DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Responsive to the communication dated 04/16/2026
Claims 11-22, and 24-27 are presented for examination
Drawings
The drawings dated 12/27/2022 have been reviewed. They are accepted.
Abstract
The abstract dated 04/16/2026 has been reviewed. It has 141 words, and contains no legal phraseology. It is accepted.
Finality
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 extension fee 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.
Response to Arguments-Claim Objections
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 04/16/2026, with respect to the objections to claims 23 and 24 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claim 24 has been withdrawn (note that claim 23 was cancelled.)
Response to Arguments-112
Applicant's arguments filed 04/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have automatically understood that the “n” in the equation recited in claim 11 corresponds to “the number of closest nodes selected.”
Examiner responds by explaining that while one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the structure of a summation and that the “n” at the top of the symbol corresponds to the stopping point of the summation, that this stopping point corresponds specifically to the number of closest nodes selected would not have been unambiguously clear. While the language of the preceding limitations suggests that the equation has to do with a number of closest nodes, this is no means the same thing as defining “n” to be this number, and indeed “n” could easily correspond to any number of other values under broadest reasonable interpretation, as it is not explicitly tied to this number of closest nodes. US patent law requires clear, direct definitions of terms, especially within the context of equations; mere suggestion that an equation is generally related to a certain quantity is not sufficient to tie a particular variable in the equation to that quantity. It should be noted, however, that adding language such as “n = the number of selected closest nodes of the structural mesh;” to the wherein clause defining the terms of the equation would likely be sufficient to overcome this rejection.
Applicant argues that the previous rejection to claim 17 is improper because, although the “angular position” and “instantaneous position” present identical information, they are presented in different formats and are therefore not the same thing.
Examiner responds by explaining that, although it is clear from the arguments that the idea that was intended to be communicated by the claims was that only certain formats of data can be accepted, this is not what is actually captured by the claim, as nothing in the claim or disclosure mentions anything about certain data formats being excluded or included. Arguing that “angular position” and “instantaneous position” are different is equivalent to an argument that 6/2 is not equal to 4-1 because the text “6/2” is not the same string of characters as “4-1.”
Further, although claim language that specifies that this exclusion applies specifically to the format of the data may overcome this rejection, a review of the disclosure did not appear to show any support for such a further clarification; if support can be shown however, such an amendment would likely overcome the rejection.
It should be noted, however, that the amendments made to claims 19 and 20 have overcome the relevant rejections under 112(b) for those claims.
Response to Arguments- 101
Applicant's arguments filed 04/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims do not recite a judicial exception because a human mind allegedly could not handle the complexity of the claimed limitations, involving “millions of nodes.”
Examiner responds by explaining that, firstly, to address this argument generally, it is important to keep in mind that the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are “entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid … Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). A further note of relevance from the MPEP is found in (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): “Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).)”)
Further, it should be noted that the use of math within a mental process “does not negate the mental nature of the limitation” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) “The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., a mathematical calculation) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another. For instance, in CyberSource, the court determined that the step of "constructing a map of credit card numbers" was a limitation that was able to be performed "by writing down a list of credit card transactions made from a particular IP address." In making this determination, the court looked to the specification, which explained that the claimed map was nothing more than a listing of several (e.g., four) credit card transactions. The court concluded that this step was able to be performed mentally with a pen and paper, and therefore, it qualified as a mental process. 654 F.3d at 1372-73, 99 USPQ2d at 1695. See also Flook, 437 U.S. at 586, 198 USPQ at 196 (claimed "computations can be made by pencil and paper calculations"); University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. v. General Electric Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367, 129 USPQ2d 1409, 1411-12 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (relying on specification’s description of the claimed analysis and manipulation of data as being performed mentally "‘using pen and paper methodologies, such as flowsheets and patient charts’"); Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360 (although claimed as computer-implemented, steps of screening messages can be "performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper").”)
With this in mind, while the average human being might struggle to keep track of “millions of nodes, weighted average interpolation across mesh structures, and frequency domain transformations” in their head completely unaided, this is not the criteria by which a potential recitation of a mental process is judged, especially so in the case of computer-implemented methods such as claimed. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed structural model has no structural complexity requirements beyond that it include at least one later slot, sipe, or chamfer; while such a description could include a mesh with “millions of nodes” as argued, it could just as easily include a mesh with less than a hundred nodes. As such, creating such a model by drawing it or describing it with a pencil and paper is well within the realm of processes that are possible to perform in the human mind; further, finite element analysis is a combination mental/mathematic process that has been used since before the invention of the computer, and therefore performing this technique on the mesh amounts to no more than a mental process utilizing mathematic concepts. Finally, interpolation of data and transforming data to frequency domain, i.e. performing a Fast Fourier Transform algorithm on said data, merely consists of mathematic calculations and algorithm performance.
Additionally, see the references cited in the rejection of new claim 27 for evidence of well-understood, routine, conventional activity (WURC) which also describe performing finite element analysis by hand (i.e. mentally).
Additionally, even if such a complexity requirement that “millions of nodes” be present in the mesh were claimed, the ability to scale the above described mental/mathematic processes to such a number of data points using a computer is merely the result of applying a general-purpose computer in its ordinary capacity to perform that mental process; a computer can store and retrieve the entire text of a novel more accurately and efficiently than a person attempting to recite it from memory could, but this does not mean that remembering and keeping track of information is not a mental process. Further, see (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).)
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible because they are allegedly analogous to example 38 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Examiner responds by explaining that example 38 was found to be eligible because it did not recite any abstract limitations. In contrast, the present claims recite several, as analyzed above and below. Further the present claims clearly describe limitations that are not just based on math, but positive recitations of the math itself, including limitations such as “an instant position of each node is calculated based upon tire structural deformation … wherein the weighted average is calculated using an inverse distance criterion as: {equation} … calculating a sound pressure field … etc.”)
As to the mental processes, the reasons that these are practical to perform in the human mind and explained both above and below.
Applicant argues that the claims were not considered as a whole when evaluating in the previous action.
Examiner responds by explaining that the contents of the claims were considered as a whole when examining previously and currently; the nature of examining claims with multiple steps or, such as those in the present application, requires structuring the written office action in a way that each element is addressed and explained thoroughly and clearly. For example, while an office action might present the 101 analysis of a claim in a format such as:
“Limitation 1
Explanation
Limitation 2
Explanation”
this is merely for purpose of readability and should not be interpreted as each element being examined in an atomistic fashion, as a format which throws all limitations and analyses into a single block of text would be extremely difficult to read and interpret; nonetheless, the claim limitations are indeed being evaluated as whole when presented as below and previously.
Further, as to the application of the computer components, the limitations were not examined by “stripping away” the technical steps so “all that remains is a generic computer;” rather, as explained above, abstract ideas cannot be made non-abstract by merely implementing them on a generic computer. Using a computer to perform abstract operations such as “calculating a sound pressure field generated by the tire acoustic mode” does not automatically transform this limitation into something that is impossible to perform mentally/ mathematically, it merely changes the medium on which the abstract process is performed.
Applicant argues that the claims recite a specific simulation methodology that enables tire designers to analyze and reduce exterior tire noise, and therefore integrate the claims into a practical application.
Examiner responds by explaining that the use of the claimed process to produce such an allegedly improved tire is not recited anywhere in the claims; the claimed process stops at the analysis and does not perform any further steps using this analysis that could potentially integrate the claims into a practical application.
It should be noted, however, that if a positive recitation of manufacturing or producing a tire that has reduced exterior noise as a result of the claimed analysis were added to the independent claim, this would likely integrate the claims into a practical application.
It should be noted, however, that a clear, positive recitation of this would be required to integrate the claims in such a manner; a generally recited “designing method” or “manufacturing method” that implements the method of claim 11 as is, i.e. merely changing the preamble as in claims 25 and 26, that does not actually recite any manufacturing steps, is not sufficient for this purpose.
Applicant argues that the claimed method provides an improvement to tire simulation technology and is therefore eligible, as the mapping procedure that transfers vibration data from a rolling mesh to a stationary acoustic mesh using the weighting average formula enables acoustic simulation of a rolling tire.
Examiner responds by explaining that the mapping procedure, consisting of a combination mental/mathematic process, is part of the abstract idea itself and therefore cannot be the basis of integration into a practical application, an improvement to technology, nor provide significantly more. See (MPEP 2106.05(a)(I): An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016))
Further, the argued simulation is itself an abstract idea; along with being referred to in mathematic terms in the claims and disclosure (i.e. [Claim 11] “calculating a sound pressure field,” [Page 8 Par 1] “The method calculates the acoustic response (Sound Pressure field) in any position of space for each sampled instant of time, thus replicating experimental tests, like those measuring PbN.”), finite element analysis is a mental/mathematic technique that, while sped up when performed on a computer, does not require one to be performed.
Applicant argues that claims 25 and 26 integrate the claims into a practical application because it ties them to designing and manufacturing tires.
Examiner responds by explaining that claims 25 and 26 are not sufficient for this purpose because they do not actually recite any steps of a designing or manufacturing process; merely changing the preamble to “A designing method of a tire” or “A manufacturing method of a tire” without adding any steps that use the method of claim 11 to actually inform the manufacture or design of a tire is not sufficient to integrate the claims into a practical application. As the claims stand, the change of preamble merely changes the context within which the analysis of claim 11 is made.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible because they are allegedly analogous to example 25 of the 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance.
Examiner responds by explaining that the abstract ideas in example 25 are integrated into a practical application because of the constant interplay between the analysis steps and the use of those analysis steps to perform certain additional element operations (i.e. the opening of the press); the key component here is that there is not just an analysis being performed, the results of that analysis used to inform non-abstract operations in a way that improves the performance of said non-abstract operations.
In contrast, the present claims stop at this analysis; the sound pressure field is calculated mathematically, but the results of this calculation are do not go on to inform any operation that could integrate this analysis into a practical application, such as a positive recitation of using the calculated sound pressure field to inform the manufacture of a tire that is improved in some way as a result of the analysis being applied.
Response to Arguments-103
Applicant’s arguments, see page 16, filed 04/16/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 11-22 and 24-26 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 11-22 and 24-26 under 35 USC § 103 has been withdrawn. Particularly, the content of cancelled claim 23, which was previously identified as allowable under prior art, has been amended into independent claim 11.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 recites “angular tyre velocity.” As the spelling “tire” is used everywhere else in the claims, it is recommended to amend claim 17 to use a spelling consistent with the rest of the claims, if this language is to be kept. Further see the rejection of claim 17 under 112(b)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-22 and 24-27 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “
PNG
media_image1.png
67
144
media_image1.png
Greyscale
” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, particularly because the term “n” has not been defined. With this in mind, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase " taking into account only an instantaneous position of each node, and excludes angular position and angular tyre velocity" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which limitation(s) are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
“Angular position” and “instantaneous position” refer to the same information. Even if “angular” position is interpreted as referring to the position of the node in polar coordinates and “instantaneous” position is interpreted as referring to the position in Cartesian coordinates, to which it should be noted there is no suggestion in the disclosure, these are still the same position and mathematically and functionally identical. It should be noted that even if the particular format of the position is what is intended to be included/excluded, this is not captured in the broadest reasonable interpretation of these terms. With the understanding that these two terms refer to the same thing, it is not fully clear what is actually considered in the mapping and what is excluded; how could the procedure take into account only the position of the node, but then also exclude that position from the procedure? With this in mind, the claim is rendered indefinite. For the purposes of this examination, a mapping process that includes any kind of position and does not use angular velocity is interpreted as reading on this limitation.
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 11-22, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 11 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill): “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, Judgments, and opinions.”
Further, the MPEP recites “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.”
A computer-implemented method of exterior noise simulation generated by a rolling tire, the method comprising: providing a structural model of a rolling tire including modelled pattern features comprising one or more of lateral slots, sipes, and chamfers, wherein the structural model includes a structural mesh with nodes,
Creating a structural model of a tire in such a way is a mental process equivalent to drawing such a tire or otherwise describing its features such as a list of node positions, values, etc. with a pencil and paper.
Performing these operations on a computer amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply.
wherein the mapping procedure further comprises, for each respective node of the acoustic mesh: a number of closest nodes of the structural mesh in a certain sampled time instant are selected;
Selecting nodes from a larger set of nodes is merely a mental process of deciding which ones should be processed further.
The claims also recite a mathematic concept, specifically:
wherein an instant position of each node is calculated based upon tire structural deformation caused by vibration due to interaction with a reference modelled surface;
Numerically calculating the position of nodes within the model is merely the act of performing a mathematic calculation, and is therefore merely a mathematic concept.
providing the tire structural model as input to a mapping procedure which outputs a tire acoustic model including an acoustic mesh with nodes,
This kind of numeric mapping, especially mappings between coordinate systems, is merely an example of a mathematic concept; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) ii. a conversion between binary coded decimal and pure binary, Benson, 409 U.S. at 64, 175 USPQ at 674; as well as MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) iii. using a formula to convert geospatial coordinates into natural numbers, Burnett v. Panasonic Corp., 741 Fed. Appx. 777, 780 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
This newly mapped model could then be drawn mentally using a pen and paper.
a value of a vibration variable for the respective node is calculated starting from the values of such variable of the closest nodes of the structural model, as a weighted average of the values of such variable of the closest nodes, wherein the weighted average is calculated using an inverse distance criterion as: {equation} wherein: A = a normalization factor; v = vibration variable at node j of the acoustic mesh; vi = vibration variable at node i of the structural mesh; di.; = a distance between node i of the structural mesh and node j of the acoustic mesh;
Performing this numeric calculation is merely a mathematic concept. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.”)
wherein the vibration variable is obtained in frequency domain;
Converting such data to the frequency domain, i.e. performing a fast Fourier transform algorithm on said data, is merely the use of that algorithm, and therefore amounts to no more than a mathematic concept. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) v. using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client, In re Maucorps, 609 F.2d 481, 482, 203 USPQ 812, 813 (CCPA 1979);
Should It be found that this is not a mathematic concept, it is also an example of mere data gathering.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) has found mere data gathering and post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Data gathering:
wherein the vibration variable is obtained in frequency domain;
When recited at such a high level of generality without any specificity as to how this variable is “obtained,” obtaining this data amounts to no more the mere data gathering.
Moreover, Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. In light of this, the additional generic computer component elements of “A computer-implemented method of exterior noise simulation generated by a rolling tire” are not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor provide evidence of an inventive concept.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitations are insignificant post-solution activity and mere instructions to apply and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) has found mere data gathering and post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Data gathering:
wherein the vibration variable is obtained in frequency domain;
When recited at such a high level of generality without any specificity as to how this variable is “obtained,” obtaining this data amounts to no more the mere data gathering.
A claim element that amounts to merely gathering data is not indicative of integration into a
practical solution nor evidence that the claim provides an inventive concept or significantly more, as exemplified by ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Mere Data Gathering) i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
Moreover, Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. In light of this, the additional generic computer component elements of “A computer-implemented method of exterior noise simulation generated by a rolling tire” are not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor provide evidence of an inventive concept.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the consideration of whether they constitute significantly more, and have been determined not to constitute such.
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the structural model is a Finite Element (FE) model.”
Specifying that the model is a finite element model merely clarifies the form of the model, and is therefore merely an extension of the mental process and mere instructions to apply.
Claim 13 recites “wherein for each node of the acoustic mesh, 1 to 8 of the closest nodes of the structural mesh in a certain sampled time instant are selected.”
Selecting a certain number of nodes around a first node is a mental process equivalent to observing first node, for example in a drawn mesh, observing its neighboring nodes, and arbitrarily choosing a set of 1-8 of the neighboring nodes that should be further processed.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the vibration variable for each respective node of the acoustic mesh is obtained in frequency domain by an FFT (Fast Fourier Transform).”
Calculating numeric data mathematically by performing the fast Fourier transform algorithm amounts to no more than a mathematic concept. Further see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) v. using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client, In re Maucorps, 609 F.2d 481, 482, 203 USPQ 812, 813 (CCPA 1979);
Claim 15 recites “wherein the structural model of the rolling tire is a model of an axial-symmetric tire or of a non-axial-symmetric tire.”
This merely clarifies the structure of the model, and therefore amounts to no more than an extension to the mental process and mere instructions to apply.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the vibration variable is selected from one or more of a group consisting of: velocity; acceleration; and displacement.”
This merely clarifies what variables are calculated, and therefore is merely an extension to the mathematic concept.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the mapping procedure provides taking into account only an instantaneous position of each node, and excludes angular position and angular tyre velocity.”
This merely further clarifies details of the mapping process, and is therefore merely an extension of the mathematic process.
Claim 18 recites “wherein an explicit Finite Element Method (FEM) solver is used for obtaining the structural model of the rolling tire.”
This merely clarifies the form of the model, and is therefore merely an extension of the mental process and mere instructions to apply.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the step of obtaining the vibration variable in frequency domain operates in a range of 20-2000 Hz”
This merely clarifies in what range the obtaining step is performed, and is therefore merely an extension of the mathematic concept and mere data gathering.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the step of obtaining the vibration variable in frequency domain operates in a range of 500-2000 Hz.”
This merely clarifies in what range the obtaining step is performed, and is therefore merely an extension of the mathematic concept and mere data gathering.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the mapping procedure further comprises, for each respective node of the acoustic mesh, that both structural and acoustic mesh are divided into lateral subsections, and the other steps of the mapping procedure are performed individually on each subsection.”
Dividing the models into subsections is a mental process equivalent to dividing the drawn meshes into such subsections, for example by indicating the sections on the drawn meshes.
Specifying that the mapping steps are done on a subsection-by-subsection basis merely clarifies the manner in which the mental and mathematical processes are performed, and therefore amounts to no more than an extension to those mental and mathematical processes.
Claim 22 recites “wherein the structural and acoustic mesh are divided into 2 to 20 lateral subsections.”
This merely clarifies the number of divisions, and is therefore merely an extension of the mental and mathematic processes.
Claim 24 recites “The method of claim 11, wherein the calculated sound pressure field is used to determine Pass-By Noise (PBN)”
Specifying that pass-by-noise is calculated merely clarifies additional details about where the simulated noise levels are calculated from (Pass-by-noise is a vehicle noise standard that requires obtaining noise levels from 7.5 meters aways) and is therefore merely an extension to the mental and mathematic process and mere instructions to apply of calculating such levels.
Claim 25 recites “A designing method of a tire, which includes the computer-implemented method of claim 11.”
This merely clarifies the use of the method, and is therefore merely an extension of the mental process, mathematic concept, mere data gathering, and mere instructions to apply.
Claim 26 recites “A manufacturing method of a tire, which includes the computer-implemented method of claim 11.”
This merely clarifies the use of the method, and is therefore merely an extension of the mental process, mathematic concept, mere data gathering, and mere instructions to apply.
Claim 27 recites “wherein the acoustic mesh is converted into noise by an acoustic simulation tool.”
Based on the specification, it is clear that the use of such an “acoustic simulation tool” to convert the mesh into noise merely consists performing a particular finite element analysis on the acoustic mesh. (See specification [Page 7 Par 8 – Page 8 Par 3] “In a third step, the stationary mesh obtained in the second step is converted into noise, in particular as propagating in a free-field condition, by an acoustic simulation tool. The vibration data as mapped in the second step are used as
boundary condition for this acoustic simulation. The method calculates the acoustic response (Sound Pressure field) in any position of space for each sampled instant of time, thus replicating experimental
tests, like those measuring PbN. … A preferred tool for this step is based upon acoustic FEM”) With FEM (i.e. finite element method) being a mental/mathematic process, performing this conversion is amount to no more than a mental/mathematic process.
Should it be found that this is not a mental/mathematic process, it is also an example of mere instructions to apply.
Applying a computer to perform a generic acoustic simulation at a high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions to perform that simulation, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception. The claim only recites the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. that the mesh is “converted into noise” without reciting how this conversion is actually accomplished. Further, the computer elements claimed are cited as merely generic tools to perform the operations.
The courts have found that such mere instructions to apply are not indicative of integration into a practical application nor recitation of significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(f) “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983”)
Further, see the below references that show that performing finite element analysis in such a manner is an example of well understood, routine, conventional activity.
Can You do Finite Element Analysis by Hand? ([Pages 1-14] describe the process of doing finite element processing mentally)
The instant specification ([Page 8 Par 3 lists a number of known “commercially available software” tools that can be used to convert the mesh into noise.)
History of Finite Element Method: A Review ([Abstract, Page 396 Par 1, Page 401 Par 1 – Page 404 Par 1])
Finite Element Modeling for Acoustics ([Page 27 Par 1 – Page 38 Par 3])
FEM modeling: Comsol Multiphysics and Elmer ([Page 1 Par 1- 2, 7-12])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Mirabito whose telephone number is (703)756-1494. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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.
/M.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights