DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McPillan et al. (U.S. Pub. 2019/0084355).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, McPillan discloses (Figs. 1-6) a tire management apparatus (see par. [0019]) configured to manage a tire mounted on a vehicle 101 (see pars. [0019] and [0050]-[0051]), the tire management apparatus comprising:
a data acquisition section [0052]-[0055] configured to acquire data related to a running distance of the vehicle [0020] and a wear amount of the tire (i.e. tread depth: [0019]-[0020] in a first period (i.e. given period of time, such as a month: [0045]);
a wear state calculator [0052]-[0055] configured to calculate a wear state value that is a wear rate of the tire (i.e. wear over time: [0045]-[0046]) or a runnable distance until an end of a wear life of the tire (see pars. [0032] and [0045]-[0046]), based on the acquired data [0044]; and
an evaluation value calculator [0052]-[0055] configured to calculate an evaluation value for the tire (see pars. [0031]-[0032] and [0097]), based on comparison between the calculated wear state value (see pars. [0031] and [0045]-[0046]) and a reference value of the wear state value (i.e. threshold: [0031]).
The apparatus of McPillan, as applied above in the rejection of claim 1, would perform the method and meet the limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 2, McPillan discloses (Figs. 1-6) the evaluation value includes a value related to a cost of the tire (see pars. [0031] and [0046]).
Regarding claims 4, and 9, McPillan discloses (Figs. 1-6) the evaluation value calculator is configured to set the reference value [0031] based on data related to the running distance of the vehicle [0032] and the wear amount of the tire [0031] in a period before the first period (i.e. based on historical data/data from one or more previous measurements: [0070]-[0071]).
Regarding claims 6, 11 and 16, McPillan discloses (Figs. 1-6) the data acquisition section is configured to acquire data related to the running distance of the vehicle [0031] and the wear amount of the tire [0032] in a second period after the first period (i.e. new data: [0104]), and
the evaluation value calculator is configured to update the reference value (see pars. [0102]-[0104]) based on the data related to the running distance of the vehicle and the wear amount of the tire in the first period (i.e. update the projected tread depth based on the new data: [0104]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 3, 8, 12, 14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McPillan et al. (U.S. Pub. 2019/0084355) in view of Masahiro et al. (JP 2003-166818 – cited on Applicant’s 09/28/2023 IDS, full translation attached).
Regarding claims 3 and 8, McPillan is applied as above, but does not disclose the tire comprises a plurality of tires mounted on the vehicle, and the evaluation value is an average value of the plurality of tires.
Masahiro discloses (Fig. 5) the tire comprises a plurality of tires [0019] mounted on the vehicle (Fig. 1), and the evaluation value is an average value of the plurality of tires [0037]-[0040].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify McPillan’s device so that the tire comprises a plurality of tires mounted on the vehicle, and the evaluation value is an average value of the plurality of tires, as taught by Masahiro.
Such a modification would be the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results – see MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claims 12 and 18, McPillan discloses (Figs. 1-6) the evaluation value calculator is configured to set the reference value [0031] based on data related to the running distance of the vehicle [0032] and the wear amount of the tire [0031] in a period before the first period (i.e. based on historical data/data from one or more previous measurements: [0070]-[0071]).
Regarding claims 14 and 20, McPillan discloses (Figs. 1-6) the data acquisition section is configured to acquire data related to the running distance of the vehicle [0031] and the wear amount of the tire [0032] in a second period after the first period (i.e. new data: [0104]), and
the evaluation value calculator is configured to update the reference value (see pars. [0102]-[0104]) based on the data related to the running distance of the vehicle and the wear amount of the tire in the first period (i.e. update the projected tread depth based on the new data: [0104]).
Claims 5, 10, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McPillan et al. (U.S. Pub. 2019/0084355) in view of Shoichiro (JP 2018-020752 – cited on Applicant’s 09/28/2023 IDS, full translation attached).
Also, claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McPillan et al. (U.S. Pub. 2019/0084355) in view of Masahiro et al. (JP 2003-166818), and further in view of Shoichiro (JP 2018-020752).
Regarding claims 5, 10, 13, 15, and 19, McPillan is applied as above, but does not disclose a selector configured to select one or more tires from a plurality of tires that differ in wear characteristics, based on the evaluation value.
Shoichiro discloses a selector 14 [0028] configured to select one or more tires from a plurality of tires [0028] that differ in wear characteristics [0059], based on the evaluation value [0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify McPillan’s device to include a selector configured to select one or more tires from a plurality of tires that differ in wear characteristics, based on the evaluation value, as taught by Shoichiro.
Such a modification would be the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results – see MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claim 17, McPillan discloses (Figs. 1-6) the data acquisition section is configured to acquire data related to the running distance of the vehicle [0031] and the wear amount of the tire [0032] in a second period after the first period (i.e. new data: [0104]), and
the evaluation value calculator is configured to update the reference value (see pars. [0102]-[0104]) based on the data related to the running distance of the vehicle and the wear amount of the tire in the first period (i.e. update the projected tread depth based on the new data: [0104]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is (571) 270-7930. The examiner can normally be reached M-F | 8:30-5:00.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/BENJAMIN R SCHMITT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852