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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 of US Application No. 19/473,597, filed on 08 October 2025, are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claims 1-12 and 18 via preliminary amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 08 October 2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1-13 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. Independent claims 1 and 7 are directed toward a machine and independent claim 13 is directed toward a process, which fall within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, independent claims 1, 7, and 13 are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), a claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. With respect to mental processes, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.
Independent claim 1 recites “derive, based on a vibration characteristic during a vehicle passes through an observation point on the road among the vibration characteristics, a vibration intensity during the vehicle passes through the observation point” and “identify a lane on which the vehicle that has passed through the observation point is traveling based on the derived vibration intensity and a vehicle classification of the vehicle that has passed through the observation point”. Independent claims 7 and 13 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 1. These limitations may be performed in the human mind. For example, a person having the measured vibration characteristics may mentally analyse the characteristics to derive a vibration intensity. The person may mentally use the vibration intensity and a vehicle classification to identify a lane on which a vehicle has passed. Therefore, claims 1, 7, and 13 recite an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, claims 1, 7, and 13 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. The guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
In the instant application, claims 1, 7, and 13 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims 1, 7, and 13 recite the additional elements “an optical fiber embedded in a road” and “measure vibration characteristics of vibration generated on the road based on an optical signal received from the optical fiber”. Claims 1 and 7 recite the additional elements “at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions”.
As noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. The memory storing instructions, in combination with the processor configured to execute the instructions, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a computer. Using the processors/memory to derive the vibration intensity and identify a lane is merely using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas.
Also as noted above, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Insignificant extra-solution activity includes data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Measuring vibration characteristics based on optical signals received from the optical fiber is data gathering. Therefore, this additional element just adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1, 7, and 13 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, claims 1, 7, and 13 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field.
Using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions is WURC activity. Generic computing functions include 1) performing repetitive calculations, 2) receiving, processing, and storing data, 3) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, 4) electronic recordkeeping, 5) automating mental tasks, and 6) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Measuring vibration characteristics of vibration generated on the road based on an optical signal received from the optical fiber is known in the art. For example, Large et al. (US 2024/0046784 A1) discloses a sensing optical fibre 10 disposed along a roadway 12 which is to be acoustically monitored. See Fig. 1 and ¶ [0054]. An interrogator unit 5 includes an optical detector for detecting probe light resulting from the probe light pulses being backscattered within the optical fibre. See ¶ [0054]. An analyser 18 processes data representing properties of the backscattered and detected light and outputs a signal representing acoustic vibration as a function of position and time along the optical fibre. See ¶ [0054], [0056]. The additional elements, both individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1, 7, and 13 (a) are directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1 and 8 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 recite limitations which may be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. The claim does not recite any additional elements. Therefore, claims 2-5 do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights