CTNF 19/191,109 CTNF 89487 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/28/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: typo “and” should be “and” . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities: Typo “eacg” should be “each” . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: Missing “to” in “an analysis unit configured analyze” . Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-34-21 Claim limitation “evaluation unit” “analysis unit” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language, to with function, without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 12 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The specification only defines the units based on what they do giving no structure other than Fig. 1 showing that it is in the vehicle. Note this interpretation of lacking structure necessitates a 112(b) rejection. If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action. If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications , 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 AIA Claim 1-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. As to 1-12 claims, the term “road defect” as used within the claims is unclear. It is unclear if this is a road surface (claim 4 for example) OR how the vehicle perceives the traversal of the road (Claim 8 for example). As to claim 2 and claim 4, the multiple “and/or” make it unclear what elements are within the options and which are in a second listing. Examiner recommends “at least one of” 07-34-05 Claim 4 recites the limitation "the road". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 recites the limitation "collected data". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Correct the inconsistent multiple sensors of the multiple vehicles as well. 07-34-23 As to claim 12, Claim limitation “evaluation unit” “analysis unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim, Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. 07-34-12 AIA Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: how adjusting a trajectory partly repairs a road defect . 07-34-12 AIA Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: how adjusting a trajectory partly with speed or resonance frequency prevents road defects . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Alice type rejection – Abstract Idea Mental Process As to claim 1-12 the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea ) without significantly more. 101 Analysis – Step 1 Claim(s) 1-12 is/are directed to a mental process of determining a motion trajectory (Process claims 1-11 and apparatus for claim 12). 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 12 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea – mental process (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 12 recites: A system for ascertaining a surface condition of a road region using at least one sensor of a vehicle, wherein the vehicle is a vehicle driven by a user, the system comprising: the vehicle, the vehicle being an autonomous vehicle or a semi-autonomous vehicle; the sensor of the vehicle, the sensor being configured to for collect the data of the road region; an evaluation unit configured to evaluate the collected data in order to ascertain the surface condition of the road region; and an analysis unit configured analyze the surface condition with regard to a shape of the surface condition, and to ascertain at least one road defect of the road region; wherein the system is configured to adjust a planned vehicle trajectory of the vehicle based on the at least one ascertained road defect to reduce the ascertained road defect and/or to prevent further road defects. (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”) 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. For example, “analyze” “evaluate” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (navigator) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea – mental process. 101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2 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”) See above. 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. Claim 12 includes a processing apparatus. Regarding the additional limitations of processing units that merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose processing environment. The processing is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining process steps. 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 mental process into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the determining amounts 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. 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 processing with a processing apparatus are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the processing apparatus is anything other than a conventional computer. 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. Data gathering is pre-solution activity (Sensor data). Dependent claim(s) 2-11 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 because they merely add to the mental processing. Therefore, dependent claims 2-11 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 12. Therefore, claim(s) 1-12 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101. Examiner recommends a controlling step. Note configured to adjust or adjusting a plan is not considered the same as controlling. Claim 7 uses data to steer is similarly not controlling. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by DE 102015218830 A1 hearinafter Connette . As to claim 1, Connette discloses a method for ascertaining a surface condition of a road region of a road using at least one sensor of a vehicle, the method comprising the following steps: [Connette: abstract] evaluating data collected by the sensor to ascertain the surface condition of the road region, wherein the surface condition is analyzed with regard to a shape of the surface condition; [Connette: “Also, another debilitating feature can be subsequently added to the detection. It is also possible to define a separate action rule or a selection of action rules for each disabling feature. Thus, furthermore, a pothole, a roadway crack, a roadway blotter, an oil track, black ice and the like can also be regarded and recorded as such impairing features of the roadway area. Another advantage is that thus it is possible to respond more flexibly to new, impairing characteristics. This embodiment has the advantage that far more road disturbances than conventional potholes can be detected. Another advantage is that, as a result, the motor vehicle and / or the driver can be enabled or instructed for different reactions depending on the detected roadway disturbance.” And Module A-1] ascertaining at least one road defect of the road region ; and [Connette: “Also, another debilitating feature can be subsequently added to the detection. It is also possible to define a separate action rule or a selection of action rules for each disabling feature. Thus, furthermore, a pothole, a roadway crack, a roadway blotter, an oil track, black ice and the like can also be regarded and recorded as such impairing features of the roadway area. Another advantage is that thus it is possible to respond more flexibly to new, impairing characteristics. This embodiment has the advantage that far more road disturbances than conventional potholes can be detected.”, “Module A-2: Locating a Problem. The combination of highly accurate maps, exterreceptive sensors, such as video cameras, radar and lidar, and proprioceptive sensors, such as the odometry, so the record of the wheel rotation, thus covered distance and also the wheel angle, allows a very accurate localization of the vehicle. This highly accurate position can be continuously forwarded to the learning module B. From the combination of data based on GPS, odometry and other sensors, such as video cameras, radar and lidar, a localization of a detected disturbance can be localized with high precision.”] adjusting a planned vehicle trajectory of the vehicle based on the at least one ascertained road defect to reduce the ascertained road defect and/or to prevent further road defects. [Connette: “The planner can, if it allows the traffic situation, so for example, no oncoming traffic on a highway exists, calculate an evasion trajectory and provide the other system functions.”] As to claim 2, Connette discloses wherein the sensor of the vehicle is a video camera and/or a radar sensor and/or an ultrasonic sensor and/or a LIDAR sensor and/or a positioning sensor and/or a GPS sensor and/or an acceleration sensor and/or a speed sensor . [Connette: “Module A-2: Locating a Problem. The combination of highly accurate maps, exterreceptive sensors, such as video cameras, radar and lidar, and proprioceptive sensors, such as the odometry, so the record of the wheel rotation, thus covered distance and also the wheel angle, allows a very accurate localization of the vehicle. This highly accurate position can be continuously forwarded to the learning module B. From the combination of data based on GPS, odometry and other sensors, such as video cameras, radar and lidar, a localization of a detected disturbance can be localized with high precision.”] As to claim 3, Connette discloses wherein the surface condition of the road region is ascertained by a comparison between a target trajectory and an actual trajectory of the vehicle . [Connette: “Module A-1: Detection of disturbances-Vehicle as a Sensor. The proprioceptive sensors and dynamic models of the already offered reactive assistance systems already enable the detection and classification of road faults, in particular of unevenness. For this purpose, for example, compression travel and transient response or wheel slip are detected .”, “The detected by the suspension sensors and the camera - depending on environmental conditions - registered disturbances on the high-precision localization with the exact position and stored in a high-precision map, such as a high-precision digital road map.”] As to claim 4, Connette discloses wherein the ascertained road defect is a rut and/or a pothole and/or an uplift caused by roots under the road and/or subsoil displacement under the road. [Connette: “Poor road conditions such as potholes, dirt at exits of permanent and dirt roads, sand, gravel, ice, road obstacles and other disturbances often tarnish ride comfort and driving experience. Especially on routinely or even daily routed routes such conditions can be enervating.”] As to claim 5, Connette discloses wherein collected data from sensors of multiple vehicles are evaluated to ascertain road defects of analyzed road regions, wherein a single road defect is ascertained by multiple sensors of multiple of the vehicles, and an accuracy of ascertained measured values is improved. [Connette: “Disturbances identified as dominant, such as, for example, disturbances that have occurred particularly frequently, ie have been reported by many vehicles, can then be communicated to the entire vehicle fleet.”] As to claim 6, Connette discloses wherein the ascertained road defects are entered in a map of the analyzed road regions, wherein the map showing the road defects is displayed to a user within the vehicle using a display device, and/or the planned vehicle trajectory of the vehicle is displayed to the user by means of the display device within the vehicle, so that the user can steer the vehicle along the planned vehicle trajectory in order to minimize existing road defects and prevent further road defects. [Connette: “This means that at C1, for example, the information may follow: "This section has the following problem at position X." Whereas at C2, for example, the information may follow: "This section has the following problem". Although this map can no longer be used to bypass the obstacles locally, it is still sufficient to warn the driver or could even be used during route planning be taken into account. In addition, the use of this card requires no further optional equipment of the using vehicle. An ordinary navigation system could be enough. Thus, this functionality can be provided virtually an entire vehicle fleet. The transfer of information to the vehicles can be done via map updates.”] As to claim 7, Connette discloses wherein data about the ascertained road defects are used to steer a user-controlled annd/or autonomous and/or semi-autonomous vehicle along a planned vehicle trajectory so that the road defects are at least partially repaired . [Connette: “It can also be provided to give the computer device the instruction that the motor vehicle can dodge independently. This can be done by means of a corresponding motor vehicle assistance system. Furthermore, in such a case it can also be specified how the motor vehicle should autonomously avoid the corresponding roadway area.”] As to claim 8, Connette discloses wherein the ascertained road defect is a rut, and the planned vehicle trajectory is selected such that the ascertained road defect is at least partially reduced by driving on road portions to the left and right of the rut and thereby leveling the surface condition of the road region as much as possible. [Connette: Section “Module D-1: Avoiding faults” and “Further, a computer device 220 , Here is the computer device 220 set up to decide: whether and how the motor vehicle 200 the corresponding carriageway area 110 should dodge”] As to claim 9, Connette discloses wherein by selecting a vehicle speed of the vehicle and/or a resonance frequency generated thereby, further road defects are prevented from forming in the road regions that have not yet been damaged. [Connette: “According to a further exemplary refinement, the method further comprises that the roadway condition information comprises information which enables a computer device of the motor vehicle to decide whether and how a chassis component of the motor vehicle is to be adapted to a current speed of the motor vehicle, an engine speed of the motor vehicle and / or to maintain a suspension comfort of the motor vehicle or to optimize with respect to the road surface information.”] As to claim 10, Connette discloses wherein the planned vehicle trajectory is adjusted in real time based on current data from the sensor. [Connette: “Especially on routinely or even daily routed routes such conditions can be enervating. Although there are now assistance systems that detect and correct such disturbances, these systems are always dependent on the current input from sensors such as cameras. The detection of disturbances, especially of bumps, by cameras, however, can only be done in a limited area in front of the vehicle, usually in a detection range of up to 50 m in front of the vehicle.”] As to claim 11, Connette discloses wherein the evaluation of the sensor data from multiple vehicles of a vehicle fleet includes a statistical analysis that determines a probability of eacg road defect within the analyzed road region . [Connette: “In a central server, the information aggregated in the vehicles is merged. By combining the different data sets, for example via statistical learning methods, the accuracy in the statements regarding the existence, extent and location of individual disturbances can be significantly increased.”] As to claim 12, Connette discloses a system for ascertaining a surface condition of a road region using at least one sensor of a vehicle, [Connette: abstract] wherein the vehicle is a vehicle driven by a user, [Connette: “It can also be provided to give the computer device the instruction that the motor vehicle can dodge independently. This can be done by means of a corresponding motor vehicle assistance system. Furthermore, in such a case it can also be specified how the motor vehicle should autonomously avoid the corresponding roadway area.”] the system comprising: the vehicle, the vehicle being an autonomous vehicle or a semi-autonomous vehicle; [Connette: “It can also be provided to give the computer device the instruction that the motor vehicle can dodge independently. This can be done by means of a corresponding motor vehicle assistance system. Furthermore, in such a case it can also be specified how the motor vehicle should autonomously avoid the corresponding roadway area.”] the sensor of the vehicle, the sensor being configured to for collect the data of the road region; [Connette: “Module A-2: Locating a Problem. The combination of highly accurate maps, exterreceptive sensors, such as video cameras, radar and lidar, and proprioceptive sensors, such as the odometry, so the record of the wheel rotation, thus covered distance and also the wheel angle, allows a very accurate localization of the vehicle. This highly accurate position can be continuously forwarded to the learning module B. From the combination of data based on GPS, odometry and other sensors, such as video cameras, radar and lidar, a localization of a detected disturbance can be localized with high precision.”] an evaluation unit configured to evaluate the collected data in order to ascertain the surface condition of the road region; and [Connette: “Also, another debilitating feature can be subsequently added to the detection. It is also possible to define a separate action rule or a selection of action rules for each disabling feature. Thus, furthermore, a pothole, a roadway crack, a roadway blotter, an oil track, black ice and the like can also be regarded and recorded as such impairing features of the roadway area. Another advantage is that thus it is possible to respond more flexibly to new, impairing characteristics. This embodiment has the advantage that far more road disturbances than conventional potholes can be detected.”] an analysis unit configured analyze the surface condition with regard to a shape of the surface condition, and to ascertain at least one road defect of the road region; [Connette: “Also, another debilitating feature can be subsequently added to the detection. It is also possible to define a separate action rule or a selection of action rules for each disabling feature. Thus, furthermore, a pothole, a roadway crack, a roadway blotter, an oil track, black ice and the like can also be regarded and recorded as such impairing features of the roadway area. Another advantage is that thus it is possible to respond more flexibly to new, impairing characteristics. This embodiment has the advantage that far more road disturbances than conventional potholes can be detected. Another advantage is that, as a result, the motor vehicle and / or the driver can be enabled or instructed for different reactions depending on the detected roadway disturbance.” And Module A-1] wherein the system is configured to adjust a planned vehicle trajectory of the vehicle based on the at least one ascertained road defect to reduce the ascertained road defect and/or to prevent further road defects . [Connette: “The planner can, if it allows the traffic situation, so for example, no oncoming traffic on a highway exists, calculate an evasion trajectory and provide the other system functions.”, Section “Module D-1: Avoiding faults” and “Further, a computer device 220 , Here is the computer device 220 set up to decide: whether and how the motor vehicle 200 the corresponding carriageway area 110 should dodge”] Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20150371095 A1 This invention relates to a method and apparatus for determining a road condition using a vehicle camera (6), and it includes the following steps: at least one image (I) is taken using the vehicle camera (S10); a first image area (R1) is determined that includes an image of the road surface (1) (S16); said first image area (R1) is fed to a classifier, wherein the classifier assigns at least one class to said first image area that represents a specific road condition (S18); and information is output with respect to this at least one road condition (S20). US 20210117897 A1A vehicle has a traffic light preemption system with a GPS receiver and an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU). A processor is configured to log GPS data in correlation with IMU data, and to detect and map road surface defects. The processor may be configured to identify and report unmapped roads, and to correlate the road surface defects with traffic load, road construction type, and/or environmental factors. The processor may also be configured to detect and monitor changes in the IMU data associated with a given road surface defect, and/or road surface changes precursor to the development of road surface defects. The processor may be further configured to correlate the effectiveness of repairs to road surface defects with traffic load, road construction type, repair type, repairing entity, and/or environmental factors. US 9626763 B1 a system for pothole detection comprises an input interface configured to receive sensor data and a pothole detector configured to determine a pothole based at least in part on the sensor data; and store pothole data associated with the pothole, wherein the pothole data comprises a pothole video. The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Inquiry Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK M BRUSHABER whose telephone number is (313)446-4839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm. 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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. /FREDERICK M BRUSHABER/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3665 /FREDERICK M BRUSHABER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/191,109 Page 2 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/191,109 Page 3 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/191,109 Page 4 Art Unit: 3665
Prosecution Insights