DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-4, and 7 are presented for examination.
Claims 2 and 5-6 are cancelled.
This office action is in response to submission of application and preliminary amendment on 11-MAY-2023.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/11/2023, 09/11/2024, and 01/10/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract contains three paragraphs. Examiner suggest removing “Method and device for determining a validity of a tire parameter” and “[FIG. 1]” from the abstract. The abstract also contains reference to figures and legal phraseology. The reference to figures and legal phraseology should be removed.
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, 3-4, and 7 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.
The following phrase does not appear to be supported in the specification in the preliminary amendment of claim 1 recites “a degree of trustworthiness of the tire parameter”. Specifically, the terms “degree” and “trustworthiness” are not found in the specification and do not appear to be supported.
MPEP § 2163(II) “Under 35 U.S.C. 120, the claims in a U.S. application are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed U.S. application if the subject matter of the claim is disclosed in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph in the earlier filed application. See, e.g., Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 47 USPQ2d 1829 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Scheiber, 587 F.2d 59, 199 USPQ 782 (CCPA 1978).”
MPEP § 2163(III) “Under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) or (e), the claims in a U.S. application are entitled to the benefit of a foreign priority date or the filing date of a provisional application if the corresponding foreign application or provisional application supports the claims in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Purdue Pharma LP v. Iancu, 767 Fed. Appx. 918, 923-24, 2019 USPQ2d 136363 (Fed. Cir. 2019); In re Ziegler, 992 F.2d 1197, 1200, 26 USPQ2d 1600, 1603 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Kawai v. Metlesics, 480 F.2d 880, 178 USPQ 158 (CCPA 1973); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 10 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1989).”
The preliminary amendment was submitted on 05/11/2023 with the filing of the US national stage application. However, the application claims foreign priority to Foreign Application DE10 2020 214 321.8 and priority to international application under 371 of PCT/DE2021/200160. Neither of these documents appear to support the amendments. Claim 1 will not have support to these dates and will be given a priority date of 05/11/2023, the date of the filing of the preliminary amendment. Dependent claims 3-4 and 7 will have a priority date of 05/11/2023 per dependency on claim 1.
MPEP § 2163(V) “While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement. "Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).”
The limitation in claim 1 recites “a degree of trustworthiness of the tire parameter”. It is unclear how to determine the term of “degree”. It is unclear if the term is referring to a percentage. The term “trustworthiness” does not appear in the specification. The word “trusted” appears in paragraphs [0005]-[0006] of the specification as published and appear in the context of validity. How to evaluate the “trustworthiness” does not appear to be in the specification because the term “trusted” is related to “valid” or “not valid”, which does not appear to be related to “a degree”.
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, 3-4, and 7 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.
The term “degree of trustworthiness” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “degree of trustworthiness” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification does not recite “trustworthiness”. It is unclear how to assess the “degree” or how the value associated with the “trustworthiness” is determined.
The term “trustworthy” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “trustworthy” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what value or units would be assigned to the term “trustworthy”. It appears to be related to a valid result based on the amendment and Fig. 3 of the specification.
Claim 1 recites the term “mathematical model”. The specification recites “mathematical model” in paragraphs [0007], [0009], and [0010] of the specification as published. None of the paragraphs describe how the “mathematical model” is determined or what is encompassed in the model.
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 1,3-4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (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.”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) “Mathematical Relationships A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. For example, pressure (p) can be described as the ratio between the magnitude of the normal force (F) and area of the surface on contact (A), or it can be set forth in the form of an equation such as p = F/A.”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B) “Mathematical Formulas or Equations A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. For example, the phrase "determining a ratio of A to B" is merely using a textual replacement for the particular equation (ratio = A/B). Additionally, the phrase "calculating the force of the object by multiplying its mass by its acceleration" is using a textual replacement for the particular equation (F= ma).”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) “Mathematical Calculations 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.”
detecting a value of a validity parameter of the tire parameter, the validity parameter indicating a degree of trustworthiness of the tire parameter for use by an electronic control system of the vehicle configured to analyze the tire of the vehicle;
The phrase “detecting a value” can reasonably be interpreted as observing a value. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably understand to observe the value from a database or saved reading. The “validity parameter of the tire parameter” is a value that is observed. The “degree of trustworthiness of the tire parameter” can be interpreted as an opinion or judgement made by a person of ordinary skill in the art when evaluating the tire. The phrase “for use by an electronic control system of the vehicle configured to analyze the tire of the vehicle” is interpreted as intended use. If the term “analyze” was interpreted to have patentable weight, the term would be considered performing an evaluation, which is a mental process.
determining whether the tire parameter is trustworthy based on the value of the validity parameter is trustworthy based on the value of the validity parameter; and
The phrase “determining whether” can reasonably be interpreted as making a judgment. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably understand to judge the value from a saved reading based on opinion or judgement.
analyzing the tire in a mathematical model using the tire parameter in response to determining the tire parameter is trustworthy and analyzing the tire in a mathematical model without using the tire parameter in response to determining the tire parameter is not trustworthy.
The terms “analyzing” and “analyzing” can be reasonably interpreted as a person evaluating. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably perform the evaluation of a tire’s parameter’s trustworthiness’s based on judgement or opinion from experience. If the “tire parameter” is interpreted as “not trustworthy”, a person of ordinary skill in the art would know not to use the parameter when performing an evaluation based on judgement.
The claim twice recites a “mathematical model” which is interpreted to be a mathematical relation.
Therefore, the claim recites a mental process and a mathematical concept.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
No.
There are no additional elements, additional to the abstract idea itself, and therefore no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea and mathematical concept into a practical application (in Step 2A Prong 2).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
There are no additional elements, additional to the abstract idea itself, and therefore no additional elements which provide significantly more than the abstract idea and mathematical concept itself (in Step 2B).
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 3 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
“wherein the value of the validity parameter is changed during installation of the tire on the vehicle.”
The “value of the validity parameter” is an observed value. The “value” is adjusted “during installation of the tire on the vehicle”. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably observe the installation and change the value based on opinion or judgement of the result.
Therefore, the claim recites a mental process and a mathematical concept.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
No.
There are no additional elements, additional to the abstract idea itself, and therefore no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea and mathematical concept into a practical application (in Step 2A Prong 2).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
There are no additional elements, additional to the abstract idea itself, and therefore no additional elements which provide significantly more than the abstract idea and mathematical concept itself (in Step 2B).
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 4 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
wherein the value of the validity parameter is a date on which the tire is installed on the vehicle.
The “value of the validity parameter” is an observed value. The “value” is adjusted for “a date on which the tire is installed on the vehicle”. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably observe the installation and change the value based on opinion or judgement of the result.
Therefore, the claim recites a mental process and a mathematical concept.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
No.
There are no additional elements, additional to the abstract idea itself, and therefore no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea and mathematical concept into a practical application (in Step 2A Prong 2).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
There are no additional elements, additional to the abstract idea itself, and therefore no additional elements which provide significantly more than the abstract idea and mathematical concept itself.
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 7 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
wherein the tire parameter is a tread depth of the tire.
The “tire parameter” is further specified to be “tread depth of the tire”. The value can be observed.
Therefore, the claim recites a mental process and a mathematical concept.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
No.
There are no additional elements, additional to the abstract idea itself, and therefore no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea and mathematical concept into a practical application (in Step 2A Prong 2).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
There are no additional elements, additional to the abstract idea itself, and therefore no additional elements which provide significantly more than the abstract idea and mathematical concept itself.
The claim is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1, 3, and 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Araki et al., Foreign Application JP 2010133891 A [2010] (hereinafter ‘Araki’) in view of
Tang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0300133 A1 (hereinafter ‘Tang’).
Regarding Claim 1: A method of determining a validity of a tire parameter of tire of a vehicle, the method comprising:
Araki teaches detecting a value of a validity parameter of the tire parameter, (Pg. 3 2nd paragraph Araki teaches a flag, i.e. a value of a validity parameter and a physical-property value, i.e. tire parameter “…Further, the tire condition monitoring method of the present invention (second invention) for achieving the above object is to measure a physical property value in the tire by a sensor of a sensor module installed in the tire, and to obtain the data of the physical property value While transmitting from the sensor module every arbitrary time, the tire which received the data from the said sensor module with the receiver installed in the vehicle, and monitors the said physical-property value based on the data which the said receiver received In the state monitoring method, when the measured value by the sensor exceeds a preset threshold value, at least one flag is set in the packet of data transmitted from the sensor module, and the receiver compares the received data with the previous value. If the received data exceeds the threshold, the status of the received data flag is checked, and only when the flag is set. Adopted data, if the flag is not set and is characterized in that to discard the received data…”)
Araki teaches the validity parameter indicating a degree of trustworthiness of the tire parameter for use by an electronic control system of the vehicle configured to analyze the tire of the vehicle; (Pg. 6 1st-2nd paragraph Araki teaches determining if the data is valid, i.e. trustworthiness, and compares the values to a threshold, i.e. degree “…When the change amount of the received data with respect to the previous data is equal to or less than a preset threshold value, the data is used as valid information (step S10). Further, data that is confirmed to have a flag is also used as valid information (step S10). For example, when the air pressure that was 900 kPa falls to 780 kPa at a rate exceeding the threshold due to puncture or the like, the transmission data is transmitted with the flag added. The received data of 780 kPa is recognized as a correct measurement value from the presence of the flag. On the other hand, when the data transmitted as 900 kPa is changed to 550 kPa for some reason, the transmission data does not have a flag. In this case, the received data shows a value of 550 kPa, but the data is discarded because there is no flag…”)
Araki teaches determining whether the tire parameter is trustworthy based on the value of the validity parameter; and (Pg. 6 last paragraph – pg. 7 1st paragraph Araki teaches that the flag determines if the data is discarded or adopted, i.e. trustworthy “…The data transmitted from the transmission circuit 17 is received by the reception circuit 22 via the reception antenna 21 of the receiver 20 installed in the vehicle (step S15). Then, after performing the CRC check (step S16), the arithmetic processing unit 23 compares the reception data of the reception circuit 22 with a threshold value set in advance to the same value as that of the sensor module 10 (step S17). If the received data exceeds a preset threshold value, the status of the received data flag is confirmed (step S18). The received data is adopted only when the flag is set, and the data is discarded when the flag is not set (step S19). If the received data is less than or equal to a preset threshold value, the data is used as valid information (step S20). Further, data that is confirmed to have a flag is also used as valid information (step S20)…”)
Araki teaches analyzing … using the tire parameter in response to determining the tire parameter is trustworthy and (Pg. 8 2nd paragraph Araki teaches the flag signals the data is adopted, i.e. using “…When exceeding, when at least one flag is set in the packet of data transmitted from the sensor module, the receiver compares the received data with the previous value, and the amount of change of the received data with respect to the previous value exceeds the threshold value Check the flag status of the received data, adopt the received data only when the flag is set, and set the flag If not tire condition monitoring method characterized by discarding the received data…” Pg. 3 3rd paragraph Araki “…A sensor module including a transmission circuit that transmits data processed by the processing unit and the first arithmetic processing unit at arbitrary time, a reception circuit that receives data from the sensor module, and a reception data of the reception circuit A tire condition monitoring system comprising: a receiver including a second arithmetic processing unit to process; and a monitoring device that monitors the physical property value based on data processed by the second arithmetic processing unit…”)
Araki teaches analyzing … without using the tire parameter in response to determining the tire parameter is not trustworthy. (Pg. 8 2nd paragraph Araki teaches if the flag is not set, i.e. not trustworthy, the data is discarded, i.e. analyzing without using “…In the tire condition monitoring method in which the physical property value is monitored based on the data received by the receiver, when the measured value by the sensor exceeds a preset threshold value, the sensor module Sets at least one flag in the data packet to be transmitted from the receiver, compares the received data with the previous value in the receiver, and if the received data exceeds the threshold, checks the status of the flag of the received data; The received data is adopted only when the flag is set, and the received data is discarded when the flag is not set. Tire condition monitoring method to be…”)
Araki does not appear to explicitly disclose
analyzing the tire in a mathematical model
analyzing the tire in a mathematical model without
However, Tang teaches analyzing the tire in a mathematical model and analyzing the tire in a mathematical model without ([0123] Tang teaches using tread depth if tread depth, i.e. tire parameter is available, if it is not available returns to run the model in Fig. 9, i.e. without “…If application data is not available (e.g., block 1010 returns NO), control returns to the machine readable instructions 900 of FIG. 9 where the model generator 624 (FIG. 6) generates a tread depth status model. If application data is available (e.g., block 1010 returns YES), the test controller 608 accesses available application data, include acceleration data (e.g., acceleration data 402-406), tread depth statutes, measured tread depths 318, and/or additional input data collected during an application of a previous tread depth status model with one or more of the on-board diagnostic modules 102. (Block 1012)…”)
Araki and Tang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, determining the condition of a tire using computational processing.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the analyzing using the tire parameter in response to determining the tire parameter is trustworthy and analyzing without using the tire parameter in response to determining the tire parameter is not trustworthy as disclosed by Araki by analyzing the tire in a mathematical model and analyzing the tire in a mathematical model without as disclosed by Tang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a vehicle operator and passenger with the benefit of having better awareness of the status of the tread depth as discussed in paragraph [0024] of Tang “…Tire tread depth can be inspected manually by, for example, inspecting wear indicator bars etched on the tire by the tire's manufacturer, pressing monetary coins such as a United States quarter dollar coin (e.g., a Quarter) into a tread, and/or using a dedicated tread depth gauge, etc. However, these methods of inspection are often applied only infrequently to a vehicle. Accordingly, it is beneficial for a vehicle operator to be aware that the tread depths of one or more tires of their vehicle is near or below the threshold tread depth ( e.g., an "unacceptable" tread depth status), or if the tires of the vehicle are in good condition well enough above the threshold tread depth ( e.g., an "acceptable" tread depth status). It can be beneficial for a passenger ( e.g., an owner, etc.) of an autonomous vehicle to be aware that tread depths of one or more tires of their vehicle is near or below the threshold tread depth and needs replacement…”
Regarding Claim 3: Araki and Tang teach The method according to claim 1,
Tang teaches wherein the value of the validity parameter is changed during installation of the tire on the vehicle. ([0023] Tang “…As the tires wear down with use, a tread depth (e.g., a depth of the radially inward grooves in the tires) decreases as the radially outer surface of the tires wear radially inward. The tread depth is a primary metric for replacing and/or rotating vehicle tires. For example, when the tread depth of a tire is below a threshold, the tire should be considered for being replaced for optimum performance…” [0111] Tang “…The tread depth status can be one of, for example, "acceptable" indicating that the tread depth 318 exceeds a threshold, or "unacceptable" indicating that the tread depth 318 is below the threshold and needs immediate attention. The tread depth threshold can be, for example, 3/22 in. Additionally or alternatively, the tread depth status can be one of, for example, "good condition" indicating that the tread depth 318 is above a high threshold, "moderate wear condition" indicating that the tread depth 318 is between the high threshold and a low threshold, or "unacceptable" indicating that the tread depth 318 is below the low threshold an needs immediate attention. For example, the high threshold can be 7/22 in. and the low threshold can be 3/22 in. In other examples, any other suitable range and number of thread depths 318 and/or thresholds can be used…”)
Regarding Claim 7: Araki and Tang teach The method according to claim 1,
Tang teaches wherein the tire parameter is a tread depth of the tire. ([0030] Tang “…In some disclosed examples, in the operation phase, the on-board diagnostic module can predict a tread depth status ( e.g., "acceptable" or "unacceptable") of one or more tires of the vehicle based on the augmented power spectrum density. In some examples, the on-board diagnostic module can consider available additional data ( e.g., vehicle and tire make, model, tread depth history, vehicle load, vehicle speed, tire pressure, temperature etc.)…”)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Araki et al., Foreign Application JP 2010133891 A [2010] (hereinafter ‘Araki’) in view of
Tang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0300133 A1 (hereinafter ‘Tang’) in view of
Tucker, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0080524 A1 (hereinafter ‘Tucker’).
Regarding Claim 4: Araki and Tang teach The method according to claim 1,
Araki and Tang do not appear to explicitly disclose
wherein the value of the validity parameter is a date on which the tire is installed on the vehicle.
However, Tucker teaches wherein the value of the validity parameter is a date on which the tire is installed on the vehicle ([0097] Tucker “…For repairs, a maintenance technician could interact with the tire's CMM using external tools/interfaces to add the information about the repair. Alternatively, this information could be added to the tire's CMM through the car's systems. In addition, maintenance technicians are often required to log their work performed. In the case of installations and removals, most of the information needed is stored in the log we previously showed. The tire in the table moved from vehicle A100 after it's trip 2702 to vehicle A123 on its trip 1000 (presumably, a date/time is also available). However, we have not associated the “who” with the “what.” If the vehicle is powered-up (in a “maintenance” mode), then it could be scanning the tires' CMMs for changes in configuration, as well as for a maintainer's identification module (possibly a wireless communication device, whose proximity to the vehicle/tire at the time of installation/removal triggers a recording of this ID information). In this way, a maintainer need only verify that those tasks associated with their ID are correct (i.e., at the end of the day)…”)
Araki, Tang, and Tucker are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, determining the condition of a tire using computational processing.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the detecting a value of a validity parameter of the tire parameter as disclosed by Araki and Tang by wherein the value of the validity parameter is a date on which the tire is installed on the vehicle as disclosed by Tucker.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to better understand tire expected life and determine financial obligations like warranty as discussed in paragraph [0098] by Tucker “…When a tire is finally removed at end of life, the tire's actual usage can be compared to expectation. To do this, tire configuration and usage data may be transmitted to a central database. This would allow the manufacturer to ascertain how many tires reach a certain expected life and how this will affect financial obligations like warranty…”
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yanase (CN 105584303 A) teaches a tire pressure detecting device that mathematically models tire pressure using FIR (finite impulse response) and the motivation of automobile safety.
ISHIGAKI (JP 2019074927 A) teaches detection of abnormal tire data using machine learning.
Mcpillan (WO 2017156213 A1) teaches tire tread depth modeling.
Lan (CN 101007492) teaches that a visual indication of tire tread pattern wear generates social pressure.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 3-4, and 7 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN E JOHANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-3PM.
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 5712723652. 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.
/JOHN E JOHANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights