CTFR 18/959,724 CTFR 95996 DETAILED ACTION 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This Office action is in response to the amendment filed 04/29/2026. Claim 3 has been canceled, and new claims 10-11 have been added. Claims 1-2 and 4-11 are currently pending and are presented for examination. Response to Amendment/Arguments The amendment filed 04/29/2026 has been entered and applicant’s arguments filed 04/29/2026 have been fully considered. Regarding claim objections: Applicant has argued that the claim objections set forth in the non-final Office action are overcome by the filed amendment. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn these objections accordingly. Regarding claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f): Applicant has argued that the claim interpretation of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is moot in view of the filed amendment removing the “lane change detection apparatus” from claim 8. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn this interpretation accordingly. Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant has argued that the claims as amended should not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Applicant has asserted that similarly to the claims in SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc. , 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the instant claims do not recite a mental process because the human mind is not able to perform the step to “detect whether there is the lane change of the vehicle, based on the traveling lane in which the vehicle has traveled in the previous frame of the vehicle vibration and a comparison result between the average vibration intensity of the frequency band in the current frame of the vehicle vibration and a threshold value.” The examiner respectfully disagrees, because the instant claims are not analogous to the claims of SRI Int’l , which are directed a computer-implemented method of detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets in such a way that provides an improvement in computer network technology. Unlike these claims, the instant claims could be performed in the human mind and do not necessarily provide for an improvement in computer technology. For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the argued detection step encompasses a human being mentally comparing the calculated average vibration intensity of the frequency band in the current frame to a threshold value, and also considering the traveling lane in which the vehicle has traveled in the previous frame, in order to identify whether there is a lane change. The claims provide no limits on the complexity of the process; further, the previous and current frames are recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, this step could be performed in the human mind with the help of pen and paper. Note that new claim 11 has not been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because it requires that the detection step is performed in real time, which could not be practically accomplished in the human mind. The examiner respectfully suggests incorporating the subject matter of claim 11 into the independent claims. Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103: Applicant has argued that the prior art rejections are overcome by the filed amendment incorporating the previously indicated allowable subject matter of claim 3 into the independent claims. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn the rejections accordingly. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5 of claim 8, the word “and” should be deleted. In line 9 of claim 8, the word “calculate” should be changed to “calculating.” In line 11 of claim 8, the word “detect” should be changed to “detecting.” In line 9 of claim 9, the word “calculate” should be changed to “a procedure of calculating.” In line 11 of claim 9, the word “detect” should be changed to “a procedure of detecting.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 4 is 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. Claim 4 is dependent on canceled claim 3, leading to indefiniteness. For examination purposes, claim 4 is interpreted as if it were instead dependent upon claim 1. Clarification is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-2 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding claims 1 and 8-9: Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a lane change detection apparatus comprising at least one memory and at least one processor. Claim 8 is directed to the corresponding method, and claim 9 is directed to the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable medium. Claims 1 and 8-9 are each directed to at least one of the four statutory categories. Step 2A, prong 1: Claims 1 and 8-9 recite the abstract concept of detecting a lane change. This abstract idea is described at least in claims 1 and 8-9 by the steps of detecting whether there is a lane change of the vehicle, based on a specific feature in a current frame of the vehicle vibration, and a traveling lane in which the vehicle has traveled in a previous frame of the vehicle vibration; calculating average vibration intensity of a frequency band as the feature in the current frame of the vehicle vibration; and detecting whether there is the lane change of the vehicle, based on the traveling lane in which the vehicle has traveled in the previous frame of the vehicle vibration and a comparison result between the average vibration intensity of the frequency band in the current frame of the vehicle vibration and a threshold value. These steps fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas as they include a human mentally identifying whether there is a lane change of the vehicle based on the acquired vibration data and based on a lane that the vehicle traveled in in a previous frame of the vehicle vibration; using pen and paper to assist in performing the necessary mathematical calculations to determine the average vibration intensity of a frequency band in the current frame; and mentally comparing the calculated average vibration intensity to a threshold value to identify whether there is a lane change based on the traveling lane in which the v3ehicle has traveled in the previous frame. The limitations as drafted are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover their performance in the mind if not for the recitation of generic computing components. With respect to claims 1 and 8-9, other than reciting “at least one processor,” “a lane change detection apparatus,” and “a computer,” nothing in the claims precludes the abstract idea from practically being performed in the human mind. If not for the “processor,” “lane change detection apparatus,” and “computer” language, the claims encompass a human mentally detecting whether there is a lane change of the vehicle based on the acquired vibration data and based on a lane that the vehicle traveled in in a previous frame of the vehicle vibration. Step 2A, prong 2: The claims recite elements additional to the abstract concepts. However, these additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites a lane change detection apparatus comprising at least one memory and at least one processor. These are generic computer components (in light of instant specification ¶ 95) that are simply employed as tools for performing the abstract idea. The use of such generic computer components for executing the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 1 also recites that the processor is configured to execute instructions to acquire, from a sensing apparatus configured to measure vibration generated on a road by using an optical fiber embedded in the road, vehicle vibration data indicating vibration generated a vehicle traveling on the road. This step is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, as it simply gathers data necessary for performing the abstract idea (i.e., all uses of the abstract idea require such data gathering). The mere recitation of such insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 8 recites a lane change detection apparatus, which is a generic computer component (in light of instant specification ¶¶ 93-97) that is simply employed as a tool for performing the abstract idea. The use of such generic computer components for executing the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 8 also recites a step of acquiring vehicle vibration data; this step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as explained regarding claim 1 above. Claim 9 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium and a computer, which are generic computer components (in light of instant specification ¶¶ 93-97) that are simply employed as tools for performing the abstract idea. The use of such generic computer components for executing the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 9 also recites a step of acquiring vehicle vibration data; this step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as explained regarding claim 1 above. Step 2B: The additional elements are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the memory, processor(s), lane change detection apparatus, non-transitory computer-readable medium, and computer are anything other than conventional computer components. The use of such generic and conventional computer components for executing the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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 is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, the step of acquiring vehicle vibration data is merely insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). For the above reasons, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, whether considered individually or in combination. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1 and 8-9 are not patent-eligible. Regarding claims 2, 4-7, and 10: Dependent claims 2, 5, 7, and 10 recite the additional mental process steps of calculating average vibration intensity as the feature in the current frame of the vehicle vibration; calculating a spectral centroid of a frequency spectrum as the feature in the current frame of the vehicle vibration; calculating a centroid shift amount being a difference between the spectral centroid of the current frame of the vehicle vibration and a spectral centroid of the previous frame of the vehicle vibration; detecting whether there is the lane change of the vehicle, based on the traveling lane in which the vehicle has traveled in the previous frame of the vehicle vibration and a comparison result between the centroid shift amount in the current frame of the vehicle vibration and a threshold value; determining, when it is determined that a lane change of the vehicle occurs, a position where the lane change occurs on the road, and in a case where a lane change occurs a predetermined number of times or more at the position, determining the position as an abnormality occurrence position; and acquiring the current frame and the previous frame by dividing the vehicle vibration data into a plurality of frames. The steps listed above fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas because they encompass a human using pen and paper to perform mathematical calculations necessary for calculating the average vibration intensity in the current frame of the vehicle vibration; perform the mathematical calculations necessary for calculating a spectral centroid of a frequency spectrum in the current frame of the vehicle vibration; perform mathematical calculations necessary for calculating a centroid shift amount between the spectral centroid of the current frame of the vehicle vibration and a spectral centroid of the previous frame of the vehicle vibration; mentally compare the centroid shift amount in the current frame to a threshold value to determine whether there is a lane change of the vehicle; mentally identify a position where the lane change of the vehicle occurs on the road; mentally identify the position as an abnormality occurrence position when a lane change occurs a predetermined number of times or more at the identified position; and draw out a division of the vehicle vibration data into a plurality of frames including the current frame and the previous frame. Therefore, the limitations are drafted are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, could be performed in the human mind with the help of pen and paper. The dependent claims also recite limitations that further define the mental process. For example, claim 4 recites that the frequency band is a band in which a difference between average vibration intensity of the vehicle vibration before the lane change of the vehicle and average vibration intensity of the vehicle vibration after the lane change of the vehicle is equal to or greater than a predetermined value. Such limitations do not preclude the abstract idea from being practically performed in the human mind, and are treated as additional mental process steps. Claim 6 recites a learning model being trained with a feature amount when the lane change of the vehicle occurs. Claim 6 additionally recites the steps of inputting, to the learning model, the feature in the current frame of the vehicle vibration and traveling lane in which the vehicle has traveled in the previous frame of the vehicle vibration as a feature amount; and detecting whether there is the lane change of the vehicle, based on an output of the learning model. These limitations merely amount to general linking of the abstract idea to the particular technological environment of machine learning. Such limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because they are recited at a high level of generality and because they merely specify that machine learning technology is employed to perform the steps of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). As explained above, the dependent claims only recite additional mental process steps, limitations further defining the mental process, and limitations that amount to general linking of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 2, 4-7, and 10 are not patent-eligible. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-2 and 4-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action. 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM EST. 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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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. /Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/959,724 Page 2 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/959,724 Page 3 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/959,724 Page 4 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/959,724 Page 5 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/959,724 Page 6 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/959,724 Page 7 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/959,724 Page 8 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/959,724 Page 9 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/959,724 Page 10 Art Unit: 3662
Prosecution Insights