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 .
Because the examiner inadvertently omitted claim 8 from the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection in the Office Action dated April 15, 2026, the prior Non-Final Rejection is withdrawn and replaced with the following corrected action:
Response to Arguments
112 Rejection
Based on applicant claim amendment, the previously set forth rejection has been overcome.
101 Rejection
Applicant initially argues the claims do not recite a mental process because the claims require acquiring and processing tire surface shape data in the form of a measurement point cloud. However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation of processing tire shape data in the form of a measurement point cloud is not currently claimed. The claim recites “a comparison result generation unit configured 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”. Therefore, as best understood by the examiner, a comparison is made between the pair of reference points with a measurement point cloud of the surface shape data to generate a result. There are no limitations that define the argued processing of data to recreate a point cloud of the surface shape data. Additionally, the claim lacks defined boundaries that prevent the comparison to occur in the human mind, for example a quantity of data collected, the specifics of the processing to create the point cloud measurement, or even how the point cloud measurement is made. Applicant describes these operations to involve processing large volumes of data, however the argued processing is not currently claimed.
Further, the acquiring step merely reads as a generic collection of data required to perform the identified abstract idea.
Applicant compares the instant claims to Example 37, however the examiner is not persuaded. As pointed out above, the claim does not include any limitations the support applicant’s position. There is no limitation that defines how acquired surface shape data is processed into a measurement point cloud of the surface shape data. Therefore, the instant claims are not substantially similar to those found in Example 37.
Applicant alleges that the claims are an improvement on the technology of calibration and comparison of tire surface shape data in the presence of asymmetries. This argument is not persuasive. The argued “calibration and comparison” are some of the abstract concepts identified by the examiner in Step 2A. In Step 2B, it cannot be the abstract concepts themselves that improve a technology or technical field but rather the additional elements or extra solution activities such that the claims themselves amount to significantly more than the abstract concept.
Applicant argues that the sequence of acquiring measurement data, defining reference points across axial positions, selecting symmetric pairs, and modifying those reference points represents a non-conventional and specialized technique for processing tire measurement data. However, the outputted result has no impact on any of these elements. Similarly stated as above, the argued “processing” sequences are some of the abstract concepts identified by the examiner in Step 2A. In Step 2B, it cannot be the abstract concepts themselves that improve a technology or technical field but rather the additional elements or extra solution activities such that the claims themselves amount to significantly more than the abstract concept.
102 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 4/16/2026, with respect to claims 1-5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102 rejection of claims 1-5 has been withdrawn.
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 with corresponding structure found in [0026] and Fig. 1; and
a reference line approximation unit of claim 7 with corresponding structure seen in Fig. 1.
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 recited “a comparison result generation unit configured 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” is unclear. How is a measurement point cloud derived from the surface shape data? The claim appears to be missing details of how the measurement point cloud is obtained. Clarification 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 1-8 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)
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
Prosecution Insights