Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “an index” instead of “the index”;
Claim 6 recites “a plurality of fixers” instead of “the plurality of fixers”;
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 7-11, 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a device (i.e. machine), claim 7 is directed to a method (i.e. process), and claim 13 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (machine). Therefore, claims 1, 7, and 13 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 1, 7 and 13 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
Claim 1 recites:
A wheel condition determination device comprising: circuitry configured to
sequentially obtain accelerations in an axle direction of each of wheels attached to both ends of an axle of a vehicle;
calculate, based on the sequentially obtained accelerations, variations in a time direction among the accelerations of each of the wheels;
calculate an index for comparing the variations of the wheels; and
determine whether or not one or a plurality of fixers to fix the wheels to the axle are loose, based on the index.
Claims 7 and 13, comprise the same functions as claim 1 but for a method and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “calculating and determining” steps encompasses evaluating the status of the wheels based on an index, which may be performed by the human mind or using paper and pencil. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of a wheel condition determination device, a method, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, sequentially obtain accelerations in an axle direction of each of wheels attached to both ends of an axle of a vehicle. The examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the wheel determination device, and non-transitory computer readable medium are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the calculating and determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, these elements are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. In addition to that, the examiner submits that sequentially obtaining accelerations is an insignificant extra-solution activity that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the obtaining step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle data for use in the calculating and determining steps), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element recited above amount to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of obtaining the information, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of receiving the image and acquiring the coordinate are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors from which the data is acquired/received are all conventional sensors. 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 over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-5, 8-11, and 14-17 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claims. Therefore, claims 1-13 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meguro (US 2024/0369454 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 13, Meguro teaches a wheel condition determination device (Abstract; [0006]) comprising:
circuitry configured to sequentially obtain accelerations in an axle direction of each of wheels attached to both ends of an axle of a vehicle ([0006]: “an acceleration acquisition part that sequentially acquires axial accelerations in an axial direction of a wheel, the axial accelerations being detected at predetermined intervals by an acceleration sensor provided in the wheel of a vehicle”; [0027]; [0028]);
calculate, based on the sequentially obtained accelerations, variations in a time direction among the accelerations of each of the wheels ([0036]; [0037]);
calculate an index for comparing the variations of the wheels; and determine whether or not one or a plurality of fixers to fix the wheels to the axle are loose, based on the index ([0023]; [0024]; [0025]: determining whether or not there is a high possibility that the wheel 10 will come off on the basis of the magnitude of axial acceleration acting on the wheel 10; i.e. index is broadly interpreted as the magnitude of the acceleration; [0036]; Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 14, Meguro teaches the circuitry is configured to calculate an index for comparing the variations of the wheels after the variations are subjected to a smoothing process for each of the wheels ([0035]: “The wheel separation determination part 125 sets, as the determination threshold value, a value obtained by multiplying a moving mean value of the axial accelerations by a predetermined coefficient.”).
Regarding claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 15, and 16, Meguro discloses a warning generator configured to generate and output a warning in response to the circuitry determining that the fixing mechanism is loose ([0024]: “determines whether or not there is a high possibility that the wheel 10 will come off on the basis of the magnitude of axial acceleration acting on the wheel 10, and notifies a driver or the like when the possibility is high. In this way, the driver or the like can grasp that the wheel 10 is in the state where it may come off before the wheel 10 comes off, making it easier to take measures.”)
Regarding claims 5, 11, and 17, Meguro discloses each of the one or more fixers includes a bolt and nut fastenable to the bolt (Fig. 2, [0022]).
Regarding claim 6, Meguro discloses the circuitry continuously sequentially determines, in real time, according to a predetermined cycle, whether or not one or a plurality of fixers to fix the wheels to the axle are loose, based on the index ([0023]: “However, if the nut is loosened, there is a possibility that the nut becomes further loosened while the vehicle is traveling, causing the wheel 10 to come off the axle. In order to ensure safety during traveling, it is desirable to perform maintenance such as tightening nuts before the wheel 10 comes off”; [0040]: “The process shown in FIG. 5 is performed while the vehicle 1 is traveling”; Note: While the vehicle is traveling is broadly interpreted to yield the real time continuous calculation; Fig. 5 process is broadly interpreted as the predetermined cycle).
Regarding claims 12 and 18, Meguro discloses said determining is performed continuously and sequentially according to a predetermined cycle ([0023]: “However, if the nut is loosened, there is a possibility that the nut becomes further loosened while the vehicle is traveling, causing the wheel 10 to come off the axle. In order to ensure safety during traveling, it is desirable to perform maintenance such as tightening nuts before the wheel 10 comes off”; [0040]: “The process shown in FIG. 5 is performed while the vehicle 1 is traveling”; Note: While the vehicle is traveling is broadly interpreted to yield the real time continuous calculation; Fig. 5 process is broadly interpreted as the predetermined cycle).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHIRA BAAJOUR whose telephone number is (313)446-6602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SCOTT BROWNE can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/SHAHIRA BAAJOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights