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 AIA .
Status of Claims
This communication is a Final Office action in response to communications received on 01/17/2026. Claims 1, 3 and 5 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-5 are currently pending and have been addressed below.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without a practical application and significantly more.
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (i.e., Step 1). In the instant case, claims 1-4 are directed to a system (i.e. a machine). Claim 5 is directed to a non-transitory storage medium (i.e. an article of manufacture). Thus, each of these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong One: Abstract Ideas
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites abstract ideas of certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes and mathematical concepts.
Independent claim 1, analogous to independent claim 5, recites: A road structure management system for calculating a degree of damage to road structures based on data acquired, (abstract idea; mathematical concepts (calculating a degree); abstract idea; mental processes as the human mind could observe road structures to determine damage); obtaining detection values relating to the road structures that affect the travel of the vehicle traveling on the road structures; ... based on measurement data obtained ... (abstract idea; mental processes as the human mind can obtain values relating to road structures that affect travel);
extracting damaged areas generated in the road structures based on a plurality of the detection values obtained from a plurality of the vehicles; (abstract idea; mental processes as the human mind can extract data of damaged generated in road structures);
calculating damage degree of the damaged area; and (abstract idea; mathematical concepts (calculating damage degree); abstract idea; mental processes as the human mind can calculate degrees of damage);
in case of the level of the damage degree exceeds a predetermined criterion, causing output a position information of the damaged area in the road structure (abstract idea; mathematical concepts (level of the damage degree exceeds a predetermined criterion); mental processes outputting information of the damaged area in the road structure).
Claim 2. The road structure management system according to claim 1, determining mode of damage of the damaged area based on the detected values of a predetermined number or more in a predetermined period; and (abstract idea; mathematical concepts (based on the detected values of a predetermined number); abstract idea; mental processes as the human mind can determine mode of damage of the damaged area);
determining the degree of damage according to the mode of the damage (abstract idea; mathematical concepts (determining the degree); abstract idea; mental processes as the human mind can determine degree of damage according to the mode of the damage).
Claim 3. The road structure management system according to claim 2, dividing a measurement area of the road structure into a plurality of rectangular measurement elements ..., wherein coordinates are managed for each measurement element; (abstract idea; mathematical concepts (dividing a measurement area of the road structure into a plurality of rectangular measurement elements); abstract idea; mental processes as the human mind can divide structures into small areas and analyze information);
extracting a plurality of the rectangular measurement elements corresponding to the damaged area from the plurality of divided rectangular measurement elements; and (abstract idea; mathematical concepts (extracting a plurality of the small areas from the plurality of divided small areas); abstract idea; mental processes as the human mind can extract data corresponding to damaged areas and analyze the information);
determining the mode of the damage in the damaged area (abstract idea; mental processes as the human mind can make determinations including determining the mode of damage in the damaged area).
Claim 4. The road structure management system according to claim 2,
calculating a degree of urgency for preserving the damaged area according to the level of the damage degree according to the mode of the damage, (abstract idea; mathematical concepts (calculating a degree); abstract idea; mental processes as the human mind can determine a degree of urgency for preserving the damaged area according to the level of the damage degree according to the mode of the damage);
calculating resources to be dispatched to the damaged area according to the degree of urgency; and output the degree of urgency and calculation result of the resources (abstract idea; mathematical concepts (calculating resources; calculation result of the resources); abstract idea; mental processes as the human mind can calculate resources to be dispatched to the damaged area according to the degree of urgency; and output the degree of urgency and calculation result; abstract idea; certain methods of organizing human activity as the claims discuss calculating resources to be dispatched to damaged area(s) and outputting the degree of urgency and resources).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of methods of certain methods of organizing human activity, mathematical concepts and/or mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements – (claim 1) server; processor; detection unit in vehicle; LIDAR device; three-dimensional point cloud data; output unit (claim 5) non-transitory storage medium; computer. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea, as it adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computing, see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, claims 1-5 have been fully analyzed to determine whether there are additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations fail to include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Thus, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The claims are ineligible. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMAMOTO et al. (US 2020/0378945 A1), hereinafter “Yamamoto”, over Wang CN 114298349 A, hereinafter “Wang”, over Hamaguchi et al. (US 2021/0208282 A1), hereinafter “Hamaguchi”.
Regarding Claim 1, Yamamoto teaches A road structure management system comprising a server device comprising a processor for calculating a degree of damage to road structures based on data acquired from a vehicle, wherein the processor is configured to perform the following processing: (See at least Yamamoto, para 0026, teaches processor; Yamamoto, Abstract, teaches a road surface damage detection device and road information providing system; a damage state acquisition unit configured to acquire road surface damage information which is related to a road surface on which the vehicle travel... the position information corresponding to a position where the road surface damage is detected are associated with each other; and a transmission unit configured to transmit the acquired road surface damage information to an outside of the vehicle; para 0029, a degree of the road surface damage);
obtaining detection values relating to the road structures that affect the travel of the vehicle traveling on the road structures which are detected by a detection unit provided in the vehicle; (Detection unit is taught throughout Yamamoto, see at least para 0030-0031, teaching a road surface damage detection unit ... when the wheel passes through a damaged portion of the road surface during travelling, a front-rear directional acceleration occurs in the vehicle in accordance with a degree of the damage. Thus, the detection of the road surface damage based on the change in the front-rear directional acceleration can implement detection with higher accuracy);
extracting damaged areas generated in the road structures based on a plurality of the detection values obtained from a plurality of the vehicles; (Yamamoto, para 0062, the information construction unit extracts all road surface damage information belonging to the coordinates (X, Y) on the map from the plurality of pieces of road surface damage information);
calculating damage degree of the damaged area; and (See at least Yamamoto, para 0062, teaching the information construction unit calculates the occurrence rate P(X, Y) of the road surface damage at the coordinates (X, Y) on the map in accordance with Formula 3 (S302). Further, the information construction unit constructs the road surface damage information at the coordinates (X, Y) in the road surface state database based on the plurality of pieces of road surface damage information Pc(t) (S304));
in case of the level of the damage degree exceeds a predetermined criterion, causing an output unit output a position information of the damaged area in the road structure (See at least Yamamoto, para 0034, teaching the road surface damage detection unit a sets a threshold value+A and a threshold value −A for the change amount ΔG of the front-rear directional acceleration, and determines the road surface damage (for example, the crack) when the change amount ΔG is equal to or more than the threshold value+A or equal to or less than the threshold value −A. Therefore, when the change amount ΔG is between the threshold value+A and the threshold value −A, the road surface damage (for example, the crack) is determined to be negligible at the current stage. The threshold values+A and −A can be determined in advance by determining the form and magnitude of the road surface damage that requires alerting and repair by a test or the like... Further, see at least Yamamoto, para 0051, the road surface damage information includes the position coordinates at which the road surface damage is detected... alert the driver for a driving operation while passing through the region).
Yet, Yamamoto does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Wang teaches server (Wang, page 4, teaches a server). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yamamoto with a server as taught by Wang with the motivation to detect and obtain road damage information to generate a road maintenance plan (See at least Wang, Abstract). Yet, Yamamoto does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Hamaguchi teaches wherein the detection unit includes a LiDAR device configured to generate three- dimensional point cloud data around the vehicle based on measurement data obtained by irradiating a laser beam and measuring reflected light from objects around the vehicle (See at least Hamaguchi, Figure 2, Abstract, teaches a detection device, which detects a target behavior that is a vehicle behavior subjected to detection in a preset detection area using a laser radar that generates point cloud information by irradiating the detection area with laser light and receiving reflected light resulting from the irradiation with the laser light; Hamaguchi, para 0033, teaches the laser radar is a device that generates point cloud information. The laser radar is also referred to as a light detection and ranging (LiDAR)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yamamoto with wherein the detection unit includes a LiDAR device configured to generate three- dimensional point cloud data around the vehicle based on measurement data obtained by irradiating a laser beam and measuring reflected light from objects around the vehicle as taught by Hamaguchi with the motivation for using a laser radar that irradiates the detection area with laser light and receives reflected light of the laser light to generate point cloud information (Hamaguchi, para 0006). The Yamamoto invention now incorporating the Wang and Hamaguchi invention, has all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Yamamoto, now incorporating Wang and Hamaguchi, teaches The road structure management system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to perform the following processing: determining mode of damage of the damaged area based on the detected values of a predetermined number or more in a predetermined period; and (Yamamoto, para 0029, the road surface damage information which is related to a road surface on which the vehicle travels and in which the road surface damage of the travelled road surface detected based on a change state of the front-rear directional acceleration and the position information corresponding to a position where the road surface damage is detected ... an example in which the “crack” on the road surface is detected (Examiner notes the “crack” is a mode of damage) ... It is desirable that the crack (the road surface damage) with a predetermined size or more is promptly repaired (mended));
determining the degree of damage according to the mode of the damage (See at least Yamamoto, para 0029, It is desirable that the crack (the road surface damage) with a predetermined size or more is promptly repaired (mended) by a road manager RM. For example, it is desirable that the road manager RM acquires the road surface damage information from the information sharing system to check a degree of the road surface damage).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamamoto, now incorporating Wang and Hamaguchi, teaches The road structure management system according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to perform the following processing:
dividing a measurement area of the road structure into a plurality of rectangular measurement elements ..., wherein coordinates are managed for each measurement element; (Yamamoto teaches throughout damage detected on map, see at least para 0051, teaching the road surface damage is detected and can specify a detailed position on map data; Yamamoto, Figure 6, teaches a map with coordinates divided into squares. Examiner notes different variations of dividing the measurement area - for example in squares or rectangles - are certainly within the ability of those having ordinary skill in the art);
extracting a plurality of the rectangular measurement elements corresponding to the damaged area from the plurality of divided rectangular measurement elements; and (Yamamoto, Figure 6, teaches a map with coordinates divided; Yamamoto, para 0062, the information construction unit extracts all road surface damage information belonging to the coordinates (X, Y) on the map from the plurality of pieces of road surface damage information);
determining the mode of the damage in the damaged area (Yamamoto, para 0029, the road surface damage information which is related to a road surface on which the vehicle travels ...where the road surface damage is detected ... an example in which the “crack” on the road surface is detected (Examiner notes the “crack” is a mode of damage)). Yet, Yamamoto does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Hamaguchi teaches based on the three-dimensional point cloud data (See at least Hamaguchi, Figure 2, Abstract, teaches a detection device, which detects a target behavior that is a vehicle behavior subjected to detection in a preset detection area using a laser radar that generates point cloud information by irradiating the detection area with laser light and receiving reflected light resulting from the irradiation with the laser light; Hamaguchi, para 0033, teaches the laser radar is a device that generates point cloud information. The laser radar is also referred to as a light detection and ranging (LiDAR)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yamamoto and Wang with based on the three-dimensional point cloud data as taught by Hamaguchi with the motivation for using a laser radar that irradiates the detection area with laser light and receives reflected light of the laser light to generate point cloud information (Hamaguchi, para 0006).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamamoto, now incorporating Wang and Hamaguchi, teaches The road structure management system according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to perform the following processing:
calculating a degree of urgency for preserving the damaged area according to the level of the damage degree according to the mode of the damage, (Yamamoto, para 0051, uses the road surface damage information to determine whether the road is to be repaired or mended, work efficiency may be improved by excluding serious road surface damage that requires immediate repair (mend; Examiner notes urgent), and determining a repair range and a priority of repair);
calculating resources to be dispatched to the damaged area according to the degree of urgency; and (Yamamoto, para 0029, the crack (the road surface damage) with a predetermined size or more is promptly repaired (mended) by a road manager RM);
causing the output unit to output the degree of urgency and calculation result of the resources (Yamamoto, para 0088, the road surface damage information is provided to the road manager RM, a road range requiring repair (mend; Examiner notes urgent) can be presented, and the necessity of repair and the range can be easily determined).
Regarding claim 5, the claim is an obvious variant to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 5 recites a non-transitory storage medium, See at least Yamamoto, para 0094, teaches a medium such as a CD-ROM (non-transitory medium).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 U.5.C. § 101 rejections: Examiner has updated the 101 rejections in light of the most recent claim amendments. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are found unpersuasive and Examiner maintains the 101 rejection. With respect to Applicants remarks that the claims are not directed towards an abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the claims are directed to all three abstract groupings of certain methods of organizing human activity, mathematical concepts and mental processes as explained in the above 101 analysis. Further, Examiner respectfully notes, Applicant appears to be confusing the additional elements (e.g. LIDAR device) under Step 2A: Prong One: Abstract Ideas. The additional elements are analyzed in Step 2A: Prong Two and Step 2B of the 101 analysis.
With respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (server; processor; detection unit in vehicle; LIDAR device; three-dimensional point cloud data; output unit; non-transitory storage medium; computer) are additional elements to perform the steps and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. With respect to the LIDAR device, the claims are not rooted in LIDAR technology, and the claims do not solve a technical problem that only arises in LIDAR devices. MPEP § 2106.05(a). The LIDAR device being referred to does nothing more than generally link the abstract idea to the technological environment and/or merely applies LIDAR technology in the manner it is known for, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or significantly more. With respect to Applicants remarks on Enfish, in Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality. It was the specification' s discussion of how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility. The claim was not simply using general purpose computers to perform an abstract idea, but a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. Unlike Enfish, the instant claimed invention is not improving a computer's ability to store data in a particular data structure (i.e., a self-referential database). Rather, the claimed invention is directed to road structure management. There is no indication that the claimed invention includes any improvement analogous to Enfish or the software arts. Further, there are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed limitations. Therefore, Applicants remarks are found unpersuasive and Examiner maintains the 101 rejection with respect to these and all depending claims unless otherwise indicated
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections. With respect to the prior art rejections, Applicants arguments have been considered but are moot in light of the most recent claim amendments as the Examiner has updated the rejections. With respect to Applicants remarks on the newly added limitations including a LIDAR device, see above updated 103 rejection including the newly applied Hamaguchi reference.
Conclusion
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 REBECCA R NOVAK whose telephone number is (571)272-2524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm 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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on (571) 272-6782. 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.
/R.R.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629