DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Application # 19/130,593 filed on May 16, 2025 in which claims 11-20 were presented for examination.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 11-20 are pending, of which claims 11-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101; claims 11-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1); and claims 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed May 16, 2025 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 11-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 11-18 and 20, these claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
The claims recite, when considered individually or as a whole, a method for detecting road conditions. Therefore, claim11-20 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 claim11 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the § 101 rejection. Representative claim 11 recites:
11. (New) A method for determining a road condition comprising:
receiving, by a central computer unit, satellite images of Earth's surface;
extracting, by the central computer unit using digital map data, image information of road surfaces from the received satellite images; and
determining, using a learning algorithm, a road condition of route sections of a respective road from the extracted image information of the road surfaces,
wherein vehicles of a vehicle fleet are connected to the central computer unit using data technology.
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 or with pen and paper. For example, these limitations in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process where a human can look at photographs and determine the road conditions of the roads in those photographs. 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 claims, as a whole, integrate 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”):
11. (New) A method for determining a road condition comprising:
receiving, by a central computer unit, satellite images of Earth's surface;
extracting, by the central computer unit using digital map data, image information of road surfaces from the received satellite images; and
determining, using a learning algorithm, a road condition of route sections of a respective road from the extracted image information of the road surfaces,
wherein vehicles of a vehicle fleet are connected to the central computer unit using data technology.
For the following reasons, 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 “central computer unit,” “digital map data,” “learning algorithm,” and “wherein vehicles of a vehicle fleet are connected to the central computer unit using data technology” the examiner submits that these limitations are mere instructions to “apply it.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Regarding the additional limitation of “receiving … satellite images of Earth’s surface,” the examiner submits that this limitation is an insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
In particular, the receiving data is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations 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. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Accordingly, the additional limitations do 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 Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 11 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 of “central computer unit,” “digital map data,” “learning algorithm,” and “wherein vehicles of a vehicle fleet are connected to the central computer unit using data technology” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “receiving … satellite images of Earth’s surface” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Philion et al., US Publication 2020/0327338.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 12-18 and 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be directed towards statutory subject matter. The claims merely recite: additional mental processes. Each of the further limitations expound upon the mental process and do not recite additional elements integrating the mental process into a practical application or additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. Therefore, dependent claims 12-18 and 20 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claims 11-18 and 20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Philion et al., US Publication 2020/0327338 (hereinafter Philion).
Regarding claim 11, Philion discloses a method for determining a road condition comprising “receiving, by a central computer unit, satellite images of Earth's surface” (Philion ¶ 10) by using a satellite imager to obtain images. Additionally, Philion discloses “extracting, by the central computer unit using digital map data, image information of road surfaces from the received satellite images” (Philion ¶ 40) by extracting style information regarding road conditions such as icy or snow covered roads. Further, Philion discloses “determining, using a learning algorithm, a road condition of route sections of a respective road from the extracted image information of the road surfaces” (Philion ¶¶ 72-72) by translating the image using a new style data, where the new style comes from a learning algorithm and, as discussed above, the style data includes road condition data. The act of translating requires determining where to apply these styles. Finally, Philion discloses “wherein vehicles of a vehicle fleet are connected to the central computer unit using data technology” (Philion ¶78) where a fleet of vehicles are connected to the system using a wireless connection.
Regarding claim 12, Philion discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Philion discloses “training the learning algorithm using ground truth data recorded by the vehicles of the vehicle fleet as the vehicles of the vehicle fleet travel along a respective section of the route sections” (Philion ¶¶ 49-51, 83) by training the algorithm using annotated ground truth data and where the annotations comes from cameras of vehicles as the vehicles are driving on the roads. Further, Philion discloses “transmitting the ground truth data to the central computer unit” (Philion ¶ 78) where the data from each vehicle is uploaded to the central server, which would include the ground truth data.
Regarding claim 13, Philion discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Philion discloses “determining a real road condition using detected signals of a sensor system of a respective vehicle of the vehicle fleet” (Philion ¶¶ 48-51) by detecting objects in the roadway using all the data it has received, which would include the signals of the sensor system of a respective vehicle as discussed in the rejection to claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 14, Philion discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Philion discloses “determining a real road condition using recorded vehicle system states of a respective vehicle of the vehicle fleet” (Philion ¶¶ 48-51) by detecting objects in the roadway using all the data that has received, which would include the signals of the sensor system of a respective vehicle as discussed in the rejection to claim 12 above and where images from the vehicle represent a state of that vehicle.
Regarding claim 16, Philion discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Philion discloses “creating a road condition model using fleet data of the vehicles of the vehicle fleet” (Philion ¶ 74) where the translated image is a model within the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. Further, Philion discloses “creating a further road condition model using the satellite images; and creating a synchronized road condition model using the road condition model, the further road condition model, and further data” (Philion ¶¶ 71-73) by generating multiple styles for detecting road conditions and applying each of them the generate the translated image. The act of adding the style is a form of synchronization under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term.
Regarding claim 17, Philion discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 16 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Philion discloses “providing, by the central computer unit, the synchronized road condition model to the vehicles of the vehicle fleet” (Philion ¶ 78) where updated data is downloaded to individual vehicles.
Regarding claim 18, Philion discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Philion discloses “determining, using the determined road condition, whether to release or block one or more route sections of the route sections for automated driving operation of vehicles” (Philion ¶ 48) where the images are used to control (i.e., release) automated driving operations of the vehicle.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Philion in view of Batts et al., US Publication 2020/0238999 (hereinafter Batts).
Regarding claim 15, Philion discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Philion does not appear to explicitly disclose “determining a friction coefficient of a respective route section of the route section using a detected slip of a driven vehicle wheel of a respective vehicle of the vehicle fleet.”
However, Batts discloses a road condition detection method including the step of “determining a friction coefficient of a respective route section of the route section using a detected slip of a driven vehicle wheel of a respective vehicle of the vehicle fleet” (Batts ¶ 210) where the friction value is determined using a determined slip ratio. Batts specifies that the slip ratio is generated from sensors on the vehicle as it drives on a road section. (Batts ¶ 93).
Philion and Batts are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of road condition detection methods.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Philion and Batts before him or her to modify the autonomous driving of Philion to include the friction coefficient calculation of Batts.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of a fleet of autonomous vehicle. (Batts ¶ 70).
Regarding claim 19, Philion discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Philion does not appear to explicitly disclose “automatically adjusting driving dynamics during operation of a vehicle of the vehicle fleet based on information determined about the road conditions.”
However, Batts discloses a road condition detection method including the step of “automatically adjusting driving dynamics during operation of a vehicle of the vehicle fleet based on information determined about the road conditions” (Batts ¶ 211) by applying anti-lock braking, which is a form of driving dynamics, based on the detected information.
Philion and Batts are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of road condition detection methods.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Philion and Batts before him or her to modify the road condition determination of Philion to include the use of the road condition map of Batts.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of a fleet of autonomous vehicle. (Batts ¶ 70).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Philion in view of Cui et al., US Publication 2023/0298460 (hereinafter Cui).
Regarding claim 20, Philion discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Philion does not appear to explicitly disclose “notifying a body responsible for repairing a road of road damage when road damage is detection on a route section of the route sections.”
However, Cui discloses a road condition detection method including the step of “notifying a body responsible for repairing a road of road damage when road damage is detection on a route section of the route sections” (Cui Abstract) by notifying the department of transportation of the need for road repairs.
Philion and Cui are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of road condition detection method.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Philion and Cui before him or her to modify the road condition detection method of Philion to include the reporting of the damage for repair of Cui.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an action would have the beneficial result of improving the roads and, therefore, the community.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Lavie et al., US Publication 2016/0236638, Method for using artificial intelligence to detect road conditions.
Grubwinkler, US Publication 2021/0129847, Method for using artificial intelligence to detect road conditions.
Harouche et al., US Publication 2022/0227373, Method for using artificial intelligence to detect road conditions.
Chong et al., US Publication 2023/0206556, Method for using artificial intelligence to detect road conditions.
Craigen et al., US Publication 2023/0234600, Method for using artificial intelligence to detect road conditions.
Kadam et al., US Publication 2024/0104121, Method for using artificial intelligence to detect road conditions.
Aviv et al., US Publication 2024/0361137, Method for using artificial intelligence to detect road conditions.
Atsmon et al., US Patent 9,076,045, Method for using artificial intelligence to detect road conditions.
Vose et al., US Patent 10,417,914, Method for using artificial intelligence to detect road conditions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights