DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 are currently 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 .
Response to Arguments
Following Applicants amendments, the 112 rejection of the claims is Withdrawn.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed to 101 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter."
Examiner’s Response: All arguments are addressed in the 101 rejection of the claims below.
Therefore, the 101 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
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.
Regarding claims 1-14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-10 and 13-14 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claim 11 is directed to a system, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Claim 12 is directed to a device, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-14 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 11 and 12 recite the abstract idea of simulating a tire model that changes with temperature, constituting an abstract idea based on Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations or alternatively Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of "receiving by a tire model of a computer, a vehicle velocity related parameter as an input, and generating, by the tire model of the computer, t a tire driving force related parameter as an output;” covers mental processes including making an observation and evaluating a dataset and judging how to create a model from it and then performing an evaluation of a parameter, or alternatively a mathematical concept in the form of a series of calculations like in equations 2-4 of the specification. That is, other than reciting a computer, there is nothing that precludes operation of the claimed limitation in the mind or with pencil and paper. This follows for each instance of the computer. Additionally, the limitation of “receiving, by a tire temperature model of a tire property model of the computer, the tire driving force related parameter from the tire model as an input and generating, by the tire temperature model, generating as an output using the tire driving force related parameter, a tire temperature parameter that is characteristic for a tire temperature, wherein the tire temperature model numerically integrates a Fourier diffusion equation over a plurality of discretization elements of the tire using a thermal mass matrix and a thermal conductivity matrix that contain material properties of the discretization elements, the material properties being independent of temperature, such that the numerical integration comprises one matrix inversion for initialization and, at each of a plurality of successive simulation time steps of fixed duration, only matrix additions and matrix multiplications;” covers mental processes including evaluating a dataset or alternatively a mathematical concept in the form of a series of calculations like in equations 3-10 of the specification (See also [0076]-[0077] as suggested by Applicant). Additionally, the limitation of “simulating, by the tire model of the computer, the tire performance of the vehicle using the tire temperature parameter” covers mental processes including evaluating all of the parameters or alternatively a mathematical concept in the form of a series of calculations. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 13-14 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claims 1, 11 and 12 the additional element of “computer”, “transmitting the tire temperature parameter to the tire model as an additional input, wherein the tire temperature parameter is applied to the tire model as at least one scaling factor that modifies a coefficient of the tire model, the at least one scaling factor being determined independently of a longitudinal slip and a side slip angle of the tire, and the at least one scaling factor being equal to unity when the tire temperature parameter corresponds to a reference temperature at which the coefficient was previously identified;” as well as “simulation software” in claim 11, as well as “outputting, by the computer, the simulated tire performance” in claim 13 merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 13-14 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 11 and 12 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claims 1, 11 and 12 the additional element of “computer”, “transmitting the tire temperature parameter to the tire model as an additional input, wherein the tire temperature parameter is applied to the tire model as at least one scaling factor that modifies a coefficient of the tire model, the at least one scaling factor being determined independently of a longitudinal slip and a side slip angle of the tire, and the at least one scaling factor being equal to unity when the tire temperature parameter corresponds to a reference temperature at which the coefficient was previously identified;” as well as “simulation software” in claim 11, as well as “outputting, by the computer, the simulated tire performance” in claim 13 merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 2 is directed to further defining the model as a Fourier-diffusion model, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 3 is directed to further defining the properties of the tire model, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 4 is directed to further defining the parameters used, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 5 is directed to further defining a transformation, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 6 is directed to further defining scaling factors, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 7 is directed to further defining scaling factors and the equation used, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 8 is directed to further defining the vehicle velocity parameter, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 9 is directed to further defining the driving force parameter, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 10 is directed to further defining the parameters of the tire model, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 14 is directed to further defining the model as a Magic Formula tire model, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Accordingly, claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
See Non-Final dated 6/29/2026
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Futamura et al. USPAT 6,871,162: Also teaches the modeling of a tire structure based on temperature.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights