DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 – 7 and 10 - 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method for identifying road surface information for a vehicle (i.e., process), claim 10 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program thereon, wherein the computer program, when run by a processor and claim 16 is directed to a vehicle (i.e., machine). Therefore, claims 1, 10 and 16 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
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 claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
“a method for identifying road surface information for a vehicle, the method comprising:
acquiring driving data of the vehicle, and determining a current driving condition of the vehicle based on the driving data of the vehicle;
based on the current driving condition of the vehicle being a first predetermined condition, calculating a first parameter of a road surface based on the driving data of the vehicle and calculating a first adhesion coefficient based on the first parameter and a first predetermined strategy;
based on the current driving condition of the vehicle being a second predetermined condition, calculating a second parameter of the road surface based on the driving data of the vehicle and calculating a second adhesion coefficient based on the second parameter and a second predetermined strategy; and
acquiring a final adhesion coefficient value by filtering the first adhesion coefficient or the second adhesion coefficient; and
acquiring current road condition information of the road surface by looking up a predetermined relationship table between a standard road condition adhesion coefficient and road condition information based on the final adhesion coefficient value.”
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. The claimed “method” is being interpreted to be equivalent in function to mathematical concepts, as well as, to the human mind. For example, “acquiring driving data of the vehicle, and determining a current driving condition of the vehicle based on the driving data of the vehicle; based on the current driving condition of the vehicle being a first predetermined condition, calculating a first parameter of a road surface based on the driving data of the vehicle and calculating a first adhesion coefficient based on the first parameter and a first predetermined strategy… acquiring a final adhesion coefficient value by filtering the first adhesion coefficient or the second adhesion coefficient; and acquiring current road condition information of the road surface by looking up a predetermined relationship table….” in the context of this claim encompasses that the operator may manually observe a current driving condition and manually write down the observations. The manually observed information may be manipulated with a mathematical formula to determine both the first and second parameters of a road surface and correlate the values to corresponding first and second adhesion coefficient values to a look up table. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, on the use of mathematical formulas, see MPEP 2106.04 (claims can recite a novel formula but they are still directed to math):
“For example, the mathematical formula in Flook, the laws of nature in Mayo, and the isolated DNA in Myriad were all novel or newly discovered, but nonetheless were considered by the Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions because they were “‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that lie beyond the domain of patent protection.” Myriad, 569 U.S. 576, 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1976, 1978 (noting that Myriad discovered the BRCA1 and BRCA1 genes and quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965); Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 (“the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”);”
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (a math formula applied in an mechanical system is still just math)
The Court’s rationale for identifying these “mathematical concepts” as judicial exceptions is that a ‘‘mathematical formula as such is not accorded the protection of our patent laws,’’ Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191, 209 USPQ at 15 (citing Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673), and thus ‘‘the discovery of [a mathematical formula] cannot support a patent unless there is some other inventive concept in its application.’’ Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ at 199. In the past, the Supreme Court sometimes described mathematical concepts as laws of nature, and at other times described these concepts as judicial exceptions without specifying a particular type of exception. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 65, 175 USPQ2d at 674; Flook, 437 U.S. at 589, 198 USPQ2d at 197; Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94, 40 USPQ 199, 202 (1939) (‘‘[A] scientific truth, or the mathematical expression of it, is not patentable invention[.]’’). More recent opinions of the Supreme Court, however, have affirmatively characterized mathematical relationships and formulas as abstract ideas. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 218, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (describing Flook as holding “that a mathematical formula for computing ‘alarm limits’ in a catalytic conversion process was also a patent-ineligible abstract idea.”); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611-12, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) (noting that the claimed “concept of hedging, described in claim 1 and reduced to a mathematical formula in claim 4, is an unpatentable abstract idea,”).
Examples of mathematical relationships recited in a claim include:
iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721.
MPEP 2106.05(h) (field of use, using a mathematical equation in a mechanical process, vs integration into a practical application, using outcome of mathematical equation to effect operation of a mechanical device):
“ In Flook, the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm limit (a numerical limit on a process variable such as temperature, pressure or flow rate) according to a mathematical formula “in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons.” 437 U.S. at 586, 198 USPQ at 196. Processes for the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons were used in the petrochemical and oil-refining fields. Id. Although the applicant argued that limiting the use of the formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields should make the claim eligible because this limitation ensured that the claim did not preempt all uses of the formula, the Supreme Court disagreed. 437 U.S. at 588-90, 198 USPQ at 197-98. Instead, the additional element in Flook regarding the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons was not sufficient to make the claim eligible, because it was merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that did not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating the alarm limit value were performed.”
“In contrast, the additional elements in Diamond v. Diehr as a whole provided eligibility and did not merely recite calculating a cure time using the Arrhenius equation “in a rubber molding process”. Instead, the claim in Diehr recited specific limitations such as monitoring the elapsed time since the mold was closed, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold cavity, repetitively calculating a cure time by inputting the measured temperature into the Arrhenius equation, and opening the press automatically when the calculated cure time and the elapsed time are equivalent. 450 U.S. at 179, 209 USPQ at 5, n. 5. These specific limitations act in concert to transform raw, uncured rubber into cured molded rubber. 450 U.S. at 177-78, 209 USPQ at 4.”
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: “acquiring current road condition information of the road surface by looking up a predetermined relationship table between a standard road condition adhesion coefficient and road condition information based on the final adhesion coefficient value.”
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 using the method acquiring current road condition information of the road surface by looking up a predetermined relationship table between a standard road condition adhesion coefficient and road condition information based on the final adhesion coefficient value, the examiner submits that these limitations are mere instructions to apply the above-noted abstract idea by merely using a computer to perform the process (MPEP § 2106.05). In particular, the processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of acquiring information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
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, 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 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 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 of “acquiring current road condition information of the road surface by looking up a predetermined relationship table between a standard road condition adhesion coefficient and road condition information based on the final adhesion coefficient value” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2 – 7, 11 – 15 and 17 - 22 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, dependent claims 2-7, 11-15 and 17-22 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1, 10 and 16. Therefore, claims 1 – 7 and 10 - 22 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 10 and 15 - 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki et al. (Pub. No.: US 2003/0078717 A1) in view of Kim (Pub. No.: US 2024/0326870 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 16; Kawasaki teaches a method for identifying road surface information for a vehicle (FIG. 3), a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program thereon (Control Operations Program ¶ 17) and a vehicle (FIG. 1), comprising: a memory (2cd, FIG. 2), a processor (2b, FIG. 2), and a computer program stored on the memory and executable on the processor (¶ 17), comprising:
acquiring driving data of the vehicle, and determining a current driving condition of the vehicle based on the driving data of the vehicle (Capturing wheel speed S1, calculating of vehicle velocity and traveling distance S2; FIG. 3);
based on the current driving condition of the vehicle being a first predetermined condition (Road surface condition dry asphalt road ¶¶ 19, 65), calculating a first parameter of a road surface based on the driving data of the vehicle (friction coefficient being high and slip ratio between front and rear wheels varying less ¶ 19 and S3-S5, FIG. 3) and calculating a first adhesion coefficient based on the first parameter (Similarly, linear regression coefficient KA1 ¶ 18) and a first predetermined strategy (No alarm ¶ 16);
based on the current driving condition of the vehicle being a second predetermined condition (frozen/snow road ¶¶ 19, 65), calculating a second parameter of the road surface based on the driving data of the vehicle (friction coefficient being low and slip ratio between front and rear wheels varying greatly ¶ 19 and S3-S5, FIG. 3) and calculating a second adhesion coefficient based on the second parameter (correlation coefficient RA based on low friction coefficient ¶ 20) and a second predetermined strategy (Alarm is issued to driver when conditions are determined to be slippery ¶ 63); and
acquiring a final adhesion coefficient value by filtering the first adhesion coefficient or the second adhesion coefficient (Compared to final threshold for judging road surface condition ¶¶ 26, 49-59 and see also SS2, S21, FIG. 3; Calculating threshold LA S20, FIG. 4).
Kawasaki is silent to acquiring current road condition information of the road surface by looking up a predetermined relationship table between a standard road condition adhesion coefficient and road condition information based on the final adhesion coefficient value. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Kim teaches an apparatus for controlling speed of an autonomous vehicle by determining a slip ratio based on the wheel speed and a road surface condition based on the wheel torque and the slip ratio. The road surface condition is classified according to a friction coefficient of the road surface, and the wheel torque and braking torque. A driving torque is subsequently applied to the wheel (See Abstract). More specifically, a memory stores a look-up table that outputs information on the road surface condition when the wheel torque and a slip ratio are input (¶¶ 32-33). The combination of references are obviated as Kawasaki teaches a reference table for determining the regression coefficient KA1 and KA2 (See Table 1 and ¶ 52).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the road condition information of the final adhesion coefficient value taught by Kawasaki to acquire current road condition information of the road surface by looking up a predetermined relationship table between a standard road condition adhesion coefficient and road condition information based on the final adhesion coefficient value as taught by Kim to determine a road surface condition more quickly, thereby increasing driving stability (¶ 33).
Regarding claim 2, Kawasaki discloses the method, wherein the driving data of the vehicle comprises at least one of a vehicle speed, a front-wheel steering angle, a yaw rate, a lateral/longitudinal acceleration, an engine output torque, a gear position, or a slope signal (calculating vehicle velocity S2, FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Kawasaki discloses the method, wherein subsequent to acquiring the current road condition information of the road surface by looking up the predetermined relationship table between the standard road condition adhesion coefficient and the road condition information based on the final adhesion coefficient value, the method further comprises: generating a prompt signal and/or a feedback signal based on the current road condition information; and receiving the prompt signal and/or the feedback signal and feeding back the current road condition information of the road surface to a user in acoustic and/or optical form (Alarm is issued to driver when conditions are determined to be slippery ¶ 63).
Regarding claim 15, Kawasaki discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer program, when run by the processor, causes the processor to perform: generating a prompt signal and/or a feedback signal based on the current road condition information; and receiving the prompt signal and/or the feedback signal and feeding back the current road condition information of the road surface to a user in acoustic and/or optical form (Alarm is issued to driver when conditions are determined to be slippery ¶ 63).
Regarding claim 17, Kawasaki discloses the vehicle, wherein the driving data of the vehicle comprises at least one of a vehicle speed, a front-wheel steering angle, a yaw rate, a lateral/longitudinal acceleration, an engine output torque, a gear position, or a slope signal (calculating vehicle velocity S2, FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 22, Kawasaki discloses the vehicle, wherein the processor, when executing the computer program, is caused to perform: generating a prompt signal and/or a feedback signal based on the current road condition information; and receiving the prompt signal and/or the feedback signal and feeding back the current road condition information of the road surface to a user in acoustic and/or optical form (Alarm is issued to driver when conditions are determined to be slippery ¶ 63).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 – 6, 11 - 14 and 18 – 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-9727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/TYLER J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights