DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a data acquisition unit, a reference point setting unit, a symmetrical reference point selection unit, a reference point replacement unit, and a comparison result generation unit in claim 1; and
a reference line approximation unit of claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1, the limitation in lines 15-16 recites “a comparison result predetermined”. How is the generated result predetermined if its based on obtained data? To further prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the claim without “predetermined”. However, clarification is required.
Claim 8 is rejected similarly.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites acquire surface shape data indicating a tire surface shape; to set a reference point having a radial direction value predetermined at each of a plurality of axial positions in a tire axial direction; to select, from a plurality of the reference points, a pair of reference points disposed at symmetrical axial positions with respect to a tire equatorial plane; to replace one or both of the pair of reference points such that radial direction values of the pair of reference points are coincident with each other; to compare the pair of reference points having the coincident radial direction value with a measurement point cloud of the surface shape data to generate a comparison result predetermined which has been identified as an abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts. The claimed acquiring shape data of the tire, as broadly recited, reads as making observations, which is capable of occurring in the human mind. The claim then defines a series of evaluations based on the acquired data to make selections and replacements to satisfy the needed criterion to perform a comparison judgment using selected and replaced obtained tire data.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because although the claim recites various units for performing the identified abstract idea, these generically claimed computer elements are merely acting as tools for performing the abstract idea; as nether the performance or result of the abstract idea improves the operation of these units. MPEP 2106.05(a)
The tire surface shape, tire axial direction, and tire equatorial plane, merely link the abstract idea to a field of use; as neither the operation or result of the abstract idea has any impact or improvement to these additional elements. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element units merely act as tools for performing the abstract idea while the additional elements related to the tire generically link the mental concepts to a field of use. Therefore, the identified additional elements, alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more, as these elements are not improved or impacted by the performance of the abstract idea.
Claim 8 is rejected similarly
Claim 2 further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts, as selecting or calculating the radial direction value at the plurality of positions, insofar as how calculating is structurally defined, is capable of being performed in the human mind, with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 3 further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts, as selecting maximum values is capable of being performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 4 further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts, a defining data and selecting or calculating (insofar has how calculating is structurally defined) can occur in the human mind, with the aid of pen and paper. Further, the claim defines an additional element of a tire circumference data which merely links the abstract idea to a field of use without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application; as the data is not improved or bettered by the result of the abstract idea.
Claim 5 further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts, a calculating a sum can occur in the human mind, with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 6 further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts, a calculating a difference can occur in the human mind, with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 7 defines the abstract idea by reciting approximates a reference line, which is a set of the reference points, by a predetermined approximation curve in accordance with predetermined tire information, wherein the reference line approximation unit corrects the radial direction value of the reference point such that the reference point in a ground contact region of a tire is arranged along the approximation curve. The examiner considers making approximations of a reference line using predetermined tire information as a mental concept capable of occurring in the human mind, through observations and judgements of data, with the aid of pen and paper. Further, the additional element of a ground contact region of a tire merely links the abstract idea to a field of use without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neau (10,507,700).
With respect to claim 1, Neau teaches a tire data processing device (110), comprising: a data acquisition unit (130) configured to acquire surface shape data (as seen in Fig. 3) indicating a tire surface shape (200); a reference point setting unit (i.e. a module of 110 performing s308, Fig. 4) configured to set a reference point having a radial direction value predetermined at each of a plurality of axial positions in a tire axial direction (as Neau teaches using the obtained tread surface map containing the plurality of data points and setting points to create a relative tread depth map that corresponds to a convex hull map derived from the obtaining unit 130; Col. 4 lines 16-30); a symmetrical reference point selection unit (i.e. a module of 110 performing s310) configured to select, from a plurality of the reference points, a pair of reference points disposed at symmetrical axial positions with respect to a tire equatorial plane (as s310 describes selecting reference points in the same position as reference points created by relative tread depth map for comparing the same points between the maps); a reference point replacement unit configured to replace one or both of the pair of reference points such that radial direction values of the pair of reference points are coincident with each other (as Neau teaches filtering the data points ensuring points align between all the created maps by removing outlier and another data points that would conflict with an accurate creating of the relative tread depth map used for comparing; Col. 7 lines 2-11); and a comparison result generation unit (i.e. a portion of 110 performing s312) configured to compare the pair of reference points (found in the relative tread depth map) having the coincident radial direction value with a measurement point cloud of the surface shape data (i.e. the data obtained a 302) to generate a comparison result (i.e. the result of s312 indicating irregular wear; Col. 9 lines 52-58).
With respect to claim 2, Neau teaches the tire data processing device, wherein the reference point setting unit (i.e. the module of 110 performing s308, Fig. 4) selects the radial direction value (i.e. as to ensure each point aligns, s308 selects points having the same radial direction values) of the reference point from radial direction values of the measurement point cloud (as collected by 130) of the surface shape data (200) at the plurality of axial positions (i.e. the data points between certain radial degrees; Col. 7 lines 40-47).
With respect to claim 3, Neau teaches the tire data processing device, wherein the reference point setting unit (i.e. the module of 110 performing s308, Fig. 4) selects, as the radial direction value of the reference point (of the convex hull map), a maximum value of the radial direction values of the measurement point cloud of the surface shape data at the plurality of axial positions (as Neau teaches when creating the tread surface map from the measurement point cloud obtained by 120, a maximum filter is applied, thereby improving the overall map; Col. 10 lines 34-42).
With respect to claim 4, Neau teaches the tire data processing device wherein the reference point setting unit (i.e. the module of 110 performing s308, Fig. 4) defines a region in which an angle in a tire circumferential direction is in a range of 10 degrees or more (342°; Col. 7 lines 40-47) and 130 degrees or less (0°; Col. 7 lines 40-47) and selects the radial direction value of the reference point from the radial direction values of the measurement point cloud in the region (as these selected points from the tread surface map are selected and used to determine the convex hull map and the relative height map; therefore all the points are at the same distance).
With respect to claim 5, Neau teaches the tire data processing device wherein the comparison results generation unit (i.e. the portion of 110 performing s312) generates the comparison result by calculating a sum of differences between the radial direction values of the plurality of the reference points and the radial direction values of the measurement point cloud of the surface shape data in each of a pair of axial regions having the pair of reference points.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neau (10,507,700) in view of Kowatari et al. (JP 2017077773A).
With respect to claim 6, Neau teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 1, but remains silent regarding the comparison result generation unit generates the comparison result by calculating a sum of differences between the radial direction values of the plurality of the reference points and the radial direction values of the measurement point cloud of the surface shape data in each of a pair of axial regions having the pair of reference points.
Kowatari et al. teaches a similar device having a unit that calculating a sum of differences between the reference points and the measurement point cloud of the surface shape data (as Kowatari teaches For example, the base tire cross-sectional shape creating unit 30 includes at least two tire cross-sectional shapes uniquely determined from at least two limit Pareto solutions in the group of base tire cross-sectional shapes used for creating the synthetic tire cross-sectional shape, and at least 2 A tire cross-sectional shape obtained by adding a shape difference between tire cross-sectional shapes uniquely determined from each of the two limit Pareto solutions to the reference tire cross-sectional shape is added to a group of new base tire cross-sectional shapes.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the control logic of the comparison result generation unit to include summing the difference between the reference data and the measured data, as taught in Kowatari et al., because Kowatari et al. teaches such a modification also for generating an evaluation of tire performance in a short time, thereby improving the processing efficiency of Neau.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the 101 rejection is overcome and the claim is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nicholson et al. (8,712,720) which teaches collecting cloud point measurements to determine the quality of a tire.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853