DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are pending. Claims 1-3, 12 and 14-20 are amended. Claim 6 is cancelled.
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 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a tire cornering stiffness estimation method comprising: obtaining vehicle driving information; and estimating cornering stiffness of a tire based on the vehicle driving information using a bicycle model and a linear tire model, which are vehicle lateral dynamics models, wherein the estimating cornering stiffness includes obtaining a scaling factor includes obtaining the scaling factor kscale corresponding to the lateral acceleration ay using scaling factor information in which scaling factors are mapped for respective lateral accelerations.
Claim 12 recites a tire cornering stiffness estimation apparatus comprising: a memory storing one or more programs for estimating tire cornering stiffness; and one or more processors that perform an operation for estimating tire cornering stiffness according to the one or more programs stored in the memory, wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform: obtaining vehicle driving information of a vehicle; and estimating cornering stiffness of a tire based on the vehicle driving information using a bicycle model and a linear tire model, which are vehicle lateral dynamics models, wherein the estimating cornering stiffness includes obtaining a scaling factor includes obtaining the scaling factor kscale corresponding to the lateral acceleration ay using scaling factor information in which scaling factors are mapped for respective lateral accelerations.
Claim 16 recites a road surface condition detection method using a tire cornering stiffness estimation value, the method comprising: obtaining vehicle driving information; and detecting a road surface condition based on cornering stiffness of a tire estimated based on the vehicle driving information, obtaining a scaling factor includes obtaining the scaling factor kscale corresponding to the lateral acceleration ay using scaling factor information in which scaling factors are mapped for respective lateral accelerations.
and thus grouped as Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, the data gathering step, (claim 1) “obtaining vehicle driving information” (claim 12) “obtaining vehicle driving information of a vehicle” (claim 16) “obtaining vehicle driving information” are mere data gathering that do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the additional elements (claim 12) the “one or more processors” are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions amount to no more than using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. All of which are considered not indicative of integration into a practical application (see “Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4/ Monday, January 7, 2019 / Notices” – page 55, second column).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of the data gathering steps are mere data collect steps which fall under insignificant extra solution activity and deemed insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” - see MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional elements of the processors are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and deemed insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-11, 13-15 and 17-20 when analyzed as a whole are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea as they are directed mathematical concepts and/or mental processes and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 1 is objected to because the closest prior art, Singh [US 2017/0010184 A1], fails to anticipate or render obvious the estimating cornering stiffness includes obtaining a scaling factor includes obtaining the scaling factor kscale corresponding to the lateral acceleration ay using scaling factor information in which scaling factors are mapped for respective lateral accelerations, in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as defined by applicant.
Claim 12 is objected to because the closest prior art, Singh [US 2017/0010184 A1], fails to anticipate or render obvious the estimating cornering stiffness includes obtaining a scaling factor includes obtaining the scaling factor kscale corresponding to the lateral acceleration ay using scaling factor information in which scaling factors are mapped for respective lateral accelerations, in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as defined by applicant.
Claim 16 is objected to because the closest prior art, Singh [US 2017/0010184 A1], fails to anticipate or render obvious obtaining a scaling factor includes obtaining the scaling factor kscale corresponding to the lateral acceleration ay using scaling factor information in which scaling factors are mapped for respective lateral accelerations, in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as defined by applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2 due to enabling more accurate cornering stiffness estimation that can be optimized for various types of vehicles (see page 10, beginning paragraph of the response).
In response, the Examiner disagrees and indicates in Applicant's case, the steps are essentially processing vehicle driving information using models for estimating corner stiffness information. The entire contents of the claims involve estimating new data from obtained data using mathematical operations, the claims are performing data manipulations via mathematical operations. This estimated data information is still considered data, however presented in a different data value, is still data. As a result, the steps fall under data processing information, organizing information, and comparison analysis and is considered an abstract idea and fails to provide a practical application.
Relevant Prior Art / Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Singh (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0146706 A1) discloses a tire cornering stiffness estimation system and method for generating a model-derived tire cornering stiffness estimation.
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 RICKY GO whose telephone number is (571)270-3340. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arleen M. Vazquez can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICKY GO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights