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 .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/562,919 filed on 11/21/2023.
• Claims 1, 3-9, 11-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
• Claims 2 and 10 are cancelled.
• This action is made FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 07/30/2025.
• Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the U.S.C. 112(b) rejections.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
The certified copy has been filed in Application No. 18/562,919 filed on 11/21/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2023, 02/13/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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: filled internal pressure calculating unit in claim 11.
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. The structure described in the specification for the filled internal pressure calculating unit is ”a general-purpose computer, … is configured to receive internal pressure data and the like from a sensor unit SU of each tire” in para[32] of specification and Fig. 1.
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 § 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, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The complete step-by-step analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 is provided below:
STEP One: Do Claims 1, 7-8 Fall Within One of The Statutory Categories?
Yes, claims 1 and 7 are directed towards a machine, claim 8 is directed towards a method.
STEP Two A , Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, claim 1 recites calculating tire change time information for responding to a state in which a remaining groove depth of the tire is less than a preset threshold value, based on the data indicating the worn state and the operation data of the mobile object; and calculating internal pressure filling time information for responding to a state in which an internal pressure is less than a predetermined threshold value, based on transition of the internal pressure time-series data. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person calculating tire change time information for responding to a state in which a remaining groove depth of the tire is less than a preset threshold value and calculating internal pressure filling time information for responding to a state in which an internal pressure is less than a predetermined threshold value and forming a simple judgement. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP Two A , Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea integrated into a Practical Application?
No. Claim 1 recites additional element of acquiring data indicating a worn state of each tire mounted on a mobile object including an aircraft or a vehicle, operation data of the mobile object, and internal pressure time-series data of a tire. The receiving steps from the sensors and from the external source is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering tire data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The instructing to change tire and fill air step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of instructing the evaluation result from the evaluating step), and amounts to mere post solution instruction, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims 1, 7-8 are directed to the abstract idea.
STEP Two B: Does the Claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the collecting and instructing steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim 3-6, 9, 11-12 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claim 3-6, 9, 11-12 are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 3-6, 9, 11-12 are not patent eligible under the same rational as provided for the rejection of claim 1, 7-8.
Claims 3-4, 9 merely further specify how to correct the tire change time information and the internal pressure filling time information to be identical and issues an instruction. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person checking if the tire change time information and the internal pressure filling time information are within a predetermined time period and forming a simple judgement. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Claims 5-6, 11-12 merely further specify how to calculate an internal pressure to be filled in the tire, based on a difference between the first time and the second time. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person calculating an internal pressure to be filled in the tire, based on a difference between the first time and the second time and forming a simple judgement. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
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, 3-5, 7-9, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEIJI (JP2004279217A) in view of Mori (US20200348212A1), further in view of Sumiuchi (US5141587A) and Villarreal (US 20040221439 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, and 7-8:
KEIJI teaches:
A tire management device comprising: a computer configured to acquire data indicating a worn state of each tire mounted on a mobile object including an aircraft or a vehicle, operation data of the mobile object, and internal pressure time-series data of a tire; (KEIJI, para [32], “computer”, and para[06], “a vehicle tire management method that uses a tire sensor/information storage device that is attached to the vehicle tire… tread groove depth based on the measurement values of the tire”, para[11], “checking tire pressure using a tire pressure loss warning adapter attached to a tire valve”, and para[34], “Table 1 shows that … the tire was filled with air on October 15th, and the air pressure at that time was 800 kPa.”)
calculate tire change time information for responding to a state in which a remaining groove depth of the tire is less than a preset threshold value, based on the data indicating the worn state and the operation data of the mobile object; (KEIJI, para[06], “the data processing device calculates the wear rate of the tread groove depth based on the measurement values… and predicts the time for tire replacement”, and para[09], “remaining tread limit value”)
calculate internal pressure filling time information for responding to a state in which an internal pressure is less than a predetermined threshold value, based on transition of the internal pressure time-series data; (KEIJI, para[14], “the computer predicts the time to refill tire pressure based on the tire pressure filling value of each tire mounted on a vehicle stored in the memory unit and the tire pressure drop value corresponding to the passage of time, with the tire pressure drop rate set at an upper limit of 20%” . )
and instruct whether to perform maintenance on each tire, based on the calculated tire change time information and the calculated internal pressure filling time information; (KEIJI, para[28], “A gauge…is provided …so that the tire air pressure state can be quantitatively confirmed…an inspection worker can immediately check whether or not there is an abnormality by simply visually checking the gauge ”, para[06], “the data processing device calculates the wear rate of the tread groove depth based on the measurement values… and predicts the time for tire replacement”, para[14], “the computer predicts the time to refill tire pressure based on the tire pressure filling value of each tire mounted on a vehicle ”)
wherein the tire change time information corresponds to a time, and the internal pressure filling time information corresponds to a time, (KEIJI, para[06], “the data processing device calculates the wear rate of the tread groove depth based on the measurement values… and predicts the time for tire replacement”, para[14], “the computer predicts the time to refill tire pressure based on the tire pressure filling value of each tire mounted on a vehicle ”)
KEIJI does not teach, but Mori teaches:
and wherein if …are within a predetermined time period of one another, (Mori, Abstract, “A tire system includes a tire-side device and a vehicle-body-side system”, and para[83], “determines whether or not … within a predetermined time period .”)
and an instruction is issued; (Mori, para[61],”notifies the driver of the detection results through the notification device”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KEIJI with these above teachings from Mori in order to include wherein if the tire change time information and the internal pressure filling time information are within a predetermined time period, and issues an instruction. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate KEIJI’s tire management system with Mori’s tire system in order to prevent the tire failure.
KEIJI in view of Mori does not explicitly teach, but Sumiuchi teaches:
the… time information are corrected to be an identical time (Sumiuchi, Col.13, lines 2-26, “times at both … are substantially equal” )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KEIJI in view of Mori with these above teachings from Sumiuchi in order to include make both the tire change time information and the internal pressure filling time information identical. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate KEIJI n view of Mori’s tire management system with Sumiuchi’s tire forming method in order to prevent the tire failure.
KEIJI in view of Mori does not explicitly teach, but Villarreal teaches:
wherein … operation are performed at a same time.( Villarrea, Col.2, lines 28-29, “both … are performed at the same time”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KEIJI in view of Mori with these above teachings from Villarreal in order to include wherein a tire changing operation and an internal pressure filling operation are performed at a same time. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate KEIJI n view of Mori’s tire management system with Villarrea’s method for vehicle tire repair or replacement in order to prevent the tire failure.
Regarding Claim 3:
KEIJI in view of Mori, Sumiuchi, Villarrea, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. KEIJI teaches:
The tire management device according to claim 1, wherein with respect to each tire mounted on the same mobile object, (KEIJI, para[06], “a vehicle tire management method that uses a tire sensor/information storage device that is attached to the vehicle tire”)
tire change time information and the internal pressure filling time information(KEIJI, para[06], “predicts the time for tire replacement”, and para[14], “the computer predicts the time to refill tire pressure”)
KEIJI does not teach, but Mori teaches:
if … is within a predetermined time period set in advance, (Mori, Abstract, “A tire system includes a tire-side device and a vehicle-body-side system”, and para[83], “determines whether or not … within a predetermined time period .”)
and issues an instruction. (Mori, para[61],”notifies the driver of the detection results through the notification device”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KEIJI with these above teachings from Mori in order to include wherein if the tire change time information and the internal pressure filling time information are within a predetermined time period, and issues an instruction. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate KEIJI’s tire management system with Mori’s tire system in order to prevent the tire failure.
KEIJI in view of Mori does not explicitly teach, but Sumiuchi teaches:
both … time information are corrected to be the identical time (Sumiuchi, Col.13, lines 2-26, “times at both … are substantially equal” )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KEIJI in view of Mori with these above teachings from Sumiuchi in order to include make both the tire change time information and the internal pressure filling time information identical. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate KEIJI n view of Mori’s tire management system with Sumiuchi’s tire forming method in order to prevent the tire failure.
Regarding Claims 4 and 9:
KEIJI in view of Mori, Sumiuchi, Villarrea, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. KEIJI teaches:
tire change time information and the internal pressure filling time information(KEIJI, para[06], “predicts the time for tire replacement”, and para[14], “the computer predicts the time to refill tire pressure”)
the identical time is the earlier time from between the time corresponding to the tire change time information and the time corresponding to the internal pressure filling time information. Examiner note: KEIJI teaches tire change time information and the internal pressure filling time information; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a simple judgement of which time is earlier.
KEIJI in view of Mori does not explicitly teach, but Sumiuchi teaches:
The tire management device according to claim 1, wherein in the correction to make both … time information identical (Sumiuchi, Col.13, lines 2-26, “the cycle times at both … are substantially equal” )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KEIJI in view of Mori with these above teachings from Sumiuchi in order to include make both the tire change time information and the internal pressure filling time information identical. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate KEIJI n view of Mori’s tire management system with Sumiuchi’s tire forming method in order to prevent the tire failure.
Regarding Claim 5 :
KEIJI in view of Mori, Sumiuchi, Villarrea, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. KEIJI teaches:
The tire management device according to claim 1, wherein if a first time corresponding to the internal pressure filling time information is earlier than a second time corresponding to the tire change time information, (KEIJI, para[14], “the computer predicts the time to refill tire pressure based on the tire pressure filling value of each tire mounted on a vehicle “, para[06], “the data processing device calculates the wear rate of the tread groove depth based on the measurement values… and predicts the time for tire replacement”) Examiner note: KEIJI teaches a first time corresponding to the internal pressure filling time information and a second time corresponding to tire change time information; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a simple judgement of which time is earlier.
a time for filling an internal pressure in the tire is calculated (KEIJI, para[14], “the computer predicts the time to refill tire pressure”)
based on a difference between the first time and the second time. Examiner note: KEIJI teaches a first time corresponding to the internal pressure filling time information and a second time corresponding to tire change time information; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a simple calculation to get the time difference.
Regarding Claim 11:
KEIJI in view of Mori, Sumiuchi, Villarrea, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 3. KEIJI teaches:
The tire management device according to claim 3, further comprising: a filled internal pressure calculating unit that, … calculates an internal pressure to be filled in the tire (KEIJI, para[14], “the tire pressure filling value of each tire mounted on a vehicle”)
if a first time corresponding to the internal pressure filling time information is earlier than a second time corresponding to the tire change time information, Examiner note: KEIJI teaches tire change time information and the internal pressure filling time information; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a simple judgement of which time is earlier.
based on a difference between the first time and the second time. Examiner note: KEIJI teaches tire change time information and the internal pressure filling time information; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a simple comparison to yield the time difference.
Regarding Claim 12 :
KEIJI in view of Mori, Sumiuchi, Villarrea, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 4. KEIJI teaches:
he tire management device according to claim 4, if a first time corresponding to the internal pressure filling time information is earlier than a second time corresponding to the tire change time information, (KEIJI, para[14], “the computer predicts the time to refill tire pressure based on the tire pressure filling value of each tire mounted on a vehicle “, para[06], “the data processing device calculates the wear rate of the tread groove depth based on the measurement values… and predicts the time for tire replacement”) Examiner note: KEIJI teaches tire change time information and the internal pressure filling time information; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a simple judgement of which time is earlier.
a time for filling an internal pressure in the tire is calculated (KEIJI, para[14], “the computer predicts the time to refill tire pressure”)
based on a difference between the first time and the second time. Examiner note: KEIJI teaches a first time corresponding to the internal pressure filling time information and a second time corresponding to tire change time information; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a simple calculation to get the time difference.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEIJI (JP2004279217A) in view of in view of Mori (US20200348212A1), further in view of Sumiuchi (US5141587A), Villarreal (US 20040221439 A) and Wagner (US 20140095013 A1).
Regarding Claim 6:
KEIJI in view of Mori, Sumiuchi, Villarrea, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. KEIJI teaches:
The tire management device according to claim 5, wherein the time for filling the internal pressure in the tire is calculated, (KEIJI, para[14], “the computer predicts the time to refill tire pressure”)
the difference between the first time and the second time Examiner note: KEIJI teaches tire change time information and the internal pressure filling time information; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a simple comparison to yield the time difference.
KEIJI in view of Mori, Sumiuchi, Villarrea does not teach, but Wagner teaches:
based on a ratio between a time period … and an internal pressure filling interval set in advance. (Wagner teaches the internal pressure filling interval in para[25],” the pumping of a tire is to be monitored, the intervals between pressure measurements”) Examiner note: Wagner teaches an internal pressure filling interval, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a simple calculation to yield a ratio between a time period and an internal pressure filling interval.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KEIJI in view of Mori, Sumiuchi, Villarrea with these above teachings from Wagner in order to calculate an internal pressure to be filled in the tire, based on a ratio between a time period related to the difference between the first time and the second time and an internal pressure filling interval set in advance.. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate KEIJI in view of Mori, Sumiuchi, Villarrea’s tire management system with Wagner’s method for operating a tire pressure monitoring unit in order to prevent the tire failure.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
112 (b) rejections. Applicant's arguments are persuasive and Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the U.S.C. 112(b) rejections.
102 and 103 rejections. Applicant's arguments filed on 07/30/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument
101 rejection. Applicant argues the amended claims feature of "wherein if the tire change time information and the internal pressure filling time information are within a predetermined time period of one another, the tire change time information and the internal pressure filling time information are corrected to be an identical time and an instruction is issued." and "wherein a tire changing operation and an internal pressure filling operation are performed at a same time" is directed to a technical improvement in tire maintenance that enhances operation efficiency and as such is more than a mere abstract idea.
In response of C). The examiner respectively disagrees. claim 1 recites calculating tire change time information for responding to a state in which a remaining groove depth of the tire is less than a preset threshold value, based on the data indicating the worn state and the operation data of the mobile object; and calculating internal pressure filling time information for responding to a state in which an internal pressure is less than a predetermined threshold value, based on transition of the internal pressure time-series data. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person calculating tire change time information for responding to a state in which a remaining groove depth of the tire is less than a preset threshold value and calculating internal pressure filling time information for responding to a state in which an internal pressure is less than a predetermined threshold value and forming a simple judgement. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. Claim 1 recites additional element of acquiring data indicating a worn state of each tire mounted on a mobile object including an aircraft or a vehicle, operation data of the mobile object, and internal pressure time-series data of a tire. The receiving steps from the sensors and from the external source is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering tire data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The instructing to change tire and fill air step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of instructing the evaluation result from the evaluating step), and amounts to mere post solution instruction, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims 1, 7-8 are directed to the abstract idea. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the collecting and instructing steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. The claim is ineligible.
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 KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on (571) 272-5109. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667