qualified as particular machines to indicate a practical application.
The steps of measuring tire friction noise by using recited in generality audio sensor installed in a road section corresponds to mere data gathering of insignificant extra-solution activity to obtain necessary data for the judicial exception.
Similarly, a step of outputting an estimated road surface condition (“limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting”) represents insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Therefore, these steps do not indicate a practical application.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record including a sound sensor installed in road sections as discussed in Evan Ruzanski et al (US 20190180458), Yoshihusa YAMANOUCHI et al. (US 20200242287), Hassnaa Moustafa et al. (US 20220126864).
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 3-9 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims and, therefore, these claims are not eligible either without additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or qualified for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
For example, additional elements in Claim 3 (a time-domain signal measured at each set interval in the road section, and a time-domain signal measured in a previous road section adjacent to the road section), Claim 7 (using a predefined valid frequency band, among frequency bands of the audio signal), and Claim 8 (the frequency band of interest is divided into different regions from the specific frequency band) are all recited in generality and not meaningful to indicate a practical application and/or qualify for significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 112
The Applicant argues (p.7): Applicant respectfully disagrees that the language "measuring a tire friction sound of a vehicle in a road section" is indefinite. However, claim 1 is hereby amended … Hence, withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the amendments resolved the issue. Please see the rejection above.
35 U.S.C. 101
The Applicant argues (p.8-9): The claimed invention is not directed to mental processes because the claims contain limitations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind, and because the claims improve road surface monitoring technology through practical application of acoustic signal processing algorithms …To this end, the claim recites the feature of "obtain, in real time, a time-domain signal by measuring, with an audio sensor installed in a road section, a tire friction sound", "generate a current composite waveform from the time-domain signal", "compare the current composite waveform with a predefined reference composite waveform," and "output, in real time, an estimated road surface condition," which cannot be practically performed in the human mind. The claim described here involves practical application of an algorithm that improves real-time road surface condition monitoring technology the claimed device applies its signal processing steps to a physical audio signal from a sensor installed in a road section, producing a real-time road surface condition output that directly supports hazard detection and accident prevention, in a manner that no human could replicate mentally. Such practical application of the algorithm cannot be performed mentally by a human.
The Examiner treats the limitation "obtain, in real time, a time-domain signal by measuring, with an audio sensor installed in a road section, a tire friction sound" as an additional element, the limitation “generate a current composite waveform from the time-domain signal" as a mathematical step, and only allocates the “comparison” step to a menta; process as explained in the rejection above.
With regards to the “practical application” argument, the Examiner submits that while this is a different consideration unrelated to a mental idea, no practical application is demonstrated because no meaningful additional elements are recited including a step outputting results of the estimate. The latter is insignificant extra-solution activity step.
The Applicant argues (p.10-11): Further, under step 2A, Prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. … Specifically, the claim includes an additional element or a combination of elements that relates to (1) an improvement to a technical field and (3) implementing the signal processing steps with a particular machine that is integral to the claim (See MPEP §2106.04(d) I.) With respect to (1), amended claim 1 improves the technical field of road surface condition monitoring by introducing a threshold-gated waveform comparison mechanism that conditions frequency-domain conversion on detection of acoustically meaningful change. Prior art approaches performed continuous or unconditional signal processing (see e.g., Duan, US 2023/0373522), whereas the claimed device selectively triggers frequency-domain conversion only when the difference between the current and reference composite waveforms equals or exceeds a threshold value. This selective triggering is a concrete technical improvement - it reduces unnecessary computation and ensures that road surface condition determination is performed based on relevant, change-indicative acoustic data. With respect to (3), the claimed device implements its signal processing steps with a particular machine integral to the claim: an audio sensor installed in a road section. This sensor is not a generic computer peripheral; it is a specific, fixed infrastructure component that captures tire friction sounds generated by physical contact between vehicle tires and the road surface, and its installation in a road section is structurally and functionally integral to the claimed process (see specification, paragraphs [0060]-[0099])
The Examiner submits that “selective triggering” is a part of the abstract idea. The improvements in abstract ideas are not qualified as improvement in technology/ technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).II: “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology … the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology”.
Further, no particular machine is recited in the referenced paragraphs. The generically recited “fixed infrastructure component” (the term not used in the Specification), as understood by one with ordinary skill in the art, is an acoustic sensor well-known in the art.
The Applicant argues (p.11-13): Assuming, arguendo, that the claims were directed to the alleged abstract idea, the claims recite substantially or significantly more than merely the alleged abstract idea under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test. The claim includes additional elements that amounts to significantly more in combination with other elements of the claim even when the additional elements themselves do not amount to significantly more (Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, 827 F.3d 1042, 1051, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Specifically, the claim recites "generate a current composite waveform from the time-domain signal," "compare the current composite waveform with a predefined reference composite waveform," "convert the time-domain signal into a frequency-domain signal responsive to a difference between the current composite waveform and the reference composite waveform being equal to or greater than a threshold value, ""compare a frequency characteristic from the frequency-domain signal," and "output, in real time, an estimated road surface condition of the road section." Individually, each of these additional elements might not amount to significantly more. However, these limitations, when combined, advantageously create a threshold-gated, selective frequency-domain signal processing pipeline that is tied to a specific physical sensing device installed in the road section - a combination that enables real-time road surface condition determination with reduced computational overhead by ensuring frequency-domain transformation is triggered only by acoustically meaningful waveform changes. This specific combination does not appear in any of the cited prior art references individually or in combination (see e.g., the specification, paragraphs [0060]-[0090]).
Similar arguments are presented in page 15 with regards to Claim 6.
The Examiner submits that the argued combinations of claim limitations include abstract idea steps not subject to “significantly more” analysis.
With regards to the novelty argument, the Examiner submits that claims of improvements in abstract idea could still be patent ineligible, without significantly more. For example, the mathematical formula in Flook, the laws of nature in Mayo, and the isolated DNA in Myriad were all novel, but nonetheless were considered by the Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions because they were “‘basic tools of scientific and technological work' that lie beyond the domain of patent protection.” See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591‐92 (1978); and Myriad Genetics, 133 S. Ct. at 2116, quoting Mayo Collaborative Svcs. v. Prometheus Labs., 566 U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012).
However, no significantly more additional elements and/or combination of additional elements were identified.
Examiner Note with Regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 1 and 3-9 are distinguished over prior art of record based on the reasons below.
With regards to Claim 1, the claim differs from the closest prior art, Duan, Wirtz, Bowne, and Zhou, either singularly or in combination, because they fail to anticipate or render obvious wherein the processor is configured to convert the time-domain signal into the frequency-domain signal in case that, as a result of comparing a current composite waveform of the time-domain signal with a predefined reference composite waveform, a waveform change equal to or greater than a threshold value is identified from the reference composite waveform, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights