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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Following Applicants amendments to the Specification, the objection of the Specification is Withdrawn.
Following Applicants amendments, the 112 interpretation and rejection of the claims is Withdrawn.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.
Following Applicants amendments, the 103 rejection of the claims is Withdrawn.
See allowability section below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 11 and 12 similarly recite “wherein the tire temperature model uses temperature-independent material properties for at least one tire component, thereby enabling a linear thermal model formulation that avoids repeated matrix inversion operations during simulation runtime and reduces computational resource requirements;”, “wherein the tire temperature parameter is applied to the tire model without requiring re-identification of slip-dependent parameters of the tire model;”. Applicant did not suggest any paragraphs for support. A review of the specification by the Examiner did not present support for the limitations. Since support for the amended limitation could not be found, the amended limitation is different in scope than the disclosed invention at the time of filing, thus the amended limitation is new matter.
ALL CLAIMS DEPENDENT ON A 112 REJECTED BASE CLAIM ARE REJECTED BASED ON THEIR DEPDNEDNCY.
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.
Claims 1-14 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 12, the claimed limitation of “wherein the tire temperature parameter is applied to the tire model without requiring re-identification of slip-dependent parameters of the tire model” renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. First there is no initial identification of the slip dependent parameters claimed, so it is unclear how there can be a reidentification or what the identification itself is. Also it is unclear how this limitation could be met. The limitation requires a tire temperature to be applied without “identification” of slip dependent parameters. Yet in [0087] the slip of a tire is directly tied to temperature, meaning that a change in temperature will influence slip parameters. Therefore, the claimed limitation renders the claim indefinite.
Examiner’s Note: For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as a temperature that is applied to the model, that influences the slip of the tire model, as described in [0087].
ALL CLAIMS DEPENDENT ON A 112 REJECTED BASE CLAIM ARE REJECTED BASED ON THEIR DEPDNEDNCY.
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 uses temperature-independent material properties for at least one tire component, thereby enabling a linear thermal model formulation that avoids repeated matrix inversion operations during simulation runtime and reduces computational resource requirements;” covers mental processes including evaluating a dataset or alternatively a mathematical concept in the form of a series of calculations like in equations 3-8 of the specification. 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 without requiring re-identification of slip-dependent parameters of the tire model; and;” 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 without requiring re-identification of slip-dependent parameters of the tire model; and;” 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
The 103 rejection of claims 1-14 is withdrawn based on the amendments to the claims filed 1/28/2026, that were entered with the RCE dated 2/26/2026. The limitation(s) include the wherein the tire temperature model uses temperature-independent material properties for at least one tire component, thereby enabling a linear thermal model formulation that avoids repeated matrix inversion operations during simulation runtime and reduces computational resource requirements; and wherein the tire temperature parameter is applied to the tire model without requiring re-identification of slip-dependent parameters of the tire model, in combination with the all of the remaining limitations.
The closest prior art references of record are Fevrier, Calabrese and Angrick. These references alone or in combination do not disclose the limitations including wherein the tire temperature model uses temperature-independent material properties for at least one tire component, thereby enabling a linear thermal model formulation that avoids repeated matrix inversion operations during simulation runtime and reduces computational resource requirements; and wherein the tire temperature parameter is applied to the tire model without requiring re-identification of slip-dependent parameters of the tire model, in combination with the remaining limitations. Therefore, claims 1-14 as drafted, are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the prior art of the record and the available field of prior art. The claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112 and 101 rejection of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Berntorp et al. USPPN 2018/0015931: Also teaches the modeling of a tire based on temperature and driving force, with instances where the slip is held as a constant.
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