Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 1/9/2026. Claims 1-34 are pending, with Claims 10-25 being withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claims 26-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the indirectly determined value” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 27-34 are rejected due to their dependence on Claim 26.
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 1-9 and 26-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the Claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter?
Independent Claims 1 and 26 each recite a method. Thus, the claims are to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong One: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea?
Independent claim 1 recites:
A method for adjustment of indirectly determined values of a tire monitoring system, the method comprising:
identifying, by a tire monitoring controller, an indirectly determined value associated with a tire;
identifying, by the tire monitoring controller, one or more tire parameters from one or more direct measurement devices:
using, by the tire monitoring controller, the one or more tire parameters from the one or more direct measurement devices to adjust the indirectly determined value; [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and a mental process because they can be performed by a human using pen and paper], wherein the indirectly determined value is generated independently of the one or more measurement devices; and
using, by the tire monitoring controller, the adjusted indirectly determined value to indirectly determine a wear condition value for the tire [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and a mental process because they can be performed by a human using pen and paper].
Step 2A: Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application?
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements (i.e., “identifying, by a tire monitoring controller, an indirectly determined value associated with a tire”, “identifying, by the tire monitoring controller, one or more tire parameters from one or more direct measurement devices”, “wherein the indirectly determined value is generated independently of the one or more measurement devices”, and using the tire monitoring controller to perform the using steps).
The examiner submits that each of the additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of the abstract idea performed. The identifying steps and the indirectly determined value being generated independently of the one or more measurement devices merely recite gathering of data for use in the abstract idea, e.g., from a memory or from a generic measurement device, and the tire monitoring controller merely recites use of generic computer hardware to perform the abstract idea (i.e., the using steps).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea?
The examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent Claim 26 recites essentially the same identifying and using steps, performed by the same tire monitoring controller, as are recited in independent Claim 1, and is also not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-9 and 27-34 merely recite further data gathering, and/or further details of the mathematical concepts and/or mental process, and are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9, 26, 27, 29, and 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kretschmann et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0189328, hereinafter “Kretschmann”, cited on Applicant’s IDS dated 2/25/2023).
Regarding Claim 1, Kretschmann teaches a method for adjustment of indirectly determined values of a tire monitoring system (Fig. 1), the method comprising: identifying, by a tire monitoring controller (Fig. 2, control device 20), an indirectly determined value associated with a tire (S5, paragraphs [0105] and [0107], predetermined standard value for initial model parameter that is used by model to determine tread depth); identifying, by the tire monitoring controller, one or more tire parameters from one or more direct measurement devices (S5, paragraph [0107], operating parameters, including tire pressure, tire temperature, tire load, etc.), wherein the indirectly determined value is generated independently of the one or more direct measurement devices (paragraph [0105], initial model parameter is a predetermined standard value that is not determined based on direct measurements); using, by the tire monitoring controller, the one or more tire parameters from the one or more direct measurement devices to adjust the indirectly determined value (S6, paragraph [0108], adapting the at least one model parameter); and using by the tire monitoring controller, the adjusted indirectly determined value to indirectly determine a wear condition value for the tire (S9, paragraph [0115], ascertaining the tread depth based on the model).
Regarding Claim 4, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Kretschmann further teaches wherein the one or more tire parameters include a distance traveled by the tire (S3, mileage is used to determine whether S5 and S6 are performed, i.e., is used in the adjusting of the model parameters).
Regarding Claim 5, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Kretschmann further teaches wherein the one or more tire parameters include a speed value associated with the tire (paragraph [0105], velocity of the vehicle).
Regarding Claim 6, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 5. Kretschmann further teaches wherein the speed value is an indication of a GPS vehicle speed (paragraph [0105], velocity of the vehicle, paragraph [0100], GPS).
Regarding Claim 7, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 5. Kretschmann further teaches wherein the speed value is an indication of a rotational speed of the tire (paragraph [0106], tire rotation speed).
Regarding Claim 8, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Kretschmann further teaches wherein the wear condition value is an indication of tread depth of the tire (paragraph [0115], tread depth).
Regarding Claim 9, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Kretschmann further teaches wherein the wear condition value is an indication of tread wear of the tire (paragraph [0115], tread depth is an indication of tread wear).
Regarding Claim 26, Kretschmann teaches a method of adjustment of indirectly determined values of a tire monitoring system, the method comprising: identifying, by a tire monitoring controller (Fig. 2, control device 20), an indirectly determined wear condition value associated with a tire (S5, paragraphs [0105] and [0107], predetermined standard value for initial model parameter that is used by model to determine tread depth); identifying, by the tire monitoring controller, one or more tire parameters from one or more direct measurement devices (paragraph [0105], ascertained operating parameters of the tire), wherein the indirectly determined value is generated independently of the one or more direct measurement devices (paragraph [0105], initial model parameter is a predetermined standard value that is not determined based on direct measurements); and using, by the tire monitoring controller, the one or more tire parameters from the one or more direct measurement devices to adjust the indirectly determined wear condition value for the tire (S6, paragraph [0108], adapting the at least one model parameter).
Regarding Claim 27, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 26. Kretschmann further teaches determining, by the tire monitoring controller, one or more measurements associated with the tire (paragraph [0106], ascertained operating parameters of the tire); and using, by the tire monitoring controller, the one or more measurements to indirectly determine a wear condition value (paragraph [0106], ascertained tread depth).
Regarding Claim 29, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 26. Kretschmann further teaches wherein the one or more parameters include a contact patch length measurement (paragraph [0101], tire contact surface).
Regarding Claim 32, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 26. Kretschmann further teaches wherein the one or more measurements include a speed value associated with the tire (paragraph [0106], tire rotation speed).
Regarding Claim 33, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 26. Kretschmann further teaches wherein the wear condition value is an indication of tread depth of the tire (paragraph [0106], tread depth).
Regarding Claim 34, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 26. Kretschmann further teaches wherein the wear condition value is an indication of tread wear of the tire (paragraph [0106], tread depth is an indication of tread wear).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kretschmann in view of Stewart et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0270347, hereinafter “Stewart”).
Regarding Claim 2, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Kretschmann does not specifically teach determining, by the tire monitoring controller, one or more measurements associated with the tire; and using, by the tire monitoring controller, the one or more measurements to indirectly determine an expansion value. However, Stewart teaches determining, by the tire monitoring controller, one or more measurements associated with the tire (paragraph [0033], tire temperature 462); and using, by the tire monitoring controller, the one or more measurements to indirectly determine an expansion value (paragraph [0033], tire rotational count is determined based on tire diameter, which indicates expansion or contraction of the tire; expansion of tire is related to temperature 462). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include compensation variables such as the tire temperature measurement and diameter determination of Stewart in the system of Kretschmann, in order to improve the accuracy of the system (see Stewart, paragraph [0032]).
Claim(s) 3 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kretschmann in view of Woodley et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0312017, hereinafter “Woodley”).
Regarding Claim 3, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Kretschmann does not specifically teach wherein the one or more tire parameters include a tire stiffness parameter. However, Woodley teaches in paragraph [0326] that the deeper the tire’s tread is, the stiffer the driving face of the tire is. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include stiffness, as is taught in Woodley, in the tire wear determination model of Kretschmann, because tread depth is related to the stiffness of the driving face of a tire (see Woodley, paragraph [0326]).
Regarding Claim 28, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 26. Kretschmann does not specifically teach wherein the one or more parameters include a tire stiffness parameter. However, Woodley teaches in paragraph [0326] that the deeper the tire’s tread is, the stiffer the driving face of the tire is. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include stiffness, as is taught in Woodley, in the tire wear determination model of Kretschmann, because tread depth is related to the stiffness of the driving face of a tire (see Woodley, paragraph [0326]).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kretschmann in view of Forney et al (U.S. Pat. No. 5042546, hereinafter “Forney”).
Regarding Claim 30, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 26. Kretschmann does not specifically teach wherein the one or more parameters include a peak radial displacement measurement. However, Kretschmann does teach in paragraph [0106] that wear is determined based on a determined outside radius of the tire, which is equated to claimed peak radial displacement because the outside radius of tire indicates the radial displacement of the tire, and would include a peak value as it is determined over time. Further, Forney teaches in Fig. 2 and column 7, lines 54-column 8, line 23, that peak radial displacement can be directly measured (solid line identified MEAS). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the measurement of the radial displacement that is taught in Forney in the system of Kretschmann, and to use that measurement to determine wear of the tire, because direct measurement of a value is more accurate than prediction (see Forney, Fig. 2, FEA value versus MEAS value), and in order to detect undesirable uneven wear of the tire (see Forney, column 8, lines 15-23).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kretschmann in view of Singh and Taheri, "Accelerometer Based Method for Tire Load and Slip Angle Estimation", arXiv:1901.08049v1 (1/23/2019, hereinafter “Singh”).
Regarding Claim 31, Kretschmann teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 26. Kretschmann does not specifically teach wherein the one or more parameters include a determination of tire load based at least on one of a contact patch length measurement and a peak radial displacement measurement. However, Singh teaches in Section 4.1 that a common approach to estimate tire load is the relationship between load and contact patch length, and that there is also a strong correlation between tire load and peak radial displacement (as measured based on an accelerometer). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include tire load estimation taught in Singh in the system of Kretschmann, because each of contact patch length and peak radial displacement are correlated to load (see Table 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 101 rejections, Applicant argues on pages 8-9 that the “indirectly determined value is generated independently of the one or more direct measurement devices” cannot be performed as a mental process. The Examiner disagrees. The claim does not specify how the indirectly determined value is generated, beyond that it is not generated using data from a single, generically recited measurement device. This may encompass merely retrieving a value from a memory, and is mere data gathering. Applicant goes on to argue on page 9 that the tire monitoring controller and identification of tire parameters cannot be performed in the human mind. Again, the Examiner disagrees. The tire monitoring controller is a generic computer processor that performs simple mathematical calculations, which could be performed in the human mind. Further, the listed tire parameters are merely data that is gathered from generic sensors.
Applicant goes on to argue on pages 9-10 that the claims do not merely gather data and apply a mathematical formula. The Examiner disagrees. The claims are extremely broad, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, gathering data from a memory or generic sensors and performing simple mathematical calculations using that gathered data is all that is required to be performed in the claims. It is noted that sensors associated with tires are common in the art, and Applicant is not claiming any particular, novel arrangement of sensors.
Applicant goes on to argue on page 10 that the claims recite a specific technical feature. The Examiner disagrees, because the claims are very broad, and as noted above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, gathering data from generic sensors and performing simple mathematical calculations using that gathered data is all that is required to be performed in the claims.
Regarding the 102 rejections, the Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s arguments that Kretschmann does not teach the amended claims. The predetermined standard value that is initially used for the at least one model parameter teaches the indirectly determined value of the Claims. Updated rejections based on Applicant’s amendments are provided above. It is recommended that Applicant amend the claims to specify what the indirectly determined value of claim 1 (and the indirectly determined wear condition value of claim 26) is, and how it is generated.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CYNTHIA L DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am to 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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/CYNTHIA L DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857