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
Current application, US Application No. 18/290,316 filed on 11/13/2023, is a National Stage entry of PCT/JP2022/028288, International Filing Date: 07/21/2022, which claims foreign priority to JP 2021-162681 filed on 10/01/2021.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 06/24/2026. Claims 1-11 and 16-24 are currently pending. Claims 12-15 are canceled and claims 16-24 are added new by applicant’s request.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment is entered into further examination and appreciated by the examiner.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Regarding remarks on the objections to the claims, the amendment is accepted and the previous objections are withdrawn. However, amendment introduced new informalities that are objected to. See the updated office action below.
Regarding remarks on the rejections under 35 USC 102, amendment accompanied with persuasive arguments is accepted and the previous rejections are withdrawn, However, newly added limitations (underlined) are disclosed by newly found references and new rejections are issued in view of new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendment. See the new office action below.
Regarding remarks on the rejections under 35 USC 101, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive because of following reasons.
Applicant argues (see pg. 12 par. 2 – par. 4) that (1) the amended claims 1 and 4 recite the structural feature of circuitry configured to function as the various recited portions to make more clear that the recited operations are performed by the circuitry and not in the huma mind and (2) the claims are also amended to limit the claims to the practical applicability and technological solution of identification of a specific repair agent that can be used to restore degraded tire performance.
Examiner respectfully submits that (1) the newly recited additional elements “circuitry configured to function as” for the remaining limitations/steps represent using subcomponents of general computer (see specification – CPU, electronic circuit [0067, 0114]), which are not particular in the art and are not sufficient to overcome the judicial exception. (2) Regarding the arguments “limit the claims to the practical applicability and technological solution of identification of a specific repair agent that can be used to restore degraded tire performance”, the identification of a specific repair agent, i.e. “decide a repair agent fillable to inside of the tire”, is part of an abstract idea and the alleged practical application cannot be interpreted as claimed because the claims fail to positively recite a necessary significant post solution activity to overcome the judicial exception, for example “repairing the tire by filling the decided repair agent inside the tire”. At current claims, the repairing step is not positively recited and only implied as an intended purpose, which cannot be given much weight. Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 and 16-24 are objected to because of the following informalities. As per claims 1 and 4, the limitation “a repair agent fillable to inside of the tire” should be replaced with “a repair agent replenishable to the inside of from outside” or with an appropriate phrase to be consistent with the specification and to avoid misleading interpretation for accuracy because no words such as “filler”, “filled” or “filling” can be found in the specification (see specification – repair content, the whole tire … may be immersed in the repair solution containing the repair agent for the repair time or the repair solution may be applied to a repair target part ‘for example, the tread portion’ of the tire 1 for the repair time. With such a repair, the repair agent can be replenished to the inside of the tire 1 from outside [0162]) and the current claim expression does not precisely match with the description support from the specification.
As per claim 24. The limitation “therein” in “the decided repair agent is a repair solution for immersion of the tire therein” should be replaced with “in the decided repair agent” or with an appropriate term for clarity.
As per claims 2-11 and 16-24, claims are also objected because base claims 1 and 4 are rejected.
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 and 16-24 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.
A tire management system comprising:
circuitry configured to function as:
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 repair agent fillable to inside of the tire 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:
circuitry configured to function as:
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 repair agent fillable to inside of the tire 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.
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 extra solution data activity, i.e. data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The imitations in relation to outputting restoration information equates to extra solution 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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-11 and 16-24 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 § 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.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki (US 20200148010), hereinafter ‘Oki’ in view of Yoshimura (JP 2017217853 A), hereinafter ‘Yoshi’.
As per claim 1, Oki discloses
A tire management system (see Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraph 0031: tire maintenance support system) comprising:
circuitry configured to function as: (executing a computer program ‘software’ on hardware such as a server computer [0039, 0125, claim 6])
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).
However, Oki is silent reciting “a repair agent fillable to inside of the tire” instead of a restoration material.
Yoshi discloses a repair agent fillable to inside of the tire (stuffs the filling member inside the tire around the restoration part of a tire [pg. 12 line 9-10])
Yoshi is also concerning maintaining the tire (maintaining the shape of the tire [pg. 2 line 3 – 32, pg. 4 line 29-38, pg. 9 line 1-18]) like Oki.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Oki in view of Yoshi to decide a repair agent fillable to inside of the tire for restoring the performance that has been degraded with a rationale to provide a benefit to customers with low cost and time saving, which would help tire manufacturer’ sale increase (see Oki - customers can get benefit to reduce a cost and a management man-hour and thereby regular customers for a tire manufacturer are increased, so that improvement of competitive power of the tire manufacturer is expected [0002]).
As per claim 4, Oki discloses
A tire management system (see Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraph 0031: tire maintenance support system) comprising:
circuitry configured to function as: (executing a computer program ‘software’ on hardware such as a server computer [0039, 0125, claim 6])
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).
However, Oki is silent reciting “a repair agent fillable to inside of the tire” instead of a restoration material.
Yoshi discloses a repair agent fillable to inside of the tire (stuffs the filling member inside the tire around the restoration part of a tire [pg. 12 line 9-10])
Yoshi is also concerning maintaining the tire (maintaining the shape of the tire [pg. 2 line 3 – 32, pg. 4 line 29-38, pg. 9 line 1-18]) like Oki.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Oki in view of Yoshi to decide a repair agent fillable to inside of the tire for restoring the performance that has been degraded with a rationale to provide a benefit to customers with low cost and time saving, which would help tire manufacturer’ sale increase.
As per claims 2 and 5, Oki and Yoshi disclose claims 1 and 4 set forth above.
Oki further discloses
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 repair agent 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 repair agent 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).
As per claims 3 and 6, Oki and Yoshi disclose claims 1 and 4 set forth above.
Oki further discloses
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 repair agent corresponding to the main cause, from a predetermined storage portion storing the main cause and the repair agent 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).
As per claim 7, Oki and Yoshi disclose claim 5 set forth above.
Oki further discloses
the material information includes a rubber component constituting the tire, and the material decision processing portion decides the repair agent 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).
As per claim 9, Oki and Yoshi disclose claim 4 set forth above.
Oki further 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).
As per claim 10, Oki and Yoshi disclose claim 9 set forth above.
Oki further 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.
As per claim 11, Oki and Yoshi disclose claim 1 set forth above.
Oki further discloses a 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
an 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).
As per claims 19 and 23, Oki and Yoshi disclose claims 1 and 4 set forth above.
Yoshi further discloses repair time associated with repair material for the tire (time for the mold material 15 to cure and dry can be shortened [pg. 5 line 5-16, line 23-28, pg. 7 line 1-12, 28-34, pg. 10 line 17-31]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art to determine a repair time to restore the performance of the tire using the decided repair agent and electronically output to a predetermined output device the repair time for the decided repair agent to restore the performance of the tire with a rationale to provide a tire safety.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki and Yoshi in view of Zhang (US 20100116398 A1), hereinafter ‘Zhang’.
As per claim 8, Oki and Yoshi disclose claim 5 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent regarding use of softening agent in the material information.
Zhang discloses use of softener in the tire material (material … tire, softener, the prepared fused product was coated to the inside wall of the tire [0029]).
Zhang is also in the tire safety art as the combined prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Zhang to include a softening agent in the material information for softening the tire and decide the repair agent that is equivalent to the softening agent with a rationale to provide a tire safety. (see Zhang – safety tire [abs]).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki and Yoshi In view of Jitkarnka (Jitkarnka S and et al. Influences of thermal aging on properties and pyrolysis products of tire tread compound. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis. 2007 Aug 1;80(1):269-76), hereinafter ‘Jit’.
As per claims 16 and 17, Oki and Yoshi disclose claims 2 and 5 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent regarding determining an additive change amount indicating a decrease amount of an additive contained in the tire as the deteriorated content.
Jit discloses analysis on the thermal degradation behavior of main constituents of tire including additives. (thermal degradation behavior of main constituents of tire, additives [pg. 269 right col par. 2], cross link densities, organic additives… removed by successive extraction [pg. 270 left col par. 4], TGA ‘Dupont Thermal Analyzer’ result, DTG curves of aged tire compounds, additives [pg. 272 left col par. 3 – right col par. 1, Figs. 3 and 4]).
Jit is in the same tire material analysis art as the combined prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Jit to determine an additive change amount indicating a decrease amount of an additive contained in the tire as the deteriorated content and select the repair agent corresponding to the additive change amount from the predetermined storage portion with a rationale to slow the degradation of the tire (see Jit – Aging is a collectable change in the properties of materials, leading to partial or complete degradation. Double bonds in rubber chains are prerequisite for the sulfur vulcanization reaction, forming crosslinks among the chains. Upon crosslinking, rubbers change from thermo-plastic to elastic. Uncured and cured rubbers are especially prone to such aging effects [pg. 274 right col par. 2]).
Claims 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki and Yoshi In view of Santana (Santana MH, and et al. Design of a new generation of sustainable SBR compounds with good trade-off between mechanical properties and self-healing ability. European Polymer Journal. 2018 Sep 1;106:273-83), hereinafter ‘Santa’
As per claims 18 and 22, Oki and Yoshi disclose claims 1 and 4 set forth above.
Oki discloses use of electronically displaying tire maintenance plan based on tire rotation, retreading and residing in a vehicle (tire maintenance support system, vehicle [0031, Fig, 1 showing computer including wear progress degree acquisition portion 110 and display 107], computer, display [0039], tire maintenance support system, display a rotation plan [0089]), but is silent electronically outputting a repair effect of the decided repair agent.
Santa discloses reporting the healing efficiency by mechanically characterizing the SBR (Styrene Butadiene Rubber) components (tensile testing, healing efficiency, mechanical healing [pg. 275 right col par1 from the bottom – pg. 281 left col par. 1, Table 3, Figs. 6, 12, 13]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention was filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Santa to electronically output a repair effect of the decided repair agent to a predetermined output device of the vehicle with a rationale to provide a tire safety.
Claims 20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki and Yoshi In view of Casper (US 20170158002 A1), hereinafter ‘Cas’.
As per claims 20 and 24, Oki and Yoshi disclose claims 1 and 4 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent regarding the decided repair agent corresponds to a load that is the cause of the degraded performance of the tire.
Cas discloses guaranteeing a permanently operationally reliable repair of the vehicle tire with a consideration of load-bearing capacity in synergy with the employed material (reliable repair of the vehicle tire, load-bearing, repair material [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention was filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Cas to show the decided repair agent corresponding to a load that is the cause of the degraded performance of the tire with a rationale to provide a tire safety.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki and Yoshi in view of Bakke (Bakke, Berit, and et al. "Uses of and exposure to trichloroethylene in US industry: a systematic literature review." Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene 4, no. 5 (2007): 375-390), hereinafter ;Bekke.
As per claim 21, Oki and Yoshi disclose claim 1 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent regarding the decided repair agent is a repair solution for immersion of the tire.
Bakke discloses immersing tire material in the repair solution (Immersion is often used during maintenance applications [pg. 377 right col par. 1], auto repairs … transportation maintenance [pg. 381 left col par.3, Table III], a solvent for binding and cementing material ‘treads, tire …’, Use of TCS also occurs in … tire repair [pg. 383 left col par. 3]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention was filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Bekke to use a repair solution for immersion of the tire as the repair agent with a rationale to provide a tire safety.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record below is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Izumimoto (JP 2009090862 A) discloses injecting a sealing agent into the inside to repair the tire (injects a sealing agent into the inside to repair a puncture hole of the tire [pg. 2 line 1-3]).
Elsawah (US 20160052349 A1) discloses (the tire repair material 20, which may be comprised soft polymers … fill said compromised portion … corresponding to the section of the inside surface 18 of the tire [0029, 0032]).
Okamatsu (US 20110077327 A1) discloses determining a repair time to restore the performance of the tire using the decided repair agent (test, each gelling agent … and the time necessary to gel ‘gel-ability’ [0115], a time (in minutes) required for gelling to occur when 100 g of the puncture repair material were added to a predetermined amount of the gelling agent was measured and evaluated [0121, 0129, 0134, Figs. 2 & 3]).
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
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS KAY whose telephone number is (408) 918-7569. The examiner can normally be reached M, Th & F 8-5, T 2-7, and W 8-1.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/DOUGLAS KAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights