TIRE STATE DETERMINATION SYSTEM, TIRE
STATE DETERMINATION APPARATUS, TIRE STATE DETERMINATION METHOD, AND PROGRAM
FIRST OFFICE ACTION
This action takes into account the Applicant’s Preliminary Amendment of Jan. 17, 2024.
DRAWINGS
The drawings have been considered and approved.
TITLE
The title is objected to because the phrase “and Program” in the title is not clearly descriptive of the claimed invention. Recommendation is made to change the title to “Tire State Determination System, Tire State Determination Apparatus, Tire State Determination Method, and Tire State Determination Program”.
ABSTRACT
The abstract has been considered and approved.
SPECIFICATION
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. The Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which the Applicant may become aware of in the specification.
CLAIMS
In the event that the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same.
35 U.S.C. § 112
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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.
Claims 1 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for not particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventors regard as the invention.
Independent claims 1, 12, 13, and 14 are each indefinite as to the phrase “that may exert” (line 4) and whether the limitations that follow the phrase are required by the claim. For instance, the phrase can be interpreted as the acquired tire-related information does not exert influence on the deterioration on the base body of the tire. As such, the following determination portion would not be needed because the acquired information would not relate to the condition of the base body of the tire.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 - 8 and 11 - 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 - 13 of co-pending Application No. 18/027,149. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
With respect to independent claim 1, independent claim 1 of the co-pending application sets forth all the claimed limitations thereof.
With respect to claim 2, claim 2 of the co-pending application sets forth all the claimed limitations thereof.
With respect to claim 3, claim 1 of the co-pending application sets forth all the claimed limitations thereof.
With respect to claim 4, claim 4 of the co-pending application sets forth all the claimed limitations thereof.
With respect to claim 5, claim 6 of the co-pending application sets forth all the claimed limitations thereof.
With respect to claim 6, claim 7 of the co-pending application sets forth all the claimed limitations thereof.
With respect to claim 7, claim 8 of the co-pending application sets forth all the claimed limitations thereof.
With respect to claim 8, claim 9 of the co-pending application sets forth all the claimed limitations thereof.
With respect to claim 11, claim 10 of the co-pending application sets forth all the claimed limitations thereof.
With respect to independent claim 12, independent claim 11 of the co-pending application sets forth all the claimed limitations thereof.
With respect to independent claim 13, independent claim 12 of the co-pending application sets forth all the claimed limitations thereof.
With respect to independent claim 14, independent claim 13 of the co-pending application sets forth all the claimed limitations thereof.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 12, 13, and 14 are also provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, 12, 13, and 14 of co-pending Application No. 18/580,268. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
With respect to independent claim 1, independent claim 1 of the co-pending application sets forth all the claimed limitations thereof.
With respect to claim 2, claim 10 of the co-pending application sets forth all the claimed limitations thereof.
With respect to claim 4, claim 10 of the co-pending application sets forth all the claimed limitations thereof.
With respect to independent claim 12, independent claim 12 of the co-pending application sets forth all the claimed limitations thereof.
With respect to independent claim 13, independent claim 13 of the co-pending application sets forth all the claimed limitations thereof.
With respect to independent claim 14, independent claim 14 of the co-pending application sets forth all the claimed limitations thereof.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Under 35 U.S.C. 101, 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 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (ie. a judicial exception) without any additional elements being claimed that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claims 1, 12, 13, and 14 are each directed to a tire state determination which merely sets forth data gathering, which can be accomplished by simple observation, followed by a determination based on the data gathering; both of which can be accomplished by a mere mental process.
Dependent claims 2 - 11 do not add anything significantly more than the judicial exception of independent claim 1.
35 U.S.C. § 103
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 103, 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 of this title, 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 1 - 5 and 8 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Applicant’s cited prior art of Toyo Tire & Rubber Co. (JP2019069670) in view of Decoster et al. (2022/0397486).
With respect to independent claim 1, Toyo sets forth a tire state determination system for determining a state of a non-pneumatic tire that is used for travelling of a vehicle (for example, see claim 1 of Toyo), the tire state determination system comprising:
an acquisition portion configured to acquire tire-related information (distance traveled) that may exert influence on deterioration of a base body portion that is a part of the tire excluding a tread portion; and
a reusability determination portion (see determination means) configured to perform a determination process to determine, based on the tire-related information, whether or not the base body portion is reusable.
Toyo sets forth a tire but fails to set forth that the tire is a non-pneumatic tire.
Decoster et al. set forth that tire state determination can be done on a pneumatic or a non-pneumatic tires (paragraph 48).
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art armed with the Toyo and Decoster teachings to use the taught system on a non-pneumatic tire.
The motivation being to monitor for wear so as to prevent any unexpectant breakdowns, for all tires (regardless if pneumatic or not) should be monitored for wear in order to prevent any unexpectant breakdowns.
With respect to claim 2, Toyo sets forth that the tire-related information is travel distance of the vehicle.
With respect to claim 3, Decoster sets forth that the acquisition portion acquires a degree of wear of the non-pneumatic tire (abstract) and thus any uneven wear, and Toyo sets forth that the reusability determination portion performs the determination process on the base body portion from groove depth and tire uniformity (see claim 5) which is deemed as uneven wear.
With respect to claim 4, Toyo sets forth that the acquisition portion acquires the travel distance (abstract) and thus acquires the travel distance for each type of the travel route and the reusability determination portion performs the determination process on the base body portion based on the travel distance (abstract).
With respect to claim 5, Toyo suggest that the reusability determination portion calculates, based on the tire-related information, an evaluation value (see index value) indicating a state of the base body portion, determines that the base body portion is reusable when the evaluation value is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold, and determines that the base body portion is not reusable when the evaluation value is lower than the threshold (see claim 4).
With respect to claim 8, Toyo sets forth that upon determination by the reusability determination portion that the base body portion is reusable, a value determination portion determines a value of the tire (for example, distance traveled) based on the evaluation value.
With respect to claim 9, Toyo sets forth that the value determination portion determines a durability level (hardness of tread rubber) of the base body portion based on the evaluation value and determines, based on the durability level, the value of the tire (paragraph 20).
With respect to claim 10, Toyo sets forth a tread structure determination portion that upon determination by the reusability determination portion that the base body portion is reusable, perform a process to determine a structure of the tread portion in reuse corresponding to the tire-related information (paragraph 20; see determining hardness of thread rubber).
With respect to claim 11, Toyo sets forth an output processing portion configured to perform a process to output determination information concerning a determination result of the reusability determination portion (paragraph 50).
With respect to independent claim 12, Toyo sets forth a tire state determination apparatus for determining a state of a non-pneumatic tire that is used for travelling of a vehicle (for example, see claim 1 of Toyo), the tire state determination apparatus comprising:
an acquisition portion configured to acquire tire-related information (distance traveled) that may exert influence on deterioration of a base body portion that is a part of the tire excluding a tread portion; and
a reusability determination portion (see determination means) configured to perform a determination process to determine, based on the tire-related information, whether or not the base body portion is reusable.
Toyo sets forth a tire but fails to set forth that the tire is a non-pneumatic tire.
Decoster et al. set forth that tire state determination can be done on a pneumatic or a non-pneumatic tires (paragraph 48).
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art armed with the Toyo and Decoster teachings to use the taught system on a non-pneumatic tire.
The motivation being to monitor for wear so as to prevent any unexpectant breakdowns, for all tires (regardless if pneumatic or not) should be monitored for wear in order to prevent any unexpectant breakdowns.
With respect to independent claim 13, Toyo sets forth a tire state determination method for determining a state of a non-pneumatic tire that is used for travelling of a vehicle (for example, see claim 1 of Toyo), the tire state determination method comprising:
an acquisition step of acquiring tire-related information (distance traveled) that may exert influence on deterioration of a base body portion that is a part of the tire excluding a tread portion; and
a determination step (see determination means) of performing a determination process to determine, based on the tire-related information, whether or not the base body portion is reusable.
Toyo sets forth a tire but fails to set forth that the tire is a non-pneumatic tire.
Decoster et al. set forth that tire state determination can be done on a pneumatic or a non-pneumatic tires (paragraph 48).
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art armed with the Toyo and Decoster teachings to use the taught system on a non-pneumatic tire.
The motivation being to monitor for wear so as to prevent any unexpectant breakdowns, for all tires (regardless if pneumatic or not) should be monitored for wear in order to prevent any unexpectant breakdowns.
With respect to independent claim 14, Toyo sets forth a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing a program for determining a state of a non-pneumatic tire that is used for travelling of a vehicle, the program causing one or more processors to execute:
an acquisition step of acquiring tire-related information (distance traveled) that may exert influence on deterioration of a base body portion that is a part of the tire excluding a tread; and
a determination step (see determination means) of performing a determination process to determine, based on the tire-related information, whether or not the base body portion is reusable.
Toyo sets forth a tire but fails to set forth that the tire is a non-pneumatic tire.
Decoster et al. set forth that tire state determination can be done on a pneumatic or a non-pneumatic tires (paragraph 48).
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art armed with the Toyo and Decoster teachings to use the taught system on a non-pneumatic tire.
The motivation being to monitor for wear so as to prevent any unexpectant breakdowns, for all tires (regardless if pneumatic or not) should be monitored for wear in order to prevent any unexpectant breakdowns.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Applicant’s cited prior art of Toyo Tire & Rubber Co. (JP2019069670) in view of Decoster et al. (2022/0397486) and further in view of Sharma et al. (2022/0063347).
With respect to claim 6, Toyo in view of Decoster fail to teach a storage portion storing identification information of the tire wherein the identification information is used in the evaluation of the tire.
Sharma teaches such a storage portion which stores identification information of the tire to be used in the evaluation of the tire (paragraph 36).
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art armed with these teachings to use the storage portion of Sharma in the system of Toyo.
The motivation being to identify the location of the tire in addition to the condition of the tire.
With respect to claim 7, Sharma teaches a recording portion configured to record the tire related information onto a predetermined storage medium in association with the identification information (paragraph 35).
CITED DOCUMENTS
The Applicant’s attention is directed to the “PTO-892” form for the relevant art made of record at the time of this Office Action.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the Examiner should be directed to Eric S. McCall whose telephone number is 571-272-2183.
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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. For questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is advised to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Eric S. McCall/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855