DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
In light of the amendments to the claims, the objection to claims 3 and 4 is withdrawn.
In light of the amendments to claim 1, there no longer exist claim terms that the examiner will interpret as invoking means plus function claiming language under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pp. 8-9 that the claims are patent eligible because they are directed to an improvement in the technical field of tire design. This argument is not persuasive for two reasons. First, the claims themselves are not directed to the field of tire design. The claims are directed toward predicting the load of a tire that has already been designed. Second, the alleged improvements only accrue due to the abstract ideas recited in the claims. Abstract ideas alone cannot be the basis of an alleged improvement, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(a). In this instance, the abstract ideas do nothing to improve any of the additional elements recited in the claims.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more, as set forth below.
The following analysis is performed as set forth in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter 2019 PEG), as set forth in MPEP § 2106.
Step 1
Step 1 of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-6 are directed to an apparatus.
Claims 7 and 8 are directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong One
Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
Claim 1 recites:
perform a linear transformation on the acquired strain data;
estimate a velocity and angular velocity in the tire tangential direction on the basis of a transformation result produced by the linear transformation unit;
estimate a velocity in a tire radial direction from estimated values for the velocity and angular velocity in the tire tangential direction;
estimate a velocity in ae-angle direction corresponding to an angle of the strain sensor with respect to a ground contact surface of the tire, from estimated values for an acceleration and angular velocity in the tire tangential direction;
estimate deflection of the tire on the basis of the velocity and angular velocity in the tire tangential direction, the velocity in the tire radial direction, and the velocity in the 0-angle direction;
predict a load applied to the tire on the basis of the estimated deflection of the tire.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Therefore, claim 1 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental process groups of abstract ideas.
Claim 2 recites:
estimate a deformation profile of the tire on the basis of the velocity in the tire tangential direction, the velocity in the tire radial direction, and the velocity in the 9-angle direction, and extracts a feature value corresponding to the deflection of the tire to estimate the deflection of the tire.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Therefore, claim 2 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental process groups of abstract ideas.
Claim 3 recites:
perform a linear transformation on the strain data using the following formula
ω(t)=ω.sub.0(a.sub.1ε(t)−1) [Equation 1] Wherein, ω.sub.0: average angular velocity, a.sub.1: angular velocity multiplying factor, ε: strain
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Therefore, claim 3 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental process groups of abstract ideas.
Claim 4 recites:
estimate tangential-direction velocity by performing a linear transformation for the acquired data using the following formula.
v.sub.T(t)=v.sub.T0(a.sub.2ε(t)+1) [Equation 3] Wherein, v.sub.T0: average tangential-direction velocity, a.sub.2: tangential-direction velocity multiplying factor.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Therefore, claim 4 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental process groups of abstract ideas.
Claim 5 recites:
a linear transformation step of performing a linear transformation on the acquired strain data;
a first estimation step of estimating a velocity and angular velocity in the tire tangential direction on the basis of a transformation result;
a second estimation step of estimating a velocity in a tire radial direction on the basis of estimated values for the velocity and angular velocity in the tire tangential direction;
a third estimation step of estimating a velocity in a θ-angle direction corresponding to an angle of the strain sensor with respect to a ground contact surface of the tire, on the basis of estimated values for an acceleration and angular velocity in the tire tangential direction;
a fourth estimation step of estimating deflection of the tire on the basis of the velocity and angular velocity in the tire tangential direction, the velocity in the tire radial direction, and the velocity in the θ-angle direction; and
a load prediction step of predicting a load applied to the tire on the basis of the estimated deflection of the tire.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Therefore, claim 5 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental process groups of abstract ideas.
Claim 6 recites:
wherein in the fourth estimation step, a deformation profile of the tire is estimated based on the velocity in the tire tangential direction, the velocity in the tire radial direction, and the velocity in the θ-angle direction, and a feature value corresponding to the deflection of the tire is extracted to estimate the deflection of the tire.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Therefore, claim 6 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental process groups of abstract ideas.
Claim 7 recites:
a linear transformation process of performing a linear transformation on the acquired strain data;
a first estimation process of estimating a velocity and angular velocity in the tire tangential direction on the basis of a transformation result;
a second estimation process of estimating a velocity in a tire radial direction on the basis of estimated values for the velocity and angular velocity in the tire tangential direction;
a third estimation process of estimating a velocity in a 6-angle direction corresponding to an angle of the strain sensor with respect to a ground contact surface of the tire, on the basis of estimated values for an acceleration and angular velocity in the tire tangential direction;
a fourth estimation process of estimating deflection of the tire on the basis of the velocity and angular velocity in the tire tangential direction, the velocity in the tire radial direction, and the velocity in the e-angle direction;
and a load prediction process of predicting a load applied to the tire on the basis of the estimated deflection of the tire.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Therefore, claim 7 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental process groups of abstract ideas.
Claim 8 recites:
wherein in the fourth estimation process, a deformation profile of the tire is estimated based on the velocity in the tire tangential direction, the velocity in the tire radial direction, and the velocity in the e-angle direction, and a feature value corresponding to the deflection of the tire is extracted to estimate the deflection of the tire.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Therefore, claim 8 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental process groups of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two
Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 PEG asks whether a claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
a sensor unit that is provided inside a tire and has a strain sensor that detects strain of the tire;
a strain data acquisition unit that acquires strain data in a tire tangential direction that is output from the sensor unit;
a CPU for performing data reception and processing functions.
The CPU is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a computer for performing generic functions of receiving, storing, and processing. This computer is generically recited, and it represents nothing more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The sensor unit, tire, and strain data acquisition unit merely represent the extra-solution activity of data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exceptions, and therefore represent insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(g). Additionally, the sensor unit, tire, and strain data acquisition unit are merely an attempt to generally link the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(h). Finally, whether considered individually or in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under any of the indicia set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d).
When viewed individually or as an ordered combination with other claim elements, the additional elements fail to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, or to improve the functioning of a computer, or improve any other technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 1 as a whole is directed to the judicial exceptions.
Claims 2-4 each recite only the additional elements recited in claim 1, and are therefore also directed to the judicial exceptions.
Claim 5 recites the additional elements of:
a CPU;
a strain sensor provided on an inner side surface of a tire or inside the tire.
The CPU is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a computer for performing generic functions of receiving, storing, and processing. This computer is generically recited, and it represents nothing more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The strain sensor and tire merely represent the extra-solution activity of data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exceptions, and therefore represent insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(g). Additionally, the strain sensor and tire are merely an attempt to generally link the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(h). Finally, whether considered individually or in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under any of the indicia set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d).
When viewed individually or as an ordered combination with other claim elements, the additional elements fail to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, or to improve the functioning of a computer, or improve any other technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 5 as a whole is directed to the judicial exceptions.
Claim 6 only recites the additional elements recited in claim 5, and is therefore also directed to the judicial exceptions.
Claim 7 recites the additional elements of:
a strain sensor provided on an inner side surface of a tire or inside the tire.
The strain sensor and tire merely represent the extra-solution activity of data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exceptions, and therefore represent insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(g). Additionally, the strain sensor and tire are merely an attempt to generally link the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(h). Finally, whether considered individually or in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under any of the indicia set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d).
When viewed individually or as an ordered combination with other claim elements, the additional elements fail to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, or to improve the functioning of a computer, or improve any other technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 7 as a whole is directed to the judicial exceptions.
Claim 8 only recites the additional elements recited in claim 7, and is therefore also directed to the judicial exceptions.
Step 2B
Step 2B of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim provides an inventive concept, i.e., whether the claim recites additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim.
Regarding claims 1-4, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element of the CPU amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A, or provide an inventive concept to make the claim amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions in Step 2B.
The sensor unit, tire, and strain data acquisition unit merely represent the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering necessary to perform the abstract ideas, and are recited at a high level of generality, and therefore fail to provide an inventive concept, as set forth in MPEP §§ 2106.05(g). Additionally, plurality of sensors and data receiving step are merely an attempt to generally link the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(h). Finally, Hasegawa, US 20220274452 A1, discloses that a strain gauge (22, Fig. 2), a tire (10, Fig. 2), and a data acquisition unit (31, Fig. 2) are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art, and therefore fail to provide an inventive concept, as set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Whether considered individually or in combination, these additional elements do not provide an inventive concept that makes the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
For these reasons, there are no inventive concepts in claims 1-4 and claims 1-4 are therefore ineligible as being directed to judicial exceptions of abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element of a processor and memory amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A, or provide an inventive concept to make the claim amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions in Step 2B.
The sensor unit, tire, and strain data acquisition unit merely represent the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering necessary to perform the abstract ideas, and are recited at a high level of generality, and therefore fail to provide an inventive concept, as set forth in MPEP §§ 2106.05(g). Additionally, plurality of sensors and data receiving step are merely an attempt to generally link the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(h). Finally, Hasegawa, US 20220274452 A1, discloses that a strain gauge (22, Fig. 2), a tire (10, Fig. 2), and a data acquisition unit (31, Fig. 2) are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art, and therefore fail to provide an inventive concept, as set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Whether considered individually or in combination, these additional elements do not provide an inventive concept that makes the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
For these reasons, there are no inventive concepts in claims 5 and 6 and claims 5 and 6 are therefore ineligible as being directed to judicial exceptions of abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element of a processor and memory amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A, or provide an inventive concept to make the claim amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions in Step 2B.
The sensor unit, tire, and strain data acquisition unit merely represent the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering necessary to perform the abstract ideas, and are recited at a high level of generality, and therefore fail to provide an inventive concept, as set forth in MPEP §§ 2106.05(g). Additionally, plurality of sensors and data receiving step are merely an attempt to generally link the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(h). Finally, Hasegawa, US 20220274452 A1, discloses that a strain gauge (22, Fig. 2), a tire (10, Fig. 2), and a data acquisition unit (31, Fig. 2) are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art, and therefore fail to provide an inventive concept, as set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Whether considered individually or in combination, these additional elements do not provide an inventive concept that makes the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
For these reasons, there are no inventive concepts in claims 7 and 8 and claims 7 and 8 are therefore ineligible as being directed to judicial exceptions of abstract ideas.
Conclusion
Applicant should note that while claims 1-8 are not rejected under either of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and are not allowable.
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 LEO T HINZE whose telephone number is (571)272-2864. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-2.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached on (571)272-2149. 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.
/LEO T HINZE/
Patent Examiner
AU 2853
25 March 2026
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853