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 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 limitations are: a driver-related variable acquisition unit for acquiring a plurality of driver-related explanatory variables related to attributes of a driver driving the vehicle; a vehicle-related variable acquisition unit for acquiring a plurality of vehicle-related explanatory variables related to attributes of the vehicle; a coefficient setting unit for setting a driver-related coefficient to be applied to the driver- related explanatory variable and a vehicle-related coefficient to be applied to the vehicle-related explanatory variable based on actual values of the driver-related explanatory variables and the vehicle-related explanatory variables; and an objective variable calculation unit for calculating the wear as an objective variable by using the driver-related explanatory variables and the vehicle related explanatory variables in claim 1.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 these limitations 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 1-8 is 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 tire wear prediction system that predicts the wear of tires mounted on a vehicle comprising a fleet, comprising: a driver-related variable acquisition unit for acquiring a plurality of driver-related explanatory variables related to attributes of a driver driving the vehicle; a vehicle-related variable acquisition unit for acquiring a plurality of vehicle-related explanatory variables related to attributes of the vehicle; a coefficient setting unit for setting a driver-related coefficient to be applied to the driver- related explanatory variable and a vehicle-related coefficient to be applied to the vehicle-related explanatory variable based on actual values of the driver-related explanatory variables and the vehicle-related explanatory variables; and an objective variable calculation unit for calculating the wear as an objective variable by using the driver-related explanatory variables and the vehicle related explanatory variables; wherein the objective variable calculation unit recalculate a predicted value of the wear when at least one of the attribute of the driver and the attribute of the vehicle is changed by using the driver-related coefficient and the vehicle-related coefficient.
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 grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “calculating the wear as an objective variable by using the driver-related explanatory variables and the vehicle-related explanatory variables; wherein in the step of calculating the objective variable, the predicted value of the wear is recalculated when at least one of the attribute of the driver and the attribute of the vehicle is changed by using the driver-related coefficient and the vehicle-related coefficient” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical concept grouping. Although examiner has disclosed the limitation “setting a driver-related coefficient to be applied to the driver-related explanatory variable and a vehicle-related coefficient to be applied to the vehicle-related explanatory variable based on actual values of the driver-related explanatory variables and the vehicle-related explanatory variables” as insignificant extra solution activity, the examiner would also like to annotate that this limitation could also be interpreted as a mathematical concept grouping, more specifically mathematical relationships (See example iv).
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 5.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
The additional element in Claim 1 of “acquiring a plurality of driver-related explanatory variables related to attributes of a driver driving the vehicle; acquiring a plurality of vehicle-related explanatory variables related to attributes of the vehicle; setting a driver-related coefficient to be applied to the driver-related explanatory variable and a vehicle-related coefficient to be applied to the vehicle-related explanatory variable based on actual values of the driver-related explanatory variables and the vehicle-related explanatory variables,” represents a mere data gathering/outputting step and only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do 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).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-4 and 6-8 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
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, 3, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnston et al. (US20200334922A1, 2020-10-22) herein referred to as Johnston.
Regarding Claim 1, Johnston teaches a tire wear prediction system that predicts the wear of tires mounted on a vehicle comprising a fleet (Abstract, [0008], Fig. 1A-B) comprising: a driver-related variable acquisition unit for acquiring a plurality of driver-related explanatory variables related to attributes of a driver driving the vehicle; a vehicle-related variable acquisition unit for acquiring a plurality of vehicle-related explanatory variables related to attributes of the vehicle ([0012]; data analytics platform; Fig. 1A-B); a coefficient setting unit for setting a driver-related coefficient to be applied to the driver- related explanatory variable and a vehicle-related coefficient to be applied to the vehicle-related explanatory variable based on actual values of the driver-related explanatory variables and the vehicle-related explanatory variables ([0012]; data analytics platform; Fig. 1A-B); and an objective variable calculation unit for calculating the wear as an objective variable by using the driver-related explanatory variables and the vehicle related explanatory variables [0048-0052]; wherein the objective variable calculation unit recalculate a predicted value of the wear when at least one of the attribute of the driver and the attribute of the vehicle is changed by using the driver-related coefficient and the vehicle-related coefficient ([0048-0052]; Fig. 1A-F).
Regarding Claim 3, Johnston further teaches the tire wear prediction system according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle-related variable acquisition unit acquires, as the vehicle-related explanatory variable, an average speed of the vehicle [0032-0033].
Regarding Claim 5, Johnston teaches a tire wear prediction method for predicting wear a tire mounted on a vehicle comprising a fleet (Abstract, [0008], Fig. 1A-B) the tire wear prediction method comprising the steps of: acquiring a plurality of driver-related explanatory variables related to attributes of a driver driving the vehicle; acquiring a plurality of vehicle-related explanatory variables related to attributes of the vehicle ([0012]; data analytics platform; Fig. 1A-B); setting a driver-related coefficient to be applied to the driver-related explanatory variable and a vehicle-related coefficient to be applied to the vehicle-related explanatory variable based on actual values of the driver-related explanatory variables and the vehicle-related explanatory variables ([0012]; data analytics platform; Fig. 1A-B); calculating the wear as an objective variable by using the driver-related explanatory variables and the vehicle related explanatory variables [0048-0052]; wherein in the step of calculating the wear of as an objective variable the predicted value of the wear is recalculated when at least one of the attribute of the driver and the attribute of the vehicle is changed by using the driver-related coefficient and the vehicle-related coefficient ([0048-0052]; Fig. 1A-F).
Regarding Claim 8, Johnston teaches the tire wear prediction system according to claim 3. Johnston further teaches a temperature sensor, and determining tire wear based on local temperature, but fails to specifically teach wherein the vehicle-related variable acquisition unit acquires, as the vehicle-related explanatory variable, an average temperature of the tire mounted on the vehicle. However, in a related field, Singh teaches wherein the vehicle-related variable acquisition unit acquires, as the vehicle-related explanatory variable, an average temperature of the tire mounted on the vehicle [0050; 0056-0072]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Johnston to incorporate the teachings of Singh by including: the limitation above in order to accurately estimate wear rate for tires mounted on a vehicle.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston as applied to claim 1, 3, 5 and 8 above, and further in view of Singh (US20180272813A1, 2018-09-27).
Regarding Claim 4, Johnston teaches the tire wear prediction system according to claim 1. Johnston further teaches a temperature sensor, and determining tire wear based on local temperature, but fails to specifically teach wherein the vehicle-related variable acquisition unit acquires, as the vehicle-related explanatory variable, an average temperature of the tire mounted on the vehicle. However, in a related field, Singh teaches wherein the vehicle-related variable acquisition unit acquires, as the vehicle-related explanatory variable, an average temperature of the tire mounted on the vehicle [0050; 0056-0072]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Johnston to incorporate the teachings of Singh by including: the limitation above in order to accurately estimate wear rate for tires mounted on a vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6 and 7 would be allowable if written to overcome the 101 rejection set forth in this office action and rewritten in independent form to incorporate all the limitations of their base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 2, Johnston, Singh, along with all other references, fail to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the tire wear prediction system according to claim 1, wherein the driver-related variable acquisition unit acquires, as the driver-related explanatory variable, at least one of an average age, a gender ratio, an average years of experience, and a number of persons per predetermined mileage of the driver. It is for this reason, Claim 2 and all of its dependencies would be allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Kilaru et al. (SYSTEMS, APPARATUS, AND METHODS TO DETERMINE VEHICLE TIRE WEAR, 2020-05-28) teaches systems, apparatus, and methods to determine vehicle tire wear are disclosed. A disclosed apparatus includes a vehicle controller configured to determine, based on data associated with operation of a vehicle, behavior of one or more drivers of the vehicle that causes tire wear. The controller is also configured to calculate, based on the behavior, a condition of a tire of the vehicle. The controller is also configured to generate, via an output device, a notification indicating the condition of the tire to a user;
Makke et al. (SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TIRE WEAR PROGNOSTICS, 2019-08-22) teaches a storage maintains coefficients that map histogram data elements to tire wear, the coefficients being trained based on a correlation of histogram data to measured tire wear. A processor is programmed to receive a wear data histogram from a vehicle, utilize the coefficients to translate the wear data histogram into a measure of physical tire wear; and send an alert message indicating the estimated tire wear;
Singh et al. (INDIRECT TIRE WEAR STATE PREDICTION SYSTEM AND METHOD, 2017-04-27) teaches a tire wear state estimation system estimates forces and sliding velocity generated in a tire contact patch, determines frictional energy from the tire force and sliding velocity, and generates an estimate of tire wear state based upon the frictional work done by the tire. A tire wear estimate, pursuant to the system and methodology, is made by determining the amount of frictional work performed by the tire through the integrated use of tire-mounted, GPS sourced, and vehicle-mounted sensor information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-4593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Catherine T. Rastovski can be reached at (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 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.
/MICHAEL J SINGLETARY/Examiner, Art Unit 2857