DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the amendments and arguments filed June 30th, 2026. Claims 1-19 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 1:
The claim 1 is directed to a statutory category of product performing a method.
Step 2a Prong 1:
The method of claim 1 is a mental process and mathematical calculation. The product of claim 1 merely consists of a computer calculating (ii) a post-process wheel speed obtained by performing a low-pass filter process on the pre-process wheel speed; and determine whether there is an anomaly in the wheel based on the fluctuation data which under its BRI consists of calculating the wheel speed of a wheel by using a low-pass filter and determining if there are any irregularities. For example, a mechanic for a car can diagnose the condition of the wheels and fasteners of the wheel by testing the car using a speedometer, using a low-pass filter to make the results clearer, and checking for irregularities.
Step 2a Prong 2:
Claim 1 recites the additional element of [a] determination device, comprising processing circuitry, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to… upon receipt of which the vehicle displays a warning message on a display of the vehicle which is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element is merely indicating that the judicial exception is executed in a computer environment. This additional element is insufficient to find a practical application because it is merely indicating the technological environment of the invention.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of acquire fluctuation data indicating a progression of a fluctuation value… (i) a pre-process wheel speed detected by a wheel speed sensor that detects a rotation speed of a wheel of a vehicle which is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element is merely mere data gathering. This additional element is insufficient to find a practical application because it is an insignificant pre-solution activity of gathering data.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of when having determined that there is the anomaly in the wheel, transmit to the vehicle a warning which is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of computers. This additional element is insufficient to find a practical application because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Step 2b:
The additional element of [a] determination device, comprising processing circuitry, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to… upon receipt of which the vehicle displays a warning message on a display of the vehicle, which was considered mere indication of the technological environment of the invention in step 2a, is similarly insufficient for a finding of significantly more because it is merely having the judicial exception be executed in a computer environment. For example, the MPEP provides that “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”. See MPEP 2106.05(h)(vi) “Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
The additional element of acquire fluctuation data indicating a progression of a fluctuation value… (i) a pre-process wheel speed detected by a wheel speed sensor that detects a rotation speed of a wheel of a vehicle, which was considered insignificant pre-solution activity in step 2a, is similarly insufficient for a finding of significantly more because it is mere a step of gathering data which is insignificant extra solution activity. For example, the MPEP provides that “[a]n example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent”. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(vi) “Determining the level of a biomarker in blood, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968. See also PerkinElmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd., 496 Fed. App'x 65, 73, 105 USPQ2d 1960, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (assessing or measuring data derived from an ultrasound scan, to be used in a diagnosis)”.
The additional element of when having determined that there is the anomaly in the wheel, transmit to the vehicle a warning, which was considered a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in step 2a, is similarly insufficient for a finding of significantly more because it is mere a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity for computers. For example, the MPEP provides that “[i]f the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility”. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))”.
Claims 2-19 fall under the same judicial exceptions of claim(s) 1 and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites the same judicial exception of claim 1 and goes on to define that the determination of the anomaly is a determination that the fasteners between the wheel and the hub are loose which can be practically performed in the human mind. For example, a mechanic for a car can diagnose the condition of the wheels and fasteners of the wheel by testing the car using a speedometer and checking for irregularities such as the wheel not staying aligned during testing or its speed is fluctuating.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the same judicial exception of claim 2 and goes on to define that the mathematical calculations includes a time-integrated value over a prescribed period of a fluctuation amount, the fluctuation amount being an absolute value of the fluctuation value which under its BRI is also a mathematical calculation.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites the same judicial exception of claim 3 and goes on to define that the mathematical calculations includes an upper limit value is set for the fluctuation amount, and the time-integrated value is calculated using the fluctuation amount that is limited by the upper limit value so as not to exceed the upper limit value which under its BRI is also a mathematical calculation.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites the same judicial exception of claim 3 and goes on to define that the mathematical calculations includes the fluctuation data includes a gradient of a progression of a cumulative total of the time-integrated value in a calculation period, the calculation period being longer than the prescribed period, and the gradient is calculated using multiple time-integrated values calculated in the calculation period which under its BRI is also a mathematical calculation.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites the same judicial exception of claim 5 and goes on to define that the determination of the anomaly is a determination that the fasteners between the wheel and the hub are loose which can be practically performed in the human mind. For example, a mechanic for a car can diagnose the condition of the wheels and fasteners of the wheel by testing the car using a speedometer and checking for irregularities such as the wheel not staying aligned during testing or its speed is fluctuating.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites the same judicial exception of claim 6 but recites the additional element of the threshold is set based on the gradient included in previously acquired fluctuation data for the wheel for which a determination is performed which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is an insignificant pre-solution activity of indicating the data that will be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(iii) “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites the same judicial exception of claim 6 but recites the additional element of the wheel includes a wheel for which a determination is performed and a wheel for which the determination is not performed, the threshold is set based on the gradient of the wheel for which the determination is not determined, and the gradient used for setting the threshold is acquired in a same time period as a time period in which the gradient of the wheel for which the determination is performed is acquired which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is an insignificant pre-solution activity of indicating the data that will be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(iii) “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the same judicial exception of claim 2 but recites the additional element of the fluctuation data includes a convergence count that is a sum of a number of times the fluctuation value has changed from outside a prescribed range centered around zero to inside the prescribed range, and a number of times the fluctuation value has changed from inside the prescribed range to outside the prescribed range within a counting period which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is an insignificant pre-solution activity of indicating the data that will be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(iii) “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites the same judicial exception of claim 9 and goes on to define that the determination of the anomaly is a determination that the fasteners between the wheel and the hub are loose when the convergence count is less than or equal to a threshold which can be practically performed in the human mind. For example, a mechanic for a car can diagnose the condition of the wheels and fasteners of the wheel by testing the car using a speedometer and checking for irregularities such as the wheel not staying aligned during testing or its speed is fluctuating.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites the same judicial exception of claim 10 but recites the additional element of the threshold is set based on the gradient included in previously acquired fluctuation data for the wheel for which a determination is performed which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is an insignificant pre-solution activity of indicating the data that will be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(iii) “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites the same judicial exception of claim 10 but recites the additional element of the wheel includes a wheel for which a determination is performed and a wheel for which the determination is not performed, the threshold is set based on the convergence count at the wheel for which the determination is not determined, and the convergence count used for setting the threshold is acquired in a same time period as a time period in which the convergence count at the wheel for which the determination is performed is acquired which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is an insignificant pre-solution activity of indicating the data that will be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(iii) “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites the same judicial exception of claim 1 but recites the additional element of the processing circuitry is configured not to use, for the determination of whether there is the anomaly in the wheel, the fluctuation data when a state of the vehicle is a specific state, the specific state includes at least one of a state in which an antilock brake system of the vehicle is activated, a state in which a traction control system of the vehicle is activated, a state in which a vehicle stability control system of the vehicle is activated, and a state in which the vehicle is traveling on rough terrain which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is an insignificant pre-solution activity of indicating the data that will be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(iii) “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites the same judicial exception of claim 1 but with the additional elements of the vehicle includes an electronic control unit directly connected to the wheel speed sensor via a communication line, and the processing circuitry is configured to determine whether there is an anomaly in the wheel based on the fluctuation data calculated by the electronic control unit which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is merely indicating the technological environment that the determination is performed. See MPEP 2106.05(h)(iv) “Specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites the same judicial exception of claim 1 but claim 15 is in the statutory category of product.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, they are rejected under the same analysis as claims 3, 5, and 9 with regards to claim 1 but with different claims. Claim 16 relates to claims 3 and 5 but is dependent on claim 15, and claim 17 relates to claim 9 but is dependent on claim 15. Claims 16 and 17 all relate back to their respective claims as listed prior but with the additional elements of transmit the [gradient/convergence count] to the determination device as the fluctuation data, which fail to amount to a practical application or significantly more just as claim 15 had with claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites the same judicial exception of claim 1 but claim 15 is in the statutory category of machine.
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected under the same analysis as claim 2 with regards to claim 1 but is dependent on claim 18.
Given the above analysis, examiner has determined that claims 1-19 are not eligible subject matter under 101 and are thus rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 13-15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited of record Hall et al. (US Pub. No. 20180009429 A1), herein after Hall, and further in view of previously cited of record Kosugi; Masanori (US Pub. No. 20230152173 A1), herein after Kosugi.
Regarding claim 1, Hall teaches [a] determination device, comprising processing circuitry, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to (Hall: Para. 0053, teaching that the invention can be applied using a computer that is programmed to perform the steps of the invention): acquire fluctuation data indicating a progression of a fluctuation value that is a difference between a (i) pre-process wheel speed detected by a wheel speed sensor that detects a rotation speed of a wheel of a vehicle and (ii) a post-process wheel speed obtained by performing a low-pass filter process on the pre-process wheel speed (Hall: Para. 0030-0033, teaching that the system detects the wheel speed of a wheel, passes the wheel speed data through a low pass filter, and then compares the actual wheel speed data with the filtered wheel speed data; and Para. 0036, teaching that the difference in the wheel speed data is used to monitor for variance in the wheel speed over a time period); and determine whether there is an anomaly in the wheel based on the fluctuation data (Hall: Para. 0040, teaching that the wheel speed data is used to determine how loose the wheels are).
Hall is silent to when having determined that there is the anomaly in the wheel, transmit to the vehicle a warning, upon receipt of which the vehicle displays a warning message on a display of the vehicle.
In a similar field, Kanda teaches when having determined that there is the anomaly in the wheel, transmit to the vehicle a warning, upon receipt of which the vehicle displays a warning message on a display of the vehicle (Kosugi: Para. 0092, teaching displaying to a user of a vehicle a warning that a loose bolt has been detected in one of the wheels) for the benefit of ensuring that the user is able to perform proper maintenance on their vehicle in a timely manner.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the wheel speed fluctuation which represents the loosening of the wheel’s fasteners from Hall to warn the driver when it is detected that the wheel’s fasteners are loose by displaying a warning to the driver, as taught by Kosugi, for the benefit of ensuring that the user is able to perform proper maintenance on their vehicle in a timely manner.
Regarding claim 2, Hall and Kosugi remain as applied as in claim 1, and Hall goes on to further teach [t]he determination device according to claim 1, wherein the anomaly in the wheel includes looseness in fastening between the wheel and a hub (Hall: Para. 0040, teaching that the wheel speed data is used to determine how loose the wheels are; and Para. 0006, teaching that the looseness of the wheels is indicative of the looseness of the wheel nuts used to fix a wheel to the threads of a vehicle axle).
Regarding claim 13, Hall and Kosugi remain as applied as in claim 1, and Hall goes on to further teach [t]he determination device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured not to use, for the determination of whether there is the anomaly in the wheel, the fluctuation data when a state of the vehicle is a specific state, the specific state includes at least one of a state in which an antilock brake system of the vehicle is activated, a state in which a traction control system of the vehicle is activated, a state in which a vehicle stability control system of the vehicle is activated, and a state in which the vehicle is traveling on rough terrain (Hall: Para. 0045 and 0046, teaching a second detection signal that is calculated by a band pass filter used to determine if the wheel is loose by comparing it to a reference signal; and Para. 0051, teaching that the reference signal may be chosen by a person skilled in the art based on external factors such as the condition of the road).
Regarding claim 14, Hall and Kosugi remain as applied as in claim 1, and goes on to further teach [t]he determination device according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle includes an electronic control unit directly connected to the wheel speed sensor via a communication line (Hall: Para. 0017, teaching that the sensor produces electric signals that are sent to processors; and Para. 0053, teaching that the invention can be applied using a computer that is programmed to perform the steps of the invention), and the processing circuitry is configured to determine whether there is an anomaly in the wheel based on the fluctuation data calculated by the electronic control unit (Hall: Para. 0040, teaching that the wheel speed data is used to determine how loose the wheels are).
Regarding claim 15, Hall teaches [a]n information transmission device, comprising processing circuitry, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to (Hall: Para. 0053, teaching that the invention can be applied using a computer that is programmed to perform the steps of the invention): acquire a pre-process wheel speed detected by a wheel speed sensor that detects a rotation speed of a wheel of a vehicle; acquire a post-process wheel speed by performing low-pass filter process on the pre-process wheel speed; calculate a fluctuation value that is a difference between the pre-process wheel speed and the post-process wheel speed (Hall: Para. 0030-0033, teaching that the system detects the wheel speed of a wheel, passes the wheel speed data through a low pass filter, and then compares the actual wheel speed data with the filtered wheel speed data; and Para. 0036, teaching that the difference in the wheel speed data is used to monitor for variance in the wheel speed over a time period); and transmit fluctuation data indicating a progression of the fluctuation value to a determination device comprising processing circuitry configured to (Hall: Para. 0040, teaching that the wheel speed data is used to determine how loose the wheels are; and Para. 0028, teaching transmitting the detection of the loose wheel to the operating system of the car) (i) determine whether there is an anomaly in the wheel based on the fluctuation data and (ii) when having determined that there is the anomaly in the wheel (Hall: Para. 0040, teaching that the wheel speed data is used to determine how loose the wheels are; and Para. 0028, teaching transmitting the detection of the loose wheel to the operating system of the car).
Hall is silent to transmit to the vehicle a warning, upon receipt of which the vehicle displays a warning message on a display of the vehicle.
In a similar field, Kanda teaches transmit to the vehicle a warning, upon receipt of which the vehicle displays a warning message on a display of the vehicle (Kosugi: Para. 0092, teaching displaying to a user of a vehicle a warning that a loose bolt has been detected in one of the wheels) for the benefit of ensuring that the user is able to perform proper maintenance on their vehicle in a timely manner.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the wheel speed fluctuation which represents the loosening of the wheel’s fasteners from Hall to warn the driver when it is detected that the wheel’s fasteners are loose by displaying a warning to the driver, as taught by Kosugi, for the benefit of ensuring that the user is able to perform proper maintenance on their vehicle in a timely manner.
Regarding claim 18, Hall teaches [a] determination system, comprising an information transmission device and a determination device, wherein the information transmission device is configured to (Hall: Para. 0053, teaching that the invention can be applied using a computer that is programmed to perform the steps of the invention): acquire a pre-process wheel speed detected by a wheel speed sensor that detects a rotation speed of a wheel of a vehicle; acquire a post-process wheel speed by performing low-pass filter process on the pre-process wheel speed; calculate a fluctuation value that is a difference between the pre-process wheel speed and the post-process wheel speed (Hall: Para. 0030-0033, teaching that the system detects the wheel speed of a wheel, passes the wheel speed data through a low pass filter, and then compares the actual wheel speed data with the filtered wheel speed data; and Para. 0036, teaching that the difference in the wheel speed data is used to monitor for variance in the wheel speed over a time period); and transmit fluctuation data indicating a progression of the fluctuation value to the determination device (Hall: Para. 0028, teaching transmitting the detection of the loose wheel to the operating system of the car), and the determination device is configured to: determine whether there is an anomaly in the wheel based on the fluctuation data (Hall: Para. 0040, teaching that the wheel speed data is used to determine how loose the wheels are).
Hall is silent to when having determined that there is the anomaly in the wheel, transmit to the vehicle a warning, upon receipt of which the vehicle displays a warning message on a display of the vehicle to notify a user of the vehicle of the anomaly in the wheel.
In a similar field, Kanda teaches when having determined that there is the anomaly in the wheel, transmit to the vehicle a warning, upon receipt of which the vehicle displays a warning message on a display of the vehicle to notify a user of the vehicle of the anomaly in the wheel (Kosugi: Para. 0092, teaching displaying to a user of a vehicle a warning that a loose bolt has been detected in one of the wheels) for the benefit of ensuring that the user is able to perform proper maintenance on their vehicle in a timely manner.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the wheel speed fluctuation which represents the loosening of the wheel’s fasteners from Hall to warn the driver when it is detected that the wheel’s fasteners are loose by displaying a warning to the driver, as taught by Kosugi, for the benefit of ensuring that the user is able to perform proper maintenance on their vehicle in a timely manner.
Regarding claim 19, Hall and Kosugi remain as applied as in claim 18, and Hall goes on to further teach [t]he determination system according to claim 18, wherein the anomaly in the wheel includes looseness in fastening between the wheel and a hub (Hall: Para. 0040, teaching that the wheel speed data is used to determine how loose the wheels are; and Para. 0006, teaching that the looseness of the wheels is indicative of the looseness of the wheel nuts used to fix a wheel to the threads of a vehicle axle).
Claims 3-8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall in view of Kosugi as applied to claims 2 and 15 above, and further in view of previously cited of record Kanda et al. (US Pub. No. 20150290995 A1), herein after Kanda.
Regarding claim 3, Hall and Kosugi remain as applied as in claim 2, and Hall goes on to further teach [t]he determination device according to claim 2, wherein the fluctuation data includes a time-integrated value over a prescribed period of a fluctuation amount (Hall: Para. 0036, teaching that the variance of the wheel speed is calculated over a finite time period).
They are silent to the fluctuation amount being an absolute value of the fluctuation value.
In a similar field, Kanda teaches the fluctuation amount being an absolute value of the fluctuation value (Kanda: Para. 0129, teaching that the variation in the wheel speed of a vehicle is calculated based on the absolute value of the variation and that the variation has an upper limit value that cannot be exceeded) for the benefit of making the comparison between fluctuations of wheel speed easier by not needing to worry about the signs of the wheel speed variation values.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the calculation of the wheel speed variations overtime from Hall in view of Kosugi to have the variations be absolute values when using them in further calculations, as taught by Kanda, of making the comparison between fluctuations of wheel speed easier by not needing to worry about the signs of the wheel speed variation values.
Regarding claim 4, Hall, Kosugi, and Kanda remain as applied as in claim 3, and Kanda goes on to further teach [t]he determination device according to claim 3, wherein an upper limit value is set for the fluctuation amount, and the time-integrated value is calculated using the fluctuation amount that is limited by the upper limit value so as not to exceed the upper limit value (Kanda: Para. 0129, teaching that the variation in the wheel speed of a vehicle is calculated based on the absolute value of the variation and that the variation has an upper limit value that cannot be exceeded; and Para. 0128, teaching that the vehicle is controlled to prevent the upper limit from being exceeded).
Regarding claim 5, Hall, Kosugi, and Kanda remain as applied as in claim 3, and Hall goes on to further teach [t]he determination device according to claim 3, wherein the fluctuation data includes a gradient of a progression of a cumulative total of the time-integrated value in a calculation period, the calculation period being longer than the prescribed period, and the gradient is calculated using multiple time-integrated values calculated in the calculation period (Hall: Para. 0022, teaching that the variance over time of the wheel speed calculations is calculated over a plurality of time periods to calculate the overall variance over time).
Regarding claim 6, Hall, Kosugi, and Kanda remain as applied as in claim 5, and Hall goes on to further teach [t]he determination device according to claim 5, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine that there is looseness in the fastening between the wheel and the hub when the gradient is greater than or equal to a threshold (Hall: Para. 0027, teaching that the wheels are determined to be loose when the signals used to calculate the variance exceed a threshold).
Regarding claim 7, Hall, Kosugi, and Kanda remain as applied as in claim 6, and Kanda goes on to further teach [t]he determination device according to claim 6, wherein the threshold is set based on the gradient in the past of the wheel for which a determination is performed (Kanda: Para. 0132, teaching that when the vehicle is slipping the system sets the upper limit based on previous values).
Regarding claim 8, Hall, Kosugi, and Kanda remain as applied as in claim 6, and Hall goes on to further teach [t]he determination device according to claim 6, wherein the wheel includes a wheel for which a determination is performed and a wheel for which the determination is not performed, the threshold is set based on the gradient of the wheel for which the determination is not determined, and the gradient used for setting the threshold is acquired in a same time period as a time period in which the gradient of the wheel for which the determination is performed is acquired (Hall: Para. 0050, teaching that the reference signal used to determine the looseness of the wheel can be based on the wheel speed detected from other wheels at the same time as the wheel speed of the wheel being monitored; and Para. 0052, teaching that the reference signal can be variable over time or constant).
Regarding claim 16, Hall and Kosugi remain as applied as in claim 15, and Hall goes on to further teach [t]he information transmission device according to claim 15, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: periodically calculate a time-integrated value over a prescribed period of a fluctuation amount (Hall: Para. 0036, teaching that the variance of the wheel speed is calculated over a finite time period), calculate a gradient of a progression of a cumulative total of the time-integrated value in a calculation period using multiple time-integrated values calculated in the calculation period, the calculation period being longer than the prescribed period (Hall: Para. 0022, teaching that the variance over time of the wheel speed calculations is calculated over a plurality of time periods to calculate the overall variance over time); and transmit the gradient to the determination device as the fluctuation data (Hall: Para. 0028, teaching transmitting the detection of the loose wheel to the operating system of the car).
They are silent to the fluctuation amount being an absolute value of the fluctuation value.
In a similar field, Kanda teaches the fluctuation amount being an absolute value of the fluctuation value (Kanda: Para. 0129, teaching that the variation in the wheel speed of a vehicle is calculated based on the absolute value of the variation and that the variation has an upper limit value that cannot be exceeded) for the benefit of making the comparison between fluctuations of wheel speed easier by not needing to worry about the signs of the wheel speed variation values.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the calculation of the wheel speed variations overtime from Hall in view of Kosugi to have the variations be absolute values when using them in further calculations, as taught by Kanda, of making the comparison between fluctuations of wheel speed easier by not needing to worry about the signs of the wheel speed variation values.
Claims 9, 10, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall in view of Kosugi as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of previously cited of record Kim; Keunjin (US Pub. No. 20230152173 A1), herein after Kim.
Regarding claim 9, Hall and Kosugi remain as applied as in claim 1, however they are silent to [t]he determination device according to claim 2, wherein the fluctuation data includes a convergence count that is a sum of a number of times the fluctuation value has changed from outside a prescribed range centered around zero to inside the prescribed range, and a number of times the fluctuation value has changed from inside the prescribed range to outside the prescribed range within a counting period.
In a similar field, Kim teaches [t]he determination device according to claim 2, wherein the fluctuation data includes a convergence count that is a sum of a number of times the fluctuation value has changed from outside a prescribed range centered around zero to inside the prescribed range, and a number of times the fluctuation value has changed from inside the prescribed range to outside the prescribed range within a counting period (Kim: Para. 0068 and 0071, teaching counting the number of times a reference value that indicates that a wheel nut has exceed a threshold value indicating that the wheel nut has loosened and warning the user when that number has been exceeded) for the benefit of ensuring that the user is able to perform proper maintenance on their vehicle in a timely manner.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the wheel speed fluctuation which represents the loosening of the wheel’s fasteners from Hall in view of Kosugi to warn the driver when a count the number of times the wheel speed fluctuation exceeds a threshold is exceeded, as taught by Kim, for the benefit of ensuring that the user is able to perform proper maintenance on their vehicle in a timely manner.
Regarding claim 10, Hall, Kosugi, and Kim remain as applied as in claim 9, and Kim goes on to further teach [t]he determination device according to claim 9, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine that there is looseness in fastening between the wheel and the hub when the convergence count is less than or equal to a threshold (Kim: Para. 0068 and 0071, teaching counting the number of times a reference value that indicates that a wheel nut has exceed a threshold value indicating that the wheel nut has loosened and warning the user when that number has been exceeded).
Regarding claim 12, Hall, Kosugi, and Kim remain as applied as in claim 10, and Hall goes on to further teach [t]he determination device according to claim 10, wherein the wheel includes a wheel for which a determination is performed and a wheel for which the determination is not performed, the threshold is set based on the convergence count at the wheel for which the determination is not determined, and the convergence count used for setting the threshold is acquired in a same time period as a time period in which the convergence count at the wheel for which the determination is performed is acquired (Hall: Para. 0050, teaching that the reference signal used to determine the looseness of the wheel can be based on the wheel speed detected from other wheels at the same time as the wheel speed of the wheel being monitored; and Para. 0052, teaching that the reference signal can be variable over time or constant).
Regarding claim 17, Hall and Kosugi remain as applied as in claim 15, and Hall goes on to further teach transmit the convergence count to the determination device as the fluctuation data (Hall: Para. 0028, teaching transmitting the detection of the loose wheel to the operating system of the car).
They are silent to [t]he information transmission device according to claim 15, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: calculate a convergence count that is a sum of a number of times the fluctuation value has changed from outside a prescribed range centered around zero to inside the prescribed range, and a number of times the fluctuation value has changed from inside the prescribed range to outside the prescribed range within a counting period.
In a similar field, Kim teaches [t]he information transmission device according to claim 15, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: calculate a convergence count that is a sum of a number of times the fluctuation value has changed from outside a prescribed range centered around zero to inside the prescribed range, and a number of times the fluctuation value has changed from inside the prescribed range to outside the prescribed range within a counting period (Kim: Para. 0068 and 0071, teaching counting the number of times a reference value that indicates that a wheel nut has exceed a threshold value indicating that the wheel nut has loosened and warning the user when that number has been exceeded) for the benefit of ensuring that the user is able to perform proper maintenance on their vehicle in a timely manner.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the wheel speed fluctuation which represents the loosening of the wheel’s fasteners from Hall in view of Kosugi to warn the driver when a count the number of times the wheel speed fluctuation exceeds a threshold is exceeded, as taught by Kim, for the benefit of ensuring that the user is able to perform proper maintenance on their vehicle in a timely manner.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall in view of Kosugi in further view of Kim as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Kanda.
Regarding claim 11, Hall, Kosugi, and Kim remain as applied as in claim 10, however they are silent to [t]he determination device according to claim 10, wherein the threshold is set based on the convergence count in the past of the wheel for which a determination is performed.
In a similar field, Kanda teaches [t]he determination device according to claim 10, wherein the threshold is set based on the convergence count in the past of the wheel for which a determination is performed (Kanda: Para. 0158, teaching that when the vehicle is slipping the system sets the upper limit based on previous values) for the benefit of preventing abnormal sudden changes in the wheel speed from impacting the monitoring of the wheel fluctuations.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the threshold used in the count of the number of times that the wheel speed fluctuates above a threshold from Hall in view of Kosugi in further view of Kim to be based on a previous data point, as taught by Kanda, for the benefit of preventing abnormal sudden changes in the wheel speed from impacting the monitoring of the wheel fluctuations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 30th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments filed June 30th, 2026, with respect to the claim objection of claim 15 have been fully considered and have rendered the claim objection to claim 15 moot. Therefore, the claim objection of claim 15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed June 30th, 2026, with respect to the 112(b) rejections of claims 7, 13, and 15 have been fully considered and have rendered the 112(b) rejections of claims 7, 13, and 15 moot. Therefore, the 112(b) rejections of claims 7, 13, and 15 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed June 30th, 2026 with respect to the 101 rejections of record have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends (see page 10 lines 1-9, filed June 30th, 2026) that the amended limitation of having the process conclude by transmitting a warning of an anomaly in the wheel and displaying the warning is sufficient to render the invention 101 eligible as the inclusion of a display in a vehicle is a particular machine which provides a showing of significantly more while the transmitting and displaying of the warning is a showing of practical application. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the updated 101 rejection above, the examiner notes that the display of the warning and the vehicle are merely indicating the technological environment of the identified abstract ideas rather than limiting the invention to a particular machine as both are common types of computers components or objects on which computers are installed and used in diagnosing wheel fluctuations rather than a specific machine or device that is being used as part of the identified abstract idea. As noted in the updated 101 rejection above, the examiner notes that the transmitting of a warning to a user is a well-understood, routine, or conventional activity of computers.
Applicant's arguments filed June 30th, 2026 with respect to the prior art rejection of claims 1, 15, and 18 in view of Hall have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends (see page 11 line 1 through page 12 line 2, filed June 30th, 2026) that the prior art of Hall is deficient in teaching acquiring data representative of fluctuations of a wheel based on pre-processed wheel speed data and wheel speed data that has been passed through a low-pass filter as the variance of Hall is calculated in paragraph 0037 using only the processed wheel speed data. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the language of paragraph 0037 of Hall is that “Step 32 of computing a variance may determine a variance α(n) on the basis of the imperfection-corrected sensor signal ε(n) by using a low pass filter (it should be noted that the term “variance” as used throughout the whole application does not refer to the standard mathematical definition but to an estimation value of the variance). The low pass filter may for example determine the variance α(n) of the imperfection-corrected sensor signal ε(n) according to the following relation: α(n)=Var(ε)=LP(ε.sup.2)−LP(ε).sup.2, (Eq. 5)” (emphasis added). While the equation provided does only factor in the imperfection-corrected sensor signal ε(n) (the post process wheel speed data), paragraph 0036 of Hall recites “Additionally or alternatively, in step 32, a variance can be computed during the determination of the first detection signal” (emphasis added) and paragraph 0030 recites “The first detection signal can be determined by estimating an imperfection signal in step 31, indicative of an imperfection of the wheel speed signal as compared to the actual wheel speed of the wheel of the vehicle” (emphasis added) which shows that Hall does permit for determining variance of data obtained by comparing a imperfection-corrected sensor signal obtained through a low-pass filter and the actual wheel speed signal of the wheels of the vehicle. The examiner notes, however, that the rejection of claims 1, 15, and 18 has been updated from a 102(a)(1) rejection in view of Hall to a 103 rejection in view of Hall in further view of Kosugi to teach the newly presented display limitation.
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 Aaron K McCullers whose telephone number is (571)272-3523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, Roughly 9 AM - 6 PM ET.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
