DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 and claims 1-20 of copending Application Nos. 18/316,774, and 18/315,903, respectively, in view of Bill, US-PGPUB 2017/0015151.
With respect to the Application No. 18/316,774 (based on the latest claim submitted on 01/28/2026, which includes the second period), said application does not disclose sensing using at least one tire monitoring device mounted to the wheel of an aircraft, a tire parameter of the tire. However, Bill discloses sensing using at least one tire monitoring device mounted to the wheel of an aircraft (Fig. 1; Paragraphs [0046]-[0047]). As such, it would have been obvious to combine Bill in said application, so as to monitor tire performance in aircraft for its safe operation.
With respect to the Application No. 18/315,903, said application does not disclose sensing using at least one tire monitoring device mounted to the wheel of an aircraft, a tire parameter of the tire, and second period. However, Bill discloses sensing using at least one tire monitoring device mounted to the wheel of an aircraft (Fig. 1; Paragraphs [0046]-[0047]), and first and second periods making successive measurements (Paragraphs [0013]; [0010]), spaced out over a period of time (of a number of hours or days). As such, it would have been obvious to combine Bill in said application, so as to monitor tire performance in aircraft for its safe operation.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Previous rejection associated with 18/315976 is withdrawn in view of the Terminal Disclaimer filed and approved on 11/05/2025.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to two of the four statutory classes, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “obtaining a performance coefficient of the tire corresponding to performance of the tire during a first time period, wherein the performance coefficient is based on a first plurality of values indicative of a tire parameter over the first time period of at least a plurality of days, the performance coefficient is based on a first plurality of values indicative of a tire parameter over the first time period, obtaining a second plurality of values indicative of the tire parameter over a second time period after the first period, and determining, based on the second plurality of values and the performance coefficient, the tire performance characteristic of the tire,” are abstract ideas, as they are directed to mental process, under the BRI. Similar rejections are made for other independent and dependent claims. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite “sensing using at least one tire monitoring device mounted to the wheel a tire parameter of the tire,” “wherein the first plurality of values is based on the tire parameter sensed by the at least one tire monitoring device over the first timer period,” “wherein the second plurality of values is based on the tire parameter sensed by the at least one tire monitoring device over the second time period,” “wherein the obtaining of the second plurality of values indicative of the tire parameter comprises utilizing the at least one tire monitoring device to obtain a plurality of measured values of the tire parameter,” “retrieving using a remote intermediate device, the plurality of measured values of the tire parameter from the local memory,” and “transmitting, using the remote intermediate device, the second plurality of values indicative of the tire parameter to the processing system based on the plurality of measured values of the tire parameter,” but said limitations, recited at high level of generality, are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity and recitation of general-purpose computer. The claims also recite “providing a notification to a user based on the tire performance characteristic,” but said limitation is merely an insignificant post-solution activity, recited at high level of generality. The claims also recite “determining (and causing), based on the tire performance characteristic, a maintenance action to be performed on the tire,” but said limitations are merely directed to applying the abstract idea generically, without a particular end use. The claims do not improve any processing system or any devices, and do not improve other technology. At most, the claims are an improvement in the abstract idea of determining tire performance characteristic. However, improved abstract idea or new abstract ideas, are still abstract ideas and not eligible under the 101. In short, the claims do not provide sufficient evidence to show that they are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite “sensing using at least one tire monitoring device mounted to the wheel a tire parameter of the tire,” “wherein the first plurality of values is based on the tire parameter sensed by the at least one tire monitoring device over the first timer period,” “wherein the second plurality of values is based on the tire parameter sensed by the at least one tire monitoring device over the second time period,” “wherein the obtaining of the second plurality of values indicative of the tire parameter comprises utilizing the at least one tire monitoring device to obtain a plurality of measured values of the tire parameter,” “retrieving using a remote intermediate device, the plurality of measured values of the tire parameter from the local memory,” and “transmitting, using the remote intermediate device, the second plurality of values indicative of the tire parameter to the processing system based on the plurality of measured values of the tire parameter,” but said limitations, recited at high level of generality, are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity and recitation of general-purpose computer, that are well-understood, routine and conventional. The claims also recite “providing a notification to a user based on the tire performance characteristic,” but said limitation is merely an insignificant post-solution activity, recited at high level of generality, that are also well-understood, routine and conventional. The claims also recite “determining (and causing), based on the tire performance characteristic, a maintenance action to be performed on the tire,” but said limitations are merely directed to applying the abstract idea generically, without a particular end use,
which therefore would not be considered significantly more to transform the claimed invention to patent-eligible application (see Univ of Utah Research Found. vs Ambry Genetics Corp, F774 F.3d 755, 113 USPQ2d 1241 (2014), Id., at 1245) and Gottschalk vs Benson, 409 US 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972), Id., at 674). As such, the claims do not recite additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
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) 1, 5-11, 14-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimomura et al., US-PGPUB 2021/0166503 (hereinafter Shimomura) in view of Bill, US-PGPUB 2017/0015151 (hereinafter Bill)
Regarding Claims 1 and 14. Shimomura discloses determining a tire performance characteristic of a tire (Abstract; Fig. 1), comprising:
obtaining, using a processing system, a performance coefficient of the tire corresponding to performance of the tire during a first time period of at least a plurality of days and the performance coefficient is based on a first plurality of values indicative of a tire parameter over the first time period, wherein the first plurality of values is based on the tire parameter sensed by the at least one tire monitoring device over the first time period (Paragraph [0039], rubber hardness);
obtaining a second plurality of values indicative of the tire parameter over a second time period after the first period, wherein the second plurality of values is based on the tire parameter sensed by the at least one tire monitoring device over the second time period (Paragraph [0038], temperature and pressure); and
determining by the processing system, based on the second plurality of values and the performance coefficient, the tire performance characteristic of the tire (Figs. 2 and 4; Paragraph [0044])
Shimomura does not disclose sensing using at least one tire monitoring device mounted to the wheel of an aircraft, a tire parameter of the tire, and a first time period of at least a plurality of days, wherein the first plurality of values is based on the tired parameter sensed by the at least one tire monitoring device over the first time period, and after the first period, wherein the second plurality of values based on the tire parameter sensed by the at least one tire monitoring device over the second time period
Bill discloses sensing using at least one tire monitoring device mounted to the wheel of an aircraft (Fig. 1; Paragraphs [0046]-[0047]), and making successive measurements, spaced out over a period of time (of a number of hours or days) (Paragraphs [0013]; [0010]). Successive measurements over a period of time means, more than one time periods. Furthermore, since successive measurements that can last unspecified number of days, it’s obvious that the first time period can last several days, followed by second time period shorter or longer than the first time period, and spaced out over the full period of measurement time.
As such, at the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bill and Shimomura and obtain a performance coefficient of the tire during a first time period of at least a plurality of days, wherein the first plurality of values is based on the tire parameter sensed by the at least one tire monitoring device over the first time period, obtain a second plurality of values over a second time period after the first period, wherein the second plurality of values is based on the tire parameter sensed by the at least one tire monitoring device over the second time period, and accurately determine, based on the second plurality of values and the performance coefficient, the tire performance characteristic of the tire, for the sake of safe operation of the aircraft.
Regarding Claim 5. Shimomura discloses determining, based on the tire performance characteristic, storing an updated performance coefficient in a memory (0048], update a value of hardness; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claims 6 and 15. Shimomura discloses providing a notification to a user based on the tire performance characteristic (Paragraph [0068]; Figs. 1, 2 and 8).
Regarding Claims 7 and 16. Shimomura discloses determining, based on the tire performance characteristic, a maintenance action to be performed on the tire, and Claims 8 and 17) causing, based on the tire performance characteristic, the maintenance action to be performed on the tire (Paragraph [0003]; [0031]; [0043]; Fig. 7; Fig. 15, maintenance plan)
Regarding Claim 9. Shimomura discloses the obtaining of the second plurality of values indicative of the tire parameter comprises utilizing the at least one tire monitoring device to obtain a plurality of measured values of the tire parameter (Paragraph [0048])
Regarding Claim 10. Shimomura discloses storing the second plurality of measured values of the tire parameter in a local memory of the at least one tire monitoring device, retrieving, using a remote intermediate device, the plurality of measured values of the tire parameter from the local memory; and transmitting, using the remote intermediate device, the second plurality of values indicative of the tire parameter to the processing system based on the plurality of measured values of the tire parameter (Regarding Claim 19. and to transmit the first plurality of values to the memory) (Paragraph [0028]-[0030], [0036], [0038]-[0041], Fig. 1, 1, local storage on the vehicle).
Regarding Claim 11. Shimomura discloses the tire parameter comprises one or more of a tire pressure and a tire temperature (Paragraphs [0038]; [0048])
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimomura et al., US-PGPUB 2021/0166503 in view of Bill, US-PGPUB 2017/0015151 as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Welch et al., US-PGPUB 2005/0241380 (hereinafter Welch)
Regarding Claim 13. Shimomura does not disclose the tire comprises an aircraft tire.
Welch discloses testing leakage rate of the aircraft tire (Abstract; Paragraph [0002]; [0009])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Welch in Shimomura and test the aircraft tire to ensure the safety of the aircraft operations.
Claims 1-5, 9-12, 14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomoi, US-PGPUB 2010/0186866 (hereinafter Tomoi) in view of Bill, US-PGPUB 2017/0015151.
Regarding Claims 1 and 14. Tomoi discloses determining a tire performance characteristic of a tire (Abstract, leakage rate of the tire), comprising:
obtaining, using a processing system, a performance coefficient of the tire corresponding to performance of the tire during a first time period of at least a plurality of days (Paragraph [0040], measured at intervals of four days), wherein the performance coefficient is based on a first plurality of values indicative of a tire parameter over the first time period, wherein the first plurality of values is based on the tire parameter sensed by the at least one tire monitoring device over the first time period (Paragraphs [0039]-[0041], to find the α values, over the entire testing period) (note: Although, a processing system is not explicitly disclosed, it would have been obvious to use a processing system, as determination can be efficiently performed and faster using machines), obtaining a second plurality of values indicative of the tire parameter over a second time period after the first period, wherein the second plurality of values is based on the tire parameter sensed by the at least one tire monitoring device over the second time period (Paragraph [0040], internal pressures measured at intervals of days); and determining, based on the second plurality of values and the performance coefficient, the tire performance characteristic (Paragraph [0040], air leakage rate; Table VII).
Tomoi does not disclose sensing using at least one tire monitoring device mounted to the wheel of an aircraft, a tire parameter of the tire.
Bill discloses sensing using at least one tire monitoring device mounted to the wheel of an aircraft (Fig. 1; Paragraphs [0046]-[0047]), and making successive measurements, spaced out over a period of time (of a number of hours or days) (Paragraphs [0013]; [0010]).
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bill and Tomoi and determine the tire performance by sensing using at least one tire monitoring device mounted to the wheel of an aircraft, so as to monitor the tire performance of the aircraft for its safe operation.
Regarding Claim 2. Tomoi discloses the first time period comprises a first duration, the second time period comprises a second duration, and the first duration is greater than the second duration (Paragraphs [0039]-[0040], first time period is the entire testing period, and the second time period is the short internal pressure measuring intervals).
Regarding Claim 3. Although Tomoi does not explicitly disclose the first time period is at least 25 days and (Claim 4. the second time period is no more than 10 days), it would have been obvious to have said days, absent criticality, as it would depend on the designer’s design criteria and objectives.
Regarding Claim 5. Tomoi discloses determining, based on the tire performance characteristic, storing an updated performance coefficient in a memory (Paragraphs [0040]-[0041], the α coefficients are updated with different tires, and obvious to store them for derivation of the leakage rates for different tires)
Regarding Claim 9. Tomoi discloses the obtaining of the second plurality of values indicative of the tire parameter comprises utilising a tire monitoring device to obtain a plurality of measured values of the tire parameter (Paragraph [0040])
Regarding Claim 11. Tomoi discloses the tire parameter comprises one or more of a tire pressure and a tire temperature (Paragraph [0040], pressure)
Regarding Claims 12. Tomoi discloses the tire performance characteristic comprises one or more of a rate of deflation of the tire, a predicted future inflation point of the tire, a pressure leakage rate of the tire, or a predicted time for the tire to cool to a predefined temperature (Paragraph [0040], leakage rate)
Regarding Claim 18. Tomoi discloses the tire performance monitoring system comprises a tire monitoring device configured to obtain, over respective the first and second time periods, the first and second pluralities of values indicative of the tire parameter of the tire, and the processing system is configured to determine, based on the first plurality of values, the performance coefficient (Paragraph [0040])
Regarding Claim 20. The tire performance monitoring system according to Claim 18, wherein the tire monitoring device comprises a tire pressure monitoring device, and the tire parameter comprises a pressure value associated with the tire (Paragraph [0040])
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Section 101 provides that anyone who “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. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that patent protection should not extend to claims that monopolize “the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” Gottschalk vs Benson, 409 US 63, 67, 93 S. Ct. 253, 34 L. Edd. 2d 273 [175 USPQ 673] (1972)). Accordingly, laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354.
The 101 subject matter eligibility analysis begins with the claimed language (see Synopsis vs Mentor Graphics, 120 USPQ2d 1473 839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Id., at 1481 “The 101 inquiry must focus on the language of the Asserted Claims themselves.”), followed by identifying the focus or underlying invention (see Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 [103 USPQ2d 1425] (Fed. Cir. 2012), Id., at 1431-1432, “Subsequently, however, we explained in CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc. that we look not just to the type of claim but also “to the underlying invention for patent-eligibility purposes.” 654 F.3d 1366, 1374 [99 USPQ2d 1690] (Fed. Cir. 2011). Looking at the claims in the instant application, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of “determining a tire performance of an aircraft”.
Here, we note that the Supreme Court has emphatically rejected the idea that claims become patent eligible simply because they disclose a specific solution to a particular problem (Supreme Court, Alice Corp v CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ 2d 1976 at 1985; DDR Holding, 773 F.3d at 1265)). In other words, even if the claims had recited specific abstract ideas for “determining a tire performance of an aircraft” would not have made the claims eligible under 35 USC 101. In the instant application, the claims are generically recited, as they determine the tire performance based on some generic sensed values and generic performance coefficient, as well as lacking any details as to how the said performance are being determined.
Additionally, note that the novelty of the abstract idea itself, also does not help in overcoming the 101 rejection (see Flook, In Gottschalk vs Benson, Id., at 195, “we held that the discovery of a novel and useful mathematical formula may not be patented,” Indeed, the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all.”). This means that any novelty or non-conventionality in the abstract idea of “determining a tire performance of an aircraft” will not be a determining factor. New abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see Synopsis, 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d, 1473 (2016), Id., at 1483, “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating 102 novelty.”).
Having said that, the subject matter eligibility analysis continues with the examination of the additional elements with respect to the practical application and significantly more criteria. Looking at the claimed invention, the claims additionally recite
various additional limitations discussed above,” but said limitations are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity, recited at high level of generality, and recitation of general-purpose computer that are both, well-understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, nothing in the claims, understood in light of the original disclosure, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional tire monitoring device and general-purpose computer for collecting data, analyzing and obtaining the desired information (unlike Thales 85- F.3d 1343, 121 USPQ2d 1898 (2017), Id., at 1898 where the inertial sensors are used in non-conventional manner for measuring position and orientation).
Furthermore, the claims do not improve the functioning of any machines. The claims in the instant application with the generic tire monitoring device and processing system, the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in said sensors and processing system as tools (as in Enfish), or focused on a specific asserted improvement in “determining a tire performance of an aircraft”, in non-abstract way (or improvement in computer animation in non-abstract way, without animators able to do to same, as in McRo), but on certain independently abstract ideas that use those sensors and processing device, etc as tools. In other words, the Applicant is basically claiming the algorithm itself.
Furthermore, the claims also do not improve any technology due to lack of details in regard the various functional limitations, such as “obtaining” and “determining” that are used to determine the tire performance in the claimed invention (see Intellectual Ventures vs Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 120 USPQ2d 1353, (CAFC 2016), TLI Communications vs AV Auto, 823 F.3d 607, 118 USPQ2d 1744 (CAFC 2016), Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC vs DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USPQ2d 1201, and Two-way Media vs Comcast 874 F.3d 1329, 124 USPQ2d 1521 (CAFC 2017)).
Finally, limiting the claims to the particular technological environment of aircraft tire monitoring, without the abstract idea being integrated into a practical application or without the additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, is insufficient to transform them into patent-eligible applications of the abstract ideas (Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token post-solution components did not make the concept patentable” Bilski v. Kappos, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (U.S. 2010).
For the reasons given above, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and the additional elements do not amount significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite the abstract idea of “determining a tire performance of an aircraft”, without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
For the 103 rejection, the Applicant’s argument is moot, in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857