TIRE STATE DETERMINATION SYSTEM, TIRE
STATE DETERMINATION APPARATUS, TIRE
STATE DETERMINATION METHOD, AND
TIRE STATE DETERMINATION PROGRAM
FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment of May 01, 2026.
TITLE
In view of the Applicant’s amendment to the title, the objection thereto as set forth in the previous Office Action (Feb. 02, 2026) has been overcome.
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 view of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in the said previous Office Action has been overcome. However, based on the amendments, the following now applies:
Claims 1, 2, and 4 - 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.
Amended independent claim 1 sets forth the limitation of an acquisition portion configured to acquire tire-related information indicative of influence on deterioration of a base body portion that is a part of the non-pneumatic tire “excluding a tread portion”.
However, claim 1 has also been amended to require that the acquisition portion acquires a degree of uneven wear of the non-pneumatic tire, wherein the uneven wear includes a difference in thickness between opposite ends “of the tread portion” in a width direction.
Thus, claim 1 first requires that the acquisition portion acquires tire-related information “excluding a tread portion”, but then requires that the acquisition portion acquires a degree of uneven wear of the non-pneumatic tire, wherein the uneven wear includes a difference in thickness between opposite ends “of the tread portion” in a width direction. As such, a contradiction appears to exist (exclude tread portion vs. include tread portion).
Claim 2 calls for the tire related information to be the temperature of the tread portion, a wear amount of the tread portion, or a number of tread portion replacements all of which contradict the requirement in claim 1 that the tire related information exclude the tread portion.
Independent claims 12, 13, and 14 are similar to independent claim 1 and are indefinite for the same reasons as was claim 1.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 2, 4 - 8 and 11 - 14 are now rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 12 of U.S. Patent 12,631,526 (application No. 18/027,149). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Since application 18/027,149 has now issued as a patent, this rejection is no longer just a provisional double patenting rejection as was set forth in the said previous Office Action.
With respect to independent claim 1, patented independent claim 1 sets forth or suggests all the claimed limitations thereof.
With respect to claim 2, patented claim 2 sets forth or suggests all the claimed limitations.
With respect to claim 4, patented claim 3 sets forth or suggests all the claimed limitations.
With respect to claim 5, patented claim 5 sets forth or suggests all the claimed limitations.
With respect to claim 6, patented claim 6 sets forth or suggests all the claimed limitations.
With respect to claim 7, patented claim 7 sets forth or suggests all the claimed limitations.
With respect to claim 8, patented claim 8 sets forth or suggests all the claimed limitations.
With respect to claim 11, patented claim 9 sets forth or suggests all the claimed limitations.
With respect to independent claim 12, patented claim 10 sets forth or suggests all the claimed limitations thereof.
With respect to independent claim 13, patented claim 11 sets forth or suggests all the claimed limitations thereof.
With respect to independent claim 14, patented claim 12 sets forth or suggests all the claimed limitations thereof.
In response to this rejection, the Applicant has argued that the patented claims do not recite a non-pneumatic tire. The Examiner points out that the patented claims call for a tire and such a tire includes that of pneumatic and non-pneumatic tires.
The Applicant also argues that the patented claims don’t recite a reusability determination portion or performing a determination process to determine, based on the tire related information, whether or not the base body is reusable. However, the patented claims call for a state
determination portion which determines the current state of the base body based on wear which has been interpreted as suggesting such a reusability determination portion/process.
The provisional double patenting rejection based on Application No. 18/580,268 as was set forth in the said previous Office Action has been overcome in view of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims by adding the subject matter of previous claim 3 to each of independent claims 1, 12, 13, and 14.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Claims 1, 2, 4 - 6, 8, 9, and 12 - 14 remain 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 which can be accomplished by a mere mental process.
For example, claim 1 sets forth a tire state determination system for determining a state of a non-pneumatic tire that is used for travelling of a vehicle, the system comprising:
an acquisition portion configured to acquire tire-related information indicative of influence on deterioration of a base body portion that is a part of the non-pneumatic tire
excluding a tread portion (this step can be accomplished by simple observation of the general condition of the tire); and
a reusability determination portion configured to perform a determination process to determine, based on the tire-related information, whether or not the base body portion is reusable (determine if the tire is reusable after observing the general condition of the tire),
wherein the acquisition portion acquires a degree of uneven wear of the non-pneumatic tire, wherein the uneven wear includes a difference in thickness between opposite ends of the tread portion in a width direction (this step can be accomplished by simple observation of the tread wear of the tire), and
wherein the reusability determination portion performs the determination process on the base body portion based on the uneven wear (determine if the tire is reusable after observing the tread wear of the tire).
Claim 2 merely defines a parameter set forth in independent claim 1 and thus does not add anything significantly more than the judicial exception of independent claim 1.
Claim 4 merely defines a parameter set forth in independent claim 1 and thus does not add anything significantly more than the judicial exception of independent claim 1.
Claim 5 merely defines a parameter set forth in independent claim 1 and thus does not add anything significantly more than the judicial exception of independent claim 1.
Claim 6 sets forth the steps of acquiring tire related information, acquiring tire identification information, and calculating an evaluation value from the identification information all of which can be performed mentally. The Examiner notes that the storage portion
as claimed reads on the information commonly printed on the sidewall of the tire, such as tire size or a load rating.
Claims 8 and 9 set forth determination steps that can be achieved by simple observation of the tire.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1, 2, 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 claims 1, 12, 13, and 14, Toyo sets forth a tire state determination system/apparatus/method/program for determining a state of a 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,
wherein 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.
Toyo sets forth a tire but fails to set forth that the tire is a non-pneumatic tire and that the acquisition portion acquires a degree of wear and any uneven wear (ie. differences in thickness) of the 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) and that the acquisition portion acquires a degree of wear of the non-pneumatic tire (abstract) and thus any uneven wear.
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 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).
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).
CONTACT INFORMATION
The Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). The 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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
Prosecution Insights