TIRE ABNORMALITY DETERMINATION SYSTEM,
TIRE ABNORMALITY DETERMINATION
APPARATUS, TIRE ABNORMALITY
DETERMINATION METHOD, AND PROGRAM
FIRST OFFICE ACTION
This action takes into account the Applicant’s Preliminary Amendment of Jan. 18, 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 Abnormality Determination System, Tire Abnormality Determination Apparatus, Tire Abnormality Determination Method, and Tire Abnormality 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 3) and whether the limitations that follow the phrase are required by the claim. For instance, the phrase can be interpreted as the deterioration related information does not exert influence on the deterioration on the tire. As such, the following determination portion would not be needed because the acquired information would not relate to the condition 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, 2, and 12 - 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6 and 10 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, claim 10 of the co-pending application sets forth all the claimed limitations thereof.
With respect to claim 2, claim 6 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, 12, 13, and 14 are also provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, 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 in combination with claim 11 of the co-pending application sets forth all the claimed limitations thereof.
With respect to independent claim 12, independent claim 12 in combination with claim 11 of the co-pending application sets forth all the claimed limitations thereof.
With respect to independent claim 13, independent claim 13 in combination with claim 11 of the co-pending application sets forth all the claimed limitations thereof.
With respect to independent claim 14, independent claim 14 in combination with claim 11 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 tire abnormality determination which merely sets forth data gathering (which can be accomplished by simple observation), a determination based on the data gathering (which can be accomplished by mere mental process), and outputting the result (which can be accomplished verbally or by writing).
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 - 4, 8, and 10 - 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 abnormality determination system (for example, see claim 1 of Toyo) comprising:
a related information acquisition portion configured to acquire deterioration related information (distance traveled) that may exert influence on deterioration of a tire mounted on a vehicle;
a first determination processing portion (see determination means) configured to determine, based on the deterioration related information, a presence of an abnormality in the tire; and
an output processing portion (15) configured to output a first determination result of the first determination processing portion to a predetermined output destination (paragraph 30).
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 suggests that the first determination processing portion determines:
that an abnormality has occurred in the tire when a predetermined evaluation value obtained based on the deterioration-related information is equal to or higher than a predetermined first reference value and lower than a second reference value, and
that the abnormality has occurred in the tire when the evaluation value is equal to or higher than the second reference value (paragraph 3).
With respect to claim 3, Toyo suggests that the first determination processing portion obtains the evaluation value by using a learning model (10) that inputs the deterioration-related information and outputs the evaluation value (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 4, Toyo sets forth a second determination processing portion configured to, upon a determination by the first determination processing portion that the sign of the abnormality or the abnormality is present (paragraph 3, see “device that estimates the current physical property value of a case constituent member”), determine a travelable distance until the tire becomes the disabled state (paragraph 3, see “predicts the travelable distance until the current physical property value reaches the limit”),
wherein the output processing portion further outputs a second determination result of the second determination processing portion (paragraph 13, lines 110 - 112).
With respect to claim 8, Toyo suggests that the output processing portion outputs to a terminal apparatus (40) associated with a driver or an owner of the vehicle.
With respect to claim 10, Toyo sets forth that the deterioration-related information is a travel distance of the vehicle (abstract).
With respect to claim 11, Toyo sets forth that the deterioration-related information has:
first related information (distance traveled by tire); and
second related information (deterioration index value) that is different from the first related information,
the first determination processing portion that determines presence or absence of the sign of the abnormality based on the first related information (milage), and determines presence or absence of the abnormality based on the second related information (deterioration index value).
With respect to independent claim 12, Toyo sets forth a tire abnormality determination apparatus (for example, see claim 1 of Toyo) comprising:
a related information acquisition portion configured to acquire deterioration related information (distance traveled) that may exert influence on deterioration of a vehicle mounted tire;
a first determination processing portion (see determination means) configured to determine, based on the deterioration related information, a presence of an abnormality in the tire; and
an output processing portion (15) configured to output a first determination result of the first determination processing portion to a predetermined output destination (paragraph 30).
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 abnormality determination method (for example, see claim 1 of Toyo) comprising:
a related information acquisition portion configured to acquire deterioration related
information (distance traveled) that may exert influence on deterioration of a tire mounted on a vehicle;
a first determination processing portion (see determination means) configured to determine, based on the deterioration related information, a presence of an abnormality in the tire; and
an output processing portion (15) configured to output a first determination result of the first determination processing portion to a predetermined output destination (paragraph 30).
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 processor for executing an abnormality determination program (for example, see claim 1 of Toyo) comprising:
a related information acquisition portion configured to acquire deterioration related information (distance traveled) that may exert influence on deterioration of a tire mounted on a vehicle;
a first determination processing portion (see determination means) configured to determine, based on the deterioration related information, a presence of an abnormality in the tire; and
an output processing portion (15) configured to output a first determination result of the first determination processing portion to a predetermined output destination (paragraph 30).
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.
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