DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Applicant’s submissions filed on 1/23/2026. Claims 1-18 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 9/26/2025 has been reviewed and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the clarification of Claim 1, as supported by the Specification and Figures, clearly show to one skilled in the art the structure that implements the calibration module (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 12), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Amended claim 1 discloses a calibration module in electronic communication with the system’s processor, as disclosed in figure 3, which shows calibration module 40 providing wear rate 48 to processor 28. Paragraphs 28-29 similarly disclose the system includes a calibration module that outputs a wear rate. Figure 3, paragraph 31, and paragraph 36 explicitly disclose the severity assessment module 42 and mileage estimation module 44 are stored on processor 28, however, neither the specification nor the drawings appear to similarly disclose the calibration module is stored on a processor. Figure 3 appears to explicitly disclose the calibration module is not included in processor 28 and is a standalone module. Therefore, the calibration module can be any structure capable of electronically communicating with a processor and determining a tire wear rate. The Applicant further argues that it is known in the art to provide storage media in electronic communication with a processor to enable programming modules to be executed, however, it is unclear if the Applicant asserts that the calibration module is a storage medium in electronic communication with processor 28, or a programming module to be executed on processor 28. There does not appear to be explicit disclosure supporting either interpretation. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the recitation in Claim 1 of multiple structural elements to provide an estimation of remaining mileage on a tire and enable replacement of the tire makes it clear that the Claim, as a whole, clearly amounts to significantly more than any recited exception (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 13-14), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Example 26 in the July 2015 Update describes an internal combustion engine having manifolds, valves, and sensors forming a specific structure that uses the control system to optimize exhaust gas recirculation. The Applicant’s claims are directed to a system comprising a processor in electronic communication with an electronic control system of a vehicle that electronically outputs an estimate of remaining tire mileage to a device. The processor, electronic control system, vehicle, and device are all generically recited elements that are generically related through electronic communication. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that determination of a wear rate of the tire, generation of a real-time driving severity number, determination of a current wear state of the tire, generation of an estimate of remaining mileage on the tire from a combination of the wear rate of the tire, the real-time driving severity number, and the current wear state of the tire, and communication of the estimate of remaining mileage to enable replacement of the tire constitutes a transformation that renders Claim 1 patentable (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 15), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. A claim may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application when it effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, but is not, by itself, sufficient to render a claim patent-eligible, see MPEP § 2106.05(c). As discussed above, the Applicant’s claims are not directed to a particular article, but merely generically recite a system comprising a processor, electronic control system, vehicle, and device. MPEP § 2106.05(c) further explains "transformation" of an article means that the "article" has changed to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing usually means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. Using a processor to send and receive data and perform calculations does not transform the processor into another article. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the extensive, complex structure and operation of the elements of the system recited in Claim 1 cannot practically be performed in the human mind (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 16-17), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to receiving a tire wear rate, observing how severely a vehicle is being driven, and estimating how many more miles the tire can be used. A driver of a vehicle is capable of observing the tread depth of a tire over time, predicting how many more miles they can drive on the tire based on how quickly it has worn and its remaining tread depth, and estimating a reduction in the predicted mileage after, for example, performing a long burnout. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Sams does not predict or estimate the remaining mileage on a tire, and does not generate an estimate of remaining mileage on the tire from a combination of the wear rate of the tire, the real-time driving severity number, and the current wear state of the tire (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 18), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sams, in figure 19, discloses predicting the mileage where predicted tire wear will reach a minimum remaining tread depth based on periodic measurements of current tread depths and a projected wear rate. Although Sams, in paragraphs 147 and 156, discloses supplementing the summarized or compressed data with real-time vehicle kinetics data that are filtered, down sampled and aggregated into a subset of behavioral or “driver severity” values that are representative of how the vehicle is driven, and further discloses, in paragraph 165, that driving style is used as a factor contributing to wear in the wear prediction algorithm, Sams does not explicitly disclose the driver severity values and driving style are used in the same embodiment. However, it is the combination of Sams with Takaguchi that is relied upon to explicitly disclose using real-time driving severity to evaluate tire wear. Although Sams, in figure 19 and paragraph 166, discloses the tire wear model predicts the mileage where the tread is estimated to wear out, Sams does not explicitly disclose calculating the remaining mileage of the tire by subtracting the wear out mileage from the current, predicted or measured, mileage of the tire. However, it is the combination of Sams with Benedict that is relied upon to disclose representing the tire health as a remaining mileage. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Takaguchi does not generate an estimate of remaining mileage on the tire from a combination of the wear rate of the tire, the real-time driving severity number, and the current wear state of the tire (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 18-19), it is noted that Takaguchi is not relied upon to estimate the tire’s remaining mileage from a combination of its wear rate and current wear state. As discussed above. Takaguchi, in paragraph 33, discloses evaluating tire wear based on real-time tire usage severity conditions. As discussed above, it is the combination of Sams with Takaguchi and Benedict that is relied upon to disclose estimating the tire’s remaining mileage based on its wear rate, real-time driving severity, and current wear. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Benedict does not generate an estimate of remaining mileage on the tire from a combination of the wear rate of the tire, the real-time driving severity number, and the current wear state of the tire (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 19), it is noted that Benedict is not relied upon to estimate using a combination of the wear rate of the tire, the real-time driving severity number, and the current wear state of the tire. Benedict, in paragraph 30, discloses representing tire health as a remaining mileage. As discussed above, it is the combination of Sams with Takaguchi and Benedict that is relied upon to disclose estimating the tire’s remaining mileage based on its wear rate, real-time driving severity, and current wear. See rejection below.
Specification
The amendments to the specification were received on 1/23/2026.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the corrected abstract appears with the amendments to the specification. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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:
In claim 1, lines 4-5, “a calibration module … determining a wear rate of the tire and communicating the wear rate”.
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 1-18 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.
Regarding claim 1, lines 4-5, claim limitation “a calibration module … determining a wear rate of the tire and communicating the wear rate” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraphs 28-30 disclose the calibration module is included in the system for estimating tire mileage and outputs a wear rate determined from an indexed wear rate stored on, or transmitted to, the processor. Although the function of the calibration module is disclosed, the structure used to implement it is unclear. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Calibration module 40 is illustrated in the same manner as severity assessment module 42 and mileage estimation module 44 in figure 3, both of which may be stored on processor 28, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the calibration module refers to software instructions stored on a processor that, when executed by the processor, determine a wear rate of the tire.
Regarding claim 1, lines 7-8 and 10-11, the limitation “a … module in electronic with and being executed on the processor” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how a module communicates with the processor it is being executed on. Paragraphs 31 and 36 disclose the severity assessment and mileage estimation modules are stored on or in electronic communication with processor 28, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the severity assessment and mileages estimation modules are stored on or executed by the processor.
Claims 2-18 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP § 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP § 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG ONE): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG TWO): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP § 2106.05
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system for estimating remaining mileage on a tire (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding Prong One of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP § 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP § 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the analysis. Claim 1 recites:
A system for estimating remaining mileage on a tire supporting a vehicle, the system comprising:
a processor in electronic communication with an electronic control system of the vehicle;
a calibration module in electronic communication with the processor, the calibration module determining a wear rate of the tire [mental process/step] and communicating the wear rate of the tire to the processor;
a severity assessment module in electronic communication with and being executed on the processor, the severity assessment module receiving real-time inputs and generating a real-time driving severity number [mental process/step]; and
a mileage estimation module in electronic communication with and being executed on the processor, the mileage estimation module determining a current wear state of the tire and generating an estimate of remaining mileage on the tire from a combination of the wear rate of the tire, the real-time driving severity number, and the current wear state of the tire [mental process/step]; and
wherein the estimate of remaining mileage is electronically communicated from the processor to a device that is accessible to at least one of a user of the vehicle, a technician for the vehicle, and a fleet manager to enable replacement of the tire.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining a wear rate…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing a tire’s tread depth at different times and estimating the amount of wear over the corresponding time period. “Generating a real-time driving severity number” in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing driving characteristics of a vehicle such as hard accelerations and braking events and judging the severity on a relative scale (e.g., 1 represents coasting to a stop and 10 represents hard braking). “Determining a current wear state of the tire and generating an estimate of remaining mileage…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing the tread depth of a tire and estimating its remaining life based on the previously recited estimations and observations. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong Two
Regarding Prong Two of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system for estimating remaining mileage on a tire supporting a vehicle, the system comprising:
a processor in electronic communication with an electronic control system of the vehicle [generic computing components];
a calibration module in electronic communication with the processor, the calibration module [applying the abstract idea using a generic computing module] determining a wear rate of the tire and communicating the wear rate of the tire to the processor [pre-solution activity (sending data)];
a severity assessment module in electronic communication with and being executed on the processor [applying the abstract idea using a generic computing module], the severity assessment module receiving real-time inputs [pre-solution activity (receiving data)] and generating a real-time driving severity number; and
a mileage estimation module in electronic communication with and being executed on the processor [applying the abstract idea using a generic computing component], the mileage estimation module determining a current wear state of the tire and generating an estimate of remaining mileage on the tire from a combination of the wear rate of the tire, the real-time driving severity number, and the current wear state of the tire; and
wherein the estimate of remaining mileage is electronically communicated from the processor to a device that is accessible to at least one of a user of the vehicle, a technician for the vehicle, and a fleet manager to enable replacement of the tire [insignificant extra-solution activity (sending data)].
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “…communicating the wear rate…”, “…receiving real-time inputs”, and “…electronically communicat[ing] from the processor to a device”, the examiner submits that the limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor storing the calibration and severity assessment modules) to perform the process. In particular, the wear rate and remaining mileage communication steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of supplying the processor with the determined wear rate), and amount to merely sending data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The receiving real-time inputs step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of supplying the processor with driving data), and amounts to merely receiving data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “processor”, “electronic control system of the vehicle”, “calibration module”, “severity assessment module”, “mileage estimation module”, and device is/are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing the generic computer function(s) of sending, receiving, and processing data) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the “determining a wear rate…”, “generating a real-time driving severity number”, and “determining a current wear state of the tire and generating an estimate of remaining mileage…” steps amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Also discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner submits that the additional limitation(s) of “…communicating the wear rate…”, “…receiving real-time inputs”, and “…electronically communicat[ing] from the processor to a device” is/are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-18 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception. Therefore, dependent claims 2-18 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-18 is/are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
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) 1, 4-6, 9-10, 12-14, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sams et al. (US 2022/0017090), hereinafter Sams, in view of Takaguchi (JP 2008-151655) and Benedict et al. (US 2016/0009290), hereinafter Benedict.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Sams discloses a system for estimating remaining mileage on a tire supporting a vehicle, the system comprising: a processor in electronic communication with an electronic control system of the vehicle (Sams; para. 131: The wear model 134A may be implemented at the vehicle, for processing via the onboard system 102, or the tire data 138 and/or vehicle data 136 may be processed to provide representative data to the hosted server 130 for remote wear estimation.); a calibration module in electronic communication with the processor, the calibration module determining a wear rate of the tire and communicating the wear rate of the tire to the processor (Sams; para. 131: tire wear values 150 may be estimated based on a wear model 134A); a severity assessment module in electronic communication with and being executed on the processor, the severity assessment module receiving real-time inputs and generating a real-time driving severity number (Sams; para. 156: the vehicle kinetics data may be filtered, down sampled and aggregated into a subset of behavioral or “driver severity” values that are representative of how the vehicle is driven; para. 152: The result (corrected data frame 440) will be an average of the driver's behavior.); and a mileage estimation module in electronic communication with and being executed on the processor (Sams; para. 165: use of Bayesian methods in the characterization and prediction of tire wear), the mileage estimation module determining a current wear state of the tire (Sams; para. 170: if tread depth measurements are periodically collected and transmitted or otherwise compiled for application according to a system and method as disclosed herein, such measurements can be implemented to reduce the uncertainty and enable better predictions over time) and generating an estimate of remaining mileage on the tire from a combination of the wear rate of the tire and the current wear state of the tire (Sams; para. 172: a wear prediction curve proceeds from a first point (along the y-axis) with a surrounding wear prediction uncertainty U0. After a subsequent tread depth measurement, a corrected wear prediction curve is generated along with a reduced level of uncertainty U1 in the wear prediction. In this example, the second envelope of uncertainty U1 falls entirely within the first envelope. After another tread depth measurement, a third and further corrected wear prediction curve is generated, along with a still further reduced level of uncertainty U2 in the wear prediction); and wherein the estimate of remaining mileage is electronically communicated from the processor to a device that is accessible to at least one of a user of the vehicle, a technician for the vehicle, and a fleet manager to enable replacement of the tire (Sams; para. 61: The onboard computing system further processes the second data to estimate a wear characteristic for the at least one tire, and generates a notification associated with the estimated wear characteristic to a computing device associated with a vehicle user.; para. 175: Accordingly, even periodic measurements of the tread depth or other relevant factors provide real time feedback to users (e.g., fleet managers, end-users) and enhance the ability to predict the wear life left in the tire and further maximize the remaining value in the tire.).
Although Sams discloses real-time driver severity values (Sams; para. 156) and using driving style/aggressiveness as a wear contributing factor of a Bayesian model (Sams; para. 165), Sams does not explicitly disclose using the real-time driver severity values in the mileage estimate.
Takaguchi, in the same field of endeavor (tire wear monitoring), discloses using a real-time driving severity number to estimate tire wear (Takaguchi; para. 33: this DSN analysis device 10 mounts an acceleration sensor on the vehicle 8 that can measure acceleration in the longitudinal direction and the lateral direction perpendicular thereto, measures the acceleration in each direction independently, performs a frequency distribution analysis on the acceleration in these two directions, calculates a value that quantitatively indicates the severity of the tire usage conditions in the longitudinal direction and the lateral direction, that is, a so-called DSN (Driving Severity Number), and uses this to evaluate the wear of the tire).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the inputs of the tire wear model of Sams to include a driving severity number, as disclosed by Takaguchi, to yield the predictable result of accurately modeling operating conditions related to tire wear.
Sams, as modified, discloses a tire wear model that clearly shows the point in mileage at which the tread is estimated to reach a wear out value (Sams; fig. 19; para. 166: tread wear is 4.1 mm+/−0.05 mm or wear out prediction is 55,000 miles+/−3000 miles; para. 168: a tire wear model wherein tread depth is estimated for a given distance traveled (e.g., 15000 km) according to a baseline value (e.g., 5.8 mm)) which is the point at which the tire should be replaced. Benedict explicitly discloses representing a tire health parameter as a remaining mileage (Benedict; para. 30: a tire health parameter may be represented in terms of remaining mileage). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to explicitly estimate the remaining mileage, as disclosed by Benedict, using the model estimating tread depth with respect to mileage of Sams, as modified, with the motivation of providing a metric representing the condition of the tire that the tire owner as well as tire mechanics can understand and easily assess maintenance requirements for the tire (Benedict; para. 29) thereby increasing driving safety by facilitating timely maintenance.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Sams, as modified, discloses the real-time inputs received by the severity assessment module include a speed of the vehicle, a longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle, and a lateral acceleration of the vehicle (Sams; paras. 148: The data frames 330 in the illustrated embodiment are multi-dimensional and contain vehicle body accelerations and vehicle body speed.; para. 149: a histogram data frame having a first dimension associated with lateral vehicle acceleration, and a second dimension associated with fore-aft vehicle acceleration).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Sams, as modified, discloses the real-time inputs received by the severity assessment module include geolocation-based contextual data (Sams; para. 157: low frequency GPS data from the vehicle may be transmitted to the cloud server, wherein the route is reconstructed with a reverse mapping algorithm and fed into a time series histogram to understand the time spent in various driving conditions (highway, turning, braking, etc.)).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Sams, as modified, discloses the geolocation-based contextual data includes weather conditions (Sams; para. 165: The foundation of this approach is the representation of factors contributing to wear (such as driving style, vehicle alignment settings, routes, road surfaces, environmental conditions, tire manufacturing variability, etc.) as probability distributions.).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Sams, as modified, discloses the real-time inputs received by the severity assessment module are measured over a pre-defined driving period (Sams; para. 148: the real-time vehicle kinetics data 310 may be compiled into windows 320 of time and/or distance).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Sams, as modified, discloses the real-time driving severity number generated by the severity assessment module is expressed as a distribution over the pre-defined driving period (Sams; para. 150: as wear is a cumulative process it is useful to summarize data between specific events in time and/or distance. Examples of relevant events may include without limitation: by vehicle trip, tire tread depth measurement events, tire rotation events, tire mount events, vehicle maintenance events, daily/monthly/yearly summaries, mileage summaries (5 k, 10 k, 20 k miles, etc. . . . ). Histogram data frames 330 allow for flexible and efficient summarization, which can be used on static data in the cloud (after transfer) or on transient data on the vehicle (before the data is transferred); para. 152: The result (corrected data frame 440) will be an average of the driver's behavior.).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Sams, as modified, discloses the mileage estimation module includes a wear state estimator, and the wear state estimator determines the current wear state of the tire (Sams; paras 171-172: As measurements of tread depth (or an equivalent tire wear-related factor) are collected over time, potential alternative models or time-series curves may be effectively ruled out or minimized in relevance with respect to a given tire, vehicle-driver-tire system, or the like, and subsequent tire wear estimations may be more accurately provided and with less uncertainty in their respective outcome … a wear prediction curve proceeds from a first point (along the y-axis) with a surrounding wear prediction uncertainty U0. After a subsequent tread depth measurement, a corrected wear prediction curve is generated along with a reduced level of uncertainty U1 in the wear prediction; para. 165: The foundation of this approach is the representation of factors contributing to wear (such as driving style, vehicle alignment settings, routes, road surfaces, environmental conditions, tire manufacturing variability, etc.) as probability distributions.).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Sams, as modified, discloses the mileage estimation module includes a mileage projection model, and the mileage projection model receives the current wear state of the tire from the wear state estimator, the wear rate from the calibration module, and the driving severity number from the severity assessment module (Sams; paras 171-172: As measurements of tread depth (or an equivalent tire wear-related factor) are collected over time, potential alternative models or time-series curves may be effectively ruled out or minimized in relevance with respect to a given tire, vehicle-driver-tire system, or the like, and subsequent tire wear estimations may be more accurately provided and with less uncertainty in their respective outcome … a wear prediction curve proceeds from a first point (along the y-axis) with a surrounding wear prediction uncertainty U0. After a subsequent tread depth measurement, a corrected wear prediction curve is generated along with a reduced level of uncertainty U1 in the wear prediction; para. 165: The foundation of this approach is the representation of factors contributing to wear (such as driving style, vehicle alignment settings, routes, road surfaces, environmental conditions, tire manufacturing variability, etc.) as probability distributions.).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Sams, as modified, discloses the mileage projection model receives a predetermined driving severity score from the calibration module and employs the predetermined driving severity score in the generation of the estimate of remaining mileage on the tire (Sams; para. 156: the vehicle kinetics data may be filtered, down sampled and aggregated into a subset of behavioral or “driver severity” values that are representative of how the vehicle is driven. These values are extracted from the raw data to specifically capture predetermined wear performance characteristics of the driver's behavior. The extracted behavioral features are further processed by the downstream (e.g., host server-based) wear model.).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Sams, as modified, discloses the mileage projection model receives a predetermined value of a depth of a tread of the tire when the tire is new and employs the predetermined value in the generation of the estimate of remaining mileage on the tire (Sams; para. 178: predicts the absolute wear rate of the tire under a given condition, rather than merely predicting how the wear rate changes as tread depth decreases. This is accomplished at least in part by normalizing a current normalizing the modeled wear rate (e.g., based on periodic or otherwise updated measurements) with respect to the wear rate at the original tread depth (i.e., initial wear rate)).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Sams, as modified, discloses the estimate of remaining mileage is expressed as a prediction interval, the prediction interval including a lower limit and an upper limit (Sams; para. 166: predictions can carry a measure of uncertainty with them i.e. tread wear is 4.1 mm+/−0.05 mm or wear out prediction is 55,000 miles+/−3000 miles (both ranges could correspond to specific confidence levels, such as 95% or 98%)).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sams in view of Takaguchi and Benedict as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Isayama (US 2021/0183187).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Sams, as modified, discloses the calibration module determines the wear rate of the tire from a plot of remaining tread depth versus distance traveled (Sams; fig. 19).
Sams, as modified, does not explicitly disclose a predetermined route, wherein the route includes a predetermined driving severity score.
Isayama, in the same field of endeavor (vehicle health monitoring), discloses a predetermined route, wherein the route includes a predetermined driving severity score (Isayama; para. 77: When the vehicle finishes traveling, the recorded position information, travel information, and environmental information are automatically transmitted to the server device 3 in a state of being associated with each other, and are stored in the second storage unit 14. In the server device 3, index values related to driving severity number and correction values thereof are calculated; para. 79: According to the present embodiment, it is possible to identifiably display the average of a plurality of index values calculated based on a plurality of pieces of position information and travel information, as the driving severity number for each section area on the map. As a result, the driving severity number can be grasped at a glance for each section area. The obtained information can be used for various purposes such as estimation of the wear state of a tire.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the tire wear model of Sams, as modified, to include tire wear over a predetermined route, as disclosed by Isayama, to yield the predictable result of accurately modeling localized conditions contributing to tire wear.
Claim(s) 3, 7-8, 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sams in view of Takaguchi and Benedict as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Pursifull et al. (US 2024/0066929), hereinafter Pursifull.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Sams, as modified, discloses the wear rate is expressed for front left and front right tire positions, and for rear left and rear right tire positions (Sams; para. 131: tire wear values 150 may be estimated based on a wear model 134A).
Sams, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the wear rate is expressed as a first rate for front left and front right tire positions, and as a second rate for rear left and rear right tire positions.
Pursifull, in the same field of endeavor (tire tread monitoring), discloses the wear rate is expressed as a first rate for front left and front right tire positions, and as a second rate for rear left and rear right tire positions (Pursifull; para. 38: determine wear rate, front relative to rear).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the individual tire wear values of Sams, as modified, to be combined into front and rear tire wear values, as disclosed by Pursifull, with the motivation of optimizing the timing of front-rear tire rotations thereby saving the vehicle operator from having to buy new tires as often, and also putting all four tires in a cycle to need replacement at about the same time (Pursifull; para. 15).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Sams, as modified, discloses geolocation-based contextual data (Sams; para. 165: The foundation of this approach is the representation of factors contributing to wear (such as driving style, vehicle alignment settings, routes, road surfaces, environmental conditions, tire manufacturing variability, etc.) as probability distributions.).
Sams, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the geolocation-based contextual data includes road topography.
Pursifull discloses the geolocation-based contextual data includes road topography (Pursifull; para. 43: using GPS and map knowledge to know the road characteristics (uphill, downhill, curve, concrete, asphalt, gravel, high speed, stop and go, limited access) for consideration in relation to suggesting tire rotation. Weather data may offer similar knowledge of possible coefficient of friction info, which may augment the method. Beyond GPS, mapping, and weather, sensing of road condition may also be possible with various sensors. In this regard, rate of change of velocity sensors and IMU (inertial) sensors may indicate road curve, elevation gain, surface smoothness, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the route information of Sams, as modified, to include road topography, as disclosed by Pursifull, with the motivation of accurately predicting tire wear by accounting for multiple factors that contribute to tire wear (Pursifull; para. 3) thereby avoiding prematurely replacing parts on a vehicle that do not need to be replaced (Pursifull; para. 14).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Sams, as modified, discloses geolocation-based contextual data (Sams; para. 165: The foundation of this approach is the representation of factors contributing to wear (such as driving style, vehicle alignment settings, routes, road surfaces, environmental conditions, tire manufacturing variability, etc.) as probability distributions.).
Sams, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the geolocation-based contextual data includes a road roughness index.
Pursifull discloses the geolocation-based contextual data includes a road roughness index (Pursifull; para. 43: using GPS and map knowledge to know the road characteristics (uphill, downhill, curve, concrete, asphalt, gravel, high speed, stop and go, limited access) for consideration in relation to suggesting tire rotation. Weather data may offer similar knowledge of possible coefficient of friction info, which may augment the method. Beyond GPS, mapping, and weather, sensing of road condition may also be possible with various sensors. In this regard, rate of change of velocity sensors and IMU (inertial) sensors may indicate road curve, elevation gain, surface smoothness, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the road surface information of Sams, as modified, to include smoothness, as disclosed by Pursifull, with the motivation of accurately predicting tire wear by accounting for multiple factors that contribute to tire wear (Pursifull; para. 3) thereby avoiding prematurely replacing parts on a vehicle that do not need to be replaced (Pursifull; para. 14).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Sams, as modified, discloses the current wear state of the tire is expressed as remaining tread depth for front left and front right tire positions, and remaining tread depth for rear left and rear right tire positions (Sams; para. 132: tire wear status (e.g., tread depth)).
Sams, as modified, does not explicitly disclose a first remaining tread depth for front left and front right tire positions, and a second remaining tread depth for rear left and rear right tire positions.
Pursifull discloses a first remaining tread depth for front left and front right tire positions, and a second remaining tread depth for rear left and rear right tire positions (Pursifull; para. 36: The method of FIG. 4 may include measuring the rolling radii [i.e., the diameter of the tire including the tread depth] of the front and rear tires (124, 134) of the vehicle 110 at operation 200. The method may further include determining a difference in the rolling radii of the front tires 124 and rear tires 134 at operation 210. As noted above, this difference may in some cases be represented by a ratio instead of a subtraction of values. The method may also include comparing the difference in the rolling radii to a predetermined threshold value at operation 220.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the individual tire tread depth values of Sams, as modified, to be combined for the front and rear tires, as disclosed by Pursifull, with the motivation of optimizing the timing of front-rear tire rotations thereby saving the vehicle operator from having to buy new tires as often, and also putting all four tires in a cycle to need replacement at about the same time (Pursifull; para. 15).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Sams, as modified, discloses the estimate of remaining mileage is determined as estimates of remaining mileage for front left and front right tire positions, and as estimates of remaining mileage for rear left and rear right tire positions (Benedict; para. 30: a tire health parameter may be represented in terms of remaining mileage).
Sams, as modified, does not explicitly disclose a first estimate of remaining mileage for front left and front right tire positions, and a second estimate of remaining mileage for rear left and rear right tire positions.
Pursifull discloses a first estimate for front left and front right tire positions, and a second estimate for rear left and rear right tire positions (Pursifull; para. 38: determine wear rate, front relative to rear).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the individual tire remaining mileage estimate values of Sams, as modified, to be combined into front and rear values, as disclosed by Pursifull, with the motivation of optimizing the timing of front-rear tire rotations thereby saving the vehicle operator from having to buy new tires as often, and also putting all four tires in a cycle to need replacement at about the same time (Pursifull; para. 15).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sams in view of Takaguchi and Benedict as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Stewart et al. (US 2019/0270347), hereinafter Stewart.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Sams, as modified, discloses the mileage projection model receives a predetermined value of a depth of a tread of the tire and employs the predetermined value in the generation of the estimate of remaining mileage on the tire (Sams; para. 137: The system may be configured to act upon a minimum tire tread value for each of a plurality of tires associated with a vehicle).
Sams, as modified, does not explicitly disclose a minimum legal limit.
Stewart, in the same field of endeavor (tire tread monitoring), discloses a minimum legal limit (Stewart; para. 38: The lower tread depth 576 represents the tread depth when the tire has worn until reaching a desired replacement condition. In this case, the desired replacement condition of a tread depth of 1.6 mm is based on a minimum legal tire tread depth used in the European Union and in some states within the United States of America.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the minimum tread depth of the tire wear model of Sams, as modified, to be the minimum legal tread depth, as disclosed by Stewart, to yield the predictable result of ensuring the vehicle may be legally operated.
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 JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665