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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regards to Claim 1, the limitation “an electronic control system of the vehicle for actuation of the vehicle in response to the estimate” is not discussed in the specification.
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 and 20 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 regards to Claim 1, the limitation “an electronic control system of the vehicle for actuation of the vehicle in response to the estimate” is indefinite as it unclear what the meaning of the italicized feature is.
The Examiner did not find in the Specification a disclosure relevant to the “actuation of the vehicle” and treated the entire limitation as a transmission of the estimate to a display/controller and/or control system of the vehicle.
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 1-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“A system for estimation of a depth of a tread of a tire supporting a vehicle, the system comprising: a processor in electronic communication with an electronic control system of the vehicle; a wheel speed signal processing module in electronic communication with the processor, the wheel speed signal processing module receiving measured wheel speed signals and generating processed wheel speed signals from the measured wheel speed signals; a Fast Fourier Transform computation module in electronic communication with the processor, the Fast Fourier Transform computation module receiving the processed wheel speed signals and generating a Fast Fourier Transform curve; a summation module in electronic communication with the processor, the summation module selecting a predefined range of the Fast Fourier Transform curve, generating a reference curve from the predefined range of the Fast Fourier Transform curve, and determining a sum of residuals between a real-time Fast Fourier Transform curve and the reference curve; and a regression model in electronic communication with the processor, the regression model determining an estimate of tire tread depth from the sum of residuals, wherein the estimate of tire tread depth is transmitted from the processor to at least one of a display device, a controller device, and an electronic control system of the vehicle for actuation of the vehicle in response to the estimate.”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the above claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
The above claim comprises the following additional elements:
Claim 1: A system for estimation of a depth of a tread of a tire supporting a vehicle, the system comprising: a processor in electronic communication with an electronic control system of the vehicle; a wheel speed signal processing module in electronic communication with the processor, the wheel speed signal processing module receiving measured wheel speed signals and generating processed wheel speed signals from the measured wheel speed signals; a Fast Fourier Transform computation module in electronic communication with the processor, the Fast Fourier Transform computation module receiving the processed wheel speed signals; the estimate of tire tread depth is transmitted from the processor to at least one of a display device, a controller device, and an electronic control system of the vehicle for actuation of the vehicle in response to the estimate.
The additional elements in the preamble are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The additional elements in the claim such as processor in electronic communication with an electronic control system of the vehicle; a wheel speed signal processing module in electronic communication with the processor are examples of generic computer equipment (components) that are generally recited and not meaningful and, therefore, are not qualified as particular machines to indicate a practical application. Similarly, the wheel speed signal processing module receiving measured wheel speed signals and generating processed wheel speed signals from the measured wheel speed signals and a Fast Fourier Transform computation module in electronic communication with the processor, the Fast Fourier Transform computation module receiving the processed wheel speed signals, and a step of transmitting the estimate of tire tread depth for actuation of the vehicle in response to the estimate are generically recited and not meaningful to indicate a practical application. Steps of measuring wheel speed signals to generate processed wheel speed signals and then Fast Fourier Transformation of the processed wheel speed signals represent insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-18 and 20 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claim (additionally comprising abstract idea steps) and, therefore, these claims are not eligible without meaningful additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or additional elements that qualify for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
For example, additional elements in Claim 2 (the wheel speed signal processing module receives the wheel speed signal from an electronic control system of the vehicle), Claim 3 (a plot of frequency of the processed wheel speed signals versus a Fast Fourier Transform amplitude), Claim 4 (a normalization module), Claim 5 (using tire inflation pressure from a tire sensor), Claim 7 (using vehicle speed measurement), Claim 11 (receiving a vehicle vertical acceleration), Claim 12 (using accelerometer), Claim 17 (reference curve is based upon a reference condition for a new tire), and Claim 20 (processor is at least one of a vehicle-mounted processor and a remote processor) are all recited in generality and not meaningful to indicate a practical application and/or qualify for significantly more.
Examiner Note with Regards to Prior Art of Record
The following references are considered to be the closest prior art to the claimed invention:
Kanwar Bharat Singh et al. (US 20140366618) discloses a system for estimation of a depth of a tread of a tire supporting a vehicle (Referring to FIG. 1, a tire tread wear estimation system 10 is shown based on spectral analysis of the tire vertical vibration signal [0064]), the system comprising: a processor (30, Fig.1) in electronic communication with an electronic control system of the vehicle (24, Fig.1); a wheel speed signal processing module in electronic communication with the processor (28, Fig.1), the wheel speed signal processing module receiving measured wheel speed signals (26, Fig.1) and generating processed wheel speed signals from the measured wheel speed signals ([0066], Fig.1); a Fast Fourier Transform computation module in electronic communication with the processor (Fig.1), the Fast Fourier Transform computation module receiving the processed wheel speed signals and generating a Fast Fourier Transform curve ([0067, 0070], Fig. 2A, Fig.5).
Hiroshi Morinaga (US 8483976) discloses selecting a predefined range of the Fast Fourier Transform (a method for estimating the wear of a tire, in which the specific frequency range is selected from a range of 10 to 2000 Hz out of frequency components of the tread vibration, Col.3, Lines 65-67).
NAOSHI MIYASHITA et al. (WO 2006090686) discloses a regression model (linear least-squares regression (step S206) for the linear parameter and the combined square residual sum Is calculated (step S208), and the composite residual sum of squares according to the above equation (10) is obtained [0046]) including a sum of (squared) residuals to correct calculated data versus measured data (…calculating the tire tread wear characteristics at the predetermined slip angle and the slip ratio in the braking / driving direction using the calculated tire slip amount. When deriving the value of the tire dynamic element parameter, the sum of square residuals of the characteristic curve of the longitudinal force and the corresponding curve of the longitudinal force calculated by the tire dynamic model, the characteristic curve of the lateral force and the tire. A sum of squared residuals with the corresponding curve of the lateral force calculated by the mechanical model, a sum of squared residuals of the characteristic curve of the self-lining torque and the corresponding curve of the self-lining torque calculated by the tire dynamic model, p.3).
Claims 1-18 and 20 are distinguished over prior art of record based on the reasons below.
In regards to Claim 1, the claims differ from the closest prior art, because the art fails to anticipate or render obvious selecting a predefined range of the Fast Fourier Transform curve, generating a reference curve from the predefined range of the Fast Fourier Transform curve, and determining a sum of residuals between a real-time Fast Fourier Transform curve and the reference curve; and a regression model in electronic communication with the processor, the regression model determining an estimate of tire tread depth from the sum of residuals, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues (p. 2): Applicant's independent Claim is very much like the claim of Example 26.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In Example 26, the eligibility of a considered claim is self-evident as the claim recites a description of an internal combustion engine having manifolds, valves, and sensors forming a specific structure that uses the control system to optimize exhaust gas recirculation makes it clear that the claim as a whole would clearly amount to significantly more than any recited exception. The claim as a whole adds meaningful limitations to the use of the mathematical relationship.
In the instant claim, the eligibility is not self-evident as the claim is directed to an abstract idea that comprise a plurality of mathematical steps to “accurately and reliably estimate the remaining tread depth on a tire” [0006] without meaningful additional elements as discussed in the rejection. Therefore, the full eligibility analysis is warranted (Steps 2A and 2B).
As further discussed below, “multiple structural elements” such as a processor, control system, and a plurality of functional computer modules have tangential relationship to an abstract idea while the structural elements in the argued Example “forming a specific structure that uses the control system to optimize exhaust gas recirculation”.
The Applicant argues (p. 3): While Applicant's independent Claim 1 includes mathematical relationships, the claim clearly does not seek to tie up these mathematical relationships so that others cannot practice them.
The Examiner disagrees.
The Examiner respectfully submits that preemption is not a standalone test for eligibility. Questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo, as explained by the Federal Circuit in
OJP and Sequenom. Moreover, while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible. See OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1152 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The Applicant argues (p. 3): The recitation in Claim 1 of multiple structural elements to provide an estimate of tire tread depth for actuation of the vehicle in response to the estimate makes it clear that the Claim, as a whole, clearly amounts to significantly more than any recited exception, and is patentable under 35 U.S.C. Section 101.
The Examiner disagrees. The multiple structural elements argued are not meaningful and represent insignificant extra solution activity tangentially related to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g).II).
The Applicant argues (p. 3-5): In addition, a claim that recites a transformation of a system or article is patentable under 35 U.S.C. Section 101. See Diamond V. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 101 S.Ct. 1048 (1981); MPEP Section 2106.05. Example 25 in the July 2015 Update to the 2014 Interim Guidance on Subject Matter Eligibility specifically illustrates this point, describing a claim for controlling a rubber curing press using computer instructions … Applicant respectfully submits that such generation of processed wheel speed signals from measured wheel speed signals, generation of a Fast Fourier Transform curve, determination of a sum of residuals between a real-time Fast Fourier Transform curve and the reference curve, determination of an estimate of tire tread depth from the sum of residuals, and transmission of an estimate of tire tread depth to at least one of a display device, a controller device, and an electronic control system of the vehicle for actuation of the vehicle in response to the estimate, constitutes a transformation that renders Claim 1 patentable under 35 U.S.C. Section 101.
The Examiner treats the above argument based on alleged similarity with Diamond v. Diehr as to support of a practical application of the abstract idea.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In Diehr, a claim was found to be eligible because it was tied to a physical structure and recited a meaningful combination of steps in a process of curing rubber. In Diehr, the eligibility was based on several factors considered together such as installing rubber in a press, constant measurements of temperature at a mold cavity, repetitive recalculation of the cure time using constantly updated temperature measurements, opening a molding press, automatically opening the press at a cure time, and a physical geometry of the molding press. These steps (additional elements) impose meaningful limits to reflect a practical application of the abstract idea (Arrhenius equation) to improve the existing technological process of curing rubber.
No additional elements impose “meaningful limits” in the current claims. The Applicant’s argument mostly uses abstract idea steps to allege significantly more while this consideration needs to relate to additional elements.
The claims of the instant application are similar to the claim in Flook. In that case, a formula is used to update alarm limits with no disclosure related to an alarm system (lack of practical application). Similarly, in Electric Power Group, collecting information, analyzing it, and submitting results of the collection and analysis constitutes patent ineligible subject matter (“we have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis”).
With regards to the (eligible) “transformation” argument, the Examiner disagrees and submits that 1) A transformation applied to a generically recited article or to any and all articles would likely not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.“ (MPEP 2106(c)), and 2) “A transformation that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application)” (MPEP 2106(c))..
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
