DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 04/02/2026. Claims 1-17, and 20 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Claim 1 was amended.
Reply to Remarks
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 2-4 of the Applicant's Remarks, filed 04/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17, and 20 under § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claim amendments overcome the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Examiner respectively disagrees.
The claimed amendments to the independent claim do not overcome the previous 101 rejections because the final paragraph does not recite a vehicular control step. Language regarding the use of the data by a tire replacement system does not correspond to a control step. The claim amendments explain that following the performance of the abstract ideas, such as performing an estimation of the remaining available distance, a notification of the time until the tire must be replaced is provided to a display device to actuate, meaning, for the purposes of, having the vehicle perform actions related to the replacement of the tire. As the Examiner noted previously, displaying or actions similar to displaying data are insignificant extra solution activities and are not sufficient to overcome the mental process 101 rejection. The present set of limitations is not directed to the structure or configuration of an internal combustion engine as noted in the example 26 cited by the Applicant nor are the claims directed to the structure of a tire replacement system such as descriptions of pumps or car lifts. Examiner notes that the Applicant is not arguing that a mathematical equation is not present, rather that the remaining limitations comprise significantly more than such. Claiming a technical improvement for controlling when a vehicle visits a tire replacement center does not overcome the abstract idea, as concrete vehicular control must be performed and more technical details must be added to display a technical improvement such as the extensive details discussed in the claims of example 25. Further, given that the current claim limitations lack a concrete control step, and that the Applicant’s cited example 25 specifies that the technical improvement to the rubber molding process, using the calculation of the mold time using the Arrhenius equation, results in controlling the press to open, the Examiner concludes that the claims are directed to abstract ideas and mathematical equations.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 2 of the Applicant's Remarks, filed 04/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17, and 20 under § 112(a)/(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "residual correction module...to optimize" in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1
Step 1: The claim is directed to an apparatus as it recites (a replacement system).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim
recites the limitations:
A replacement system for a tire supporting a vehicle, the vehicle including an electronic system, the replacement system comprising:
a processor in electronic communication with the electronic system of the vehicle;
an electronic memory capacity for storing identification information for the tire;
the processor receiving identification information for the tire from the electronic memory capacity and vehicle data from the electronic system of the vehicle;
a prediction model in electronic communication with the processor and receiving the identification information for the tire and the vehicle data;
an identification of a replacement tread depth for the tire included in the prediction model; an estimation of remaining available distance for the tire to reach the replacement tread depth being determined by the prediction model;
an estimation of remaining available time to reach the replacement tread depth being determined by the prediction model from the estimation of remaining available distance for the tire to reach the replacement tread depth;
a residual correction module in electronic communication with the processor to optimize the estimation of the remaining available time for the tire to reach the replacement tread depth;
a replacement lead time determination being generated by the tire replacement system and corresponding to the estimation of remaining available time for the tire to reach the replacement tread depth;
a filter module in electronic communication with the processor, wherein the filter module allows the tire replacement system to employ data when the tire is within a predetermined wear rate range; and
a notification of the replacement lead time being generated by the tire replacement system and transmitted to at least one of the electronic system of the vehicle, a cloud-based server, and a display device, for communication to at least one of a user of the vehicle, a technician, and a fleet manager for replacement of the tire in response to the notification.
These limitations as drafted are simple processes that under their broadest reasonable interpretations cover the performance of these limitations in the mind or by hand or with pen and paper as these steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The nominal recitation of the processor does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process which is an abstract idea. Further, the prediction model corresponds to a mathematical concept or equation that is solved and is also a mental process as it is an estimation conducted in the mind resulting in the mental processes highlighted above. Further, the residual correction module that optimizes the estimation of remaining available time requires specific mathematical calculations that include the use of a machine learning model that trains an analysis model and therefore encompasses mathematical concepts.
Step 2A Prong 2: Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim
recites the additional elements of:
A replacement system for a tire supporting a vehicle, the vehicle including an electronic system, the replacement system comprising:
a processor in electronic communication with the electronic system of the vehicle;
an electronic memory capacity for storing identification information for the tire;
the processor receiving identification information for the tire from the electronic memory capacity and vehicle data from the electronic system of the vehicle;
a prediction model in electronic communication with the processor and receiving the identification information for the tire and the vehicle data;
an identification of a replacement tread depth for the tire included in the prediction model; an estimation of remaining available distance for the tire to reach the replacement tread depth being determined by the prediction model;
an estimation of remaining available time to reach the replacement tread depth being determined by the prediction model from the estimation of remaining available distance for the tire to reach the replacement tread depth;
a residual correction module in electronic communication with the processor to optimize the estimation of the remaining available time for the tire to reach the replacement tread depth;
a replacement lead time determination being generated by the tire replacement system and corresponding to the estimation of remaining available time for the tire to reach the replacement tread depth;
a filter module in electronic communication with the processor, wherein the filter module allows the tire replacement system to employ data when the tire is within a predetermined wear rate range; and
a notification of the replacement lead time being generated by the tire replacement system and transmitted to at least one of the electronic system of the vehicle, a cloud-based server, and a display device, for communication to at least one of a user of the vehicle, a technician, and a fleet manager for replacement of the tire in response to the notification.
The recited processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely applies the exception using generic computer components to automate the abstract idea. Further, the instruction for receiving identification information for the tire and vehicle data is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., receiving identification information for the tire and vehicle data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the additional elements are applying the abstract ideas in a vehicle environment. Further, the instruction for displaying replacement lead times is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., transmitted to at least one of the electronic system of the vehicle… a display device), and clearly is just displaying information, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong
2, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception in a
vehicle environment using gathered visual observation data and displaying the results using generic processors which do not provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). For these reasons, claim 1 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
As per claims 2-17, and 20
These system claims further define the abstract ideas of the mental processes illustrated in claim 1, they do not recite any additional elements or other limitations that transform the determinations of tire depth decay parameters or data gathering, using generic computer components, and these elements are not sufficient to overcome the mental process rejection.
Conclusion
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 FARIS ASIM SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-6426. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:30 M-F EST.
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, Fadey S. Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/F.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights