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 § 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 1-20 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.”
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 comprise 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 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 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 2-20 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), Claim 19 (transmission from the processor to at least one of a display device, a controller device, and an electronic control system of the vehicle), 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 1-20 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.
Conclusion
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