DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 11 reads as follows:
11. A tire management system comprising:
a second determination processing portion configured to determine, based on cause history information concerning a cause of degradation of performance of a tire mounted on a vehicle, whether or not the performance needs to be restored; and
a fifth output processing portion configured to, upon a determination by the second determination processing portion that the performance needs to be restored, output restoration information indicating a need of restoration to a predetermined output destination.
The claim recites “a second determination processing portion” and “a fifth output processing portion”, but does not recite a first determination processing portion, nor a first, second, third, or fourth output processing portion. As best understood by the examiner, the claim only requires two claimed different processing portions and does not require any unlisted processing portions as they are the only recited processing portions in the claimed invention. To improve clarity of the claimed invention, the claims should be amended to a first determination processing portion and a first output processing portion, or to a determination processing portion and an output processing portion, since the claim does not expressly require a more than the two recited processing portions.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a process or product as a computer implemented method or a computer system/product.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
1. A tire management system comprising:
a first acquisition processing portion configured to acquire cause history information concerning a cause of degradation of performance of a tire mounted on a vehicle; and
a material decision processing portion configured to decide a restoration material for restoring the performance that has been degraded, based on the cause history information acquired by the first acquisition processing portion.
Claim 4 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
4. A tire management system comprising:
a first acquisition processing portion configured to acquire cause history information concerning a cause of degradation of performance of a tire mounted on a vehicle;
a second acquisition processing portion configured to acquire material information concerning one or more materials constituting the tire; and
a material decision processing portion configured to decide a restoration material for restoring the performance that has been degraded, based on the cause history information acquired by the first acquisition processing portion and the material information acquired by the second acquisition processing portion.
Claim 11 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
11. A tire management system comprising:
a second determination processing portion configured to determine, based on cause history information concerning a cause of degradation of performance of a tire mounted on a vehicle, whether or not the performance needs to be restored; and
a fifth output processing portion configured to, upon a determination by the second determination processing portion that the performance needs to be restored, output restoration information indicating a need of restoration to a predetermined output destination.
The limitations underlined can be considered to describe a mathematical concept, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, obtained by a sequence of mathematical operations on numbers and/or mental steps. The lack of a specific equation in the claim merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible appropriate equations for accomplishing this purpose in all possible systems. These steps recited by the claim therefore amount to a series of mental and/or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
In summary, the highlighted steps in the claim above therefore recite an abstract idea at Prong 1 of the 101 analysis.
The additional elements in the claim have been left in normal font.
The additional limitations in relation to the tire management system and recited processing portions do not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014)). The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea.
The imitations in relation to acquiring the recited history information and material information equates to extrasolution data activity, i.e. data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The imitations in relation to outputting restoration information equates to extrasolution data activity, i.e. data reporting (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. (Manipulating data from one form to another or obtaining a mathematical answer using input data does not qualify as a transformation in the sense of Prong 2.)
The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea. (This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from Diamond v Diehr, in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite carrying out any comparable particular technological process.) In all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the abstract idea itself, rather than integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1, 4, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-3 and 5-10 are similarly ineligible. The dependent claims merely add limitations which further detail the abstract idea, namely further mathematical/mental steps detailing how the data processing algorithm is implemented, i.e. additional software limitations, further define the type of data gathered, i.e. extra solution data activity, and/or add insignificant computer limitations. These do not help to integrate the claim into a practical application or make it significantly more than the abstract idea (which is recited in slightly more detail, but not in enough detail to be considered to narrow the claim to a particular practical application itself).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oki (US 20200148010).
Regarding claim 1, Oki discloses a tire management system (see Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraph 0031: tire maintenance support system) comprising:
a first acquisition processing portion configured to acquire cause history information concerning a cause of degradation of performance of a tire mounted on a vehicle (see paragraph 0010 and 0042-0043: wear progress degree acquisition portion acquires a degree based on a wear amount of the tire mounted to the predetermined position within a predetermined period; as described in the specification the recited processing portions can be software portions); and
a material decision processing portion configured to decide a restoration material for restoring the performance that has been degraded, based on the cause history information acquired by the first acquisition processing portion (see paragraphs 0059-0060: re-tread member selection portion selects a rubber for the re-tread having a certain thickness, as described in the applicant’s specification, re-tread meets the limitation of the clamed restoration material; see Fig. 5 and paragraphs 0073 and 0075: retread decision is based on the acquired wear progress degree).
Regarding claim 2, Oki discloses wherein the material decision processing portion includes a determination portion configured to perform a process to determine a deteriorated content of the tire based on the cause history information (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0010 and 0048: wear amount calculation portion 120, part of the software algorithm, calculates a predicted wear amount based on the wear progress degree acquire by the wear progress degree acquisition portion 110); and
a selection portion configured to perform a process to select the restoration material corresponding to the deteriorated content determined in a determination process performed by the determination portion, from a predetermined storage portion storing the deteriorated content and the restoration material in correspondence with each other (see Fig 1 and paragraphs 0060, 0062, and 0116: re-tread selection portion selects re-tread based, provides example thickness for retreads, or may indicate a type of rubber, memory/database must contains information of thickness and/or rubber types in a database for them to be selected, memory/database also contain deteriorated content as it processes deteriorated content as discussed above, claim does not define a specific relationship between the stored data in the predetermined storage portion).
Regarding claim 3, Oki discloses wherein the cause history information includes history of a plurality of causes (see paragraph 0010: acquires wear in relation to wear of tread and wear of a side portion), and the material decision processing portion decides, based on the cause history information, a main cause of degradation of the performance, and selects the restoration material corresponding to the main cause, from a predetermined storage portion storing the main cause and the restoration material in correspondence with each other (see paragraph 0060-0062 and 0111: system selects a re-tread or re-side based on the analysis of the wear of the tire, the claim does not specify a cause of degradation of the performance is, in this case the cause of degradation of the performance can be attributed to either degradation in the tread or degradation in the siding and the restoration material of either re-tread or re-siding is selected based on the analysis; as discussed above memory/database must contains information of thickness and/or rubber types in a database for them to be selected, memory/database also contain deteriorated content as it processes deteriorated content as discussed above, claim does not define a specific relationship between the stored data in the predetermined storage portion).
Regarding claim 4, Oki discloses a tire management system (see Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraph 0031: tire maintenance support system) comprising:
a first acquisition processing portion configured to acquire cause history information concerning a cause of degradation of performance of a tire mounted on a vehicle (see paragraph 0010 and 0042-0043: wear progress degree acquisition portion acquires a degree based on a wear amount of the tire mounted to the predetermined position within a predetermined period; as described in the specification the recited processing portions can be software portions);
a second acquisition processing portion configured to acquire material information concerning one or more materials constituting the tire (see Abstract and paragraph 0042-0044: acquires wear amount of the side portion of the tire, the wear amount of the side portion equates to material information concerning one or more materials constituting the tire as it is information concerning a material, i.e. side material, of the tire); and
a material decision processing portion configured to decide a restoration material for restoring the performance that has been degraded, based on the cause history information acquired by the first acquisition processing portion and the material information acquired by the second acquisition processing portion (see Fig. 6 and paragraphs 0059-0061: decision of a selection as to if re-tread or re-side is necessary, selects a rubber for the re-tread having a certain thickness, as described in the applicant’s specification, re-tread meets the limitation of the clamed restoration material; see Fig. 5 and paragraphs 0073 and 0075: retread decision is based on the acquired wear progress degree).
Regarding claim 5, Oki discloses wherein the material decision processing portion includes a determination portion configured to perform a process to determine a deteriorated content of the tire based on the cause history information (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0010 and 0048: wear amount calculation portion 120, part of the software algorithm, calculates a predicted wear amount based on the wear progress degree acquire by the wear progress degree acquisition portion 110); and
a selection portion configured to perform a process to select, from a predetermined storage portion storing the deteriorated content and the restoration material in correspondence with each other, the restoration material that corresponds to a material included in the material information and corresponds to the deteriorated content determined in a determination process performed by the determination portion (see Fig 1 and paragraphs 0060, 0061, 0062, and 0116: re-tread selection portion selects re-tread based, provides example thickness for retreads, or may indicate a type of rubber, memory/database must contains information of thickness and/or rubber types in a database for them to be selected, memory/database also contain deteriorated content as it processes deteriorated content as discussed above, claim does not define a specific relationship between the stored data in the predetermined storage portion).
Regarding claim 6, Oki discloses wherein the cause history information includes history of a plurality of causes (see paragraph 0010: acquires wear in relation to wear of tread and wear of a side portion), and the material decision processing portion decides a main cause of degradation of the performance based on the cause history information, and selects, from a predetermined storage portion storing the main cause and the restoration material in correspondence with each other, the restoration material that corresponds to a material included in the material information and corresponds to the main cause (see paragraph 0060-0062 and 0111: system selects a re-tread or re-side based on the analysis of the wear of the tire, the claim does not specify a cause of degradation of the performance is, in this case the cause of degradation of the performance can be attributed to either degradation in the tread or degradation in the siding and the restoration material of either re-tread or re-siding is selected based on the analysis; as discussed above memory/database must contains information of thickness and/or rubber types in a database for them to be selected, memory/database also contain deteriorated content as it processes deteriorated content as discussed above, claim does not define a specific relationship between the stored data in the predetermined storage portion).
Regarding claim 7, Oki discloses wherein the material information includes a rubber component constituting the tire, and the material decision processing portion decides the restoration material corresponding to the rubber component included in the material information (see paragraphs 0059-0060: re-tread member selection portion selects a rubber for the re-tread having a certain thickness and/or a kind of the rubber for the re-tread, as described in the applicant’s specification, re-tread meets the limitation of the clamed restoration material, stored information must include kind or rubber/thickness for it to be selected).
Regarding claim 9, Oki discloses a material information storage portion in which is stored tire material data that includes tire identification information indicating the tire and the material information corresponding to the tire identification information (see Abstract, Fig. 9, and paragraph 0070-0071: acquires the wear progress degree in each mount position for each tire), wherein upon an input of the tire identification information, the second acquisition processing portion extracts, from the tire material data, the material information corresponding to the tire identification information (see Figs. 11, 13, and 14 paragraph 0073-0075 and 0107-0108: determines wear amount for each tire, i.e. when input directs system to a specific tire, the system uses information corresponding to the selected tire and tire position when determining if the specific tire requires a re-tread or re-side).
Regarding claim 10, Oki discloses wherein the tire material data includes, in addition to the tire identification information and the material information, first type information indicating a type of the tire, and upon an input of second type information indicating a type of another tire that is different from the type of the tire (see Fig. 13 and paragraphs 0010 and 0101: acquires tire identification information, i.e. tire number, and material information, i.e. degradation information, as well as tire position information of a first and second time), the second acquisition processing portion determines whether or not the second type information and the first type information are equivalent to each other, and upon determining that they are equivalent, extracts, from the tire material data, the material information corresponding to the first type information, as the material information of the other tire (see Figs. 6 and 13, paragraphs 0010, and 0101, and claim 7: when determining predicted wear amounts for new positions, the wear is predicted using the wear progress degree determined for each respective position; as such when tire 4 is moved to position 1, the material information used to predict the degradation in tire 4 will utilize material information, wear progress degree previously discussed in parent claim 4, that previously corresponded to a different tire). Broadly interpreted, the material information concerning one or more materials constituting the tire 4, once moved to position 1, would be treated as equivalent to the tire that was previously in position 1 when the wear progress degree was calculated for that position in the future predictions utilized when determining if a re-tread or re-side is necessary.
Regarding claim 11, Oki discloses a tire management system (see Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraph 0031: tire maintenance support system) comprising:
a second determination processing portion configured to determine, based on cause history information concerning a cause of degradation of performance of a tire mounted on a vehicle, whether or not the performance needs to be restored (see Figs 1, 6, and 14 and paragraphs 0039 and 0087: processor with program/processing portion, determines if re-tread or re-side is necessary; see Fig. 6 and paragraph 0048: determination is based on wear progress degree acquired, i.e. history information); and
a fifth output processing portion configured to, upon a determination by the second determination processing portion that the performance needs to be restored, output restoration information indicating a need of restoration to a predetermined output destination (see Fig. 14 and paragraphs 0029 and 0110-0111: display the necessary amounts of re-tread or re-side on display 107).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Iizuka (US 20230130069) discloses determining if retreading a tire is possible or not based on the temperature history of the tire.
Gokyu (US 20140067193) discloses the concept of selecting a retread with a lifetime that would match the remaining lifetime of the tire, wherein the remaining lifetime of the tire is determined using a history of the tire.
Zhou (CN 111117027), see attached English translation, discloses that rubber in tires and retreads contain softening agents.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J DALBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/MICHAEL J DALBO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857