CTNF 18/614,950 CTNF 77374 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 25 March 2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 (and dependent claims 2-14) recite “A method for monitoring the wear of a motor vehicle tire, implemented by a tire pressure monitoring module mounted in said tire to be monitored, said module comprising a pressure sensor and a tangential accelerometer, said method comprising: acquiring, from a tangential acceleration signal of said tire pressure monitoring module, measurements of at least one variable (V) in the group comprising a maximum tangential acceleration peak (Z.sub.max) and a minimum tangential acceleration peak (Z.sub.min), performing processing of said measurements of said at least one acquired variable (V), comparing said processed measurements to a predetermined maximum variation threshold value (V.sub.seuilii), and transmitting a warning when said predetermined maximum variation threshold value (V.sub.seuil) is reached.” Claims 1-14, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of “acquiring, from a tangential acceleration signal of said tire pressure monitoring module, measurements of at least one variable (V) in the group comprising a maximum tangential acceleration peak (Z.sub.max) and a minimum tangential acceleration peak (Z.sub.min), performing processing of said measurements of said at least one acquired variable (V), comparing said processed measurements to a predetermined maximum variation threshold value (V.sub.seuilii), and transmitting a warning when said predetermined maximum variation threshold value (V.sub.seuil) is reached.” As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited “ acquiring , from a tangential acceleration signal of said tire pressure monitoring module, measurements of at least one variable (V) in the group comprising a maximum tangential acceleration peak (Z.sub.max) and a minimum tangential acceleration peak (Z.sub.min), performing processing of said measurements of said at least one acquired variable (V), comparing said processed measurements to a predetermined maximum variation threshold value (V.sub.seuilii), and transmitting a warning when said predetermined maximum variation threshold value (V.sub.seuil) is reached.”; therefore, the claims recite mental processes and mathematical concepts. Accordingly, the claims recite a mental process and a mathematical concept, and thus, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of“[a] computer- implemented method” and “the method is carried out by one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions” as recited in claim 1, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Moreover, the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-14 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Additionally, these recitations as an ordered combination, simply append the abstract idea to recitations of generic computer structure performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as evinced by Applicant’s Specification at [0152] (describing that the disclosure is not limited to the disclosed implementations, but, on the contrary, is intended to cover modifications and equivalent arrangements that are within the spirit and scope of the appended claims). Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-14 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea. Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kretschmann et al (US 11,458,782) disclose a method for monitoring behavior of a tire of a vehicle in a rolling condition of the tire, including the steps of: acquiring a signal representative of an acceleration of a specified point of the tire, deriving from the signal a curve which represents a profile of the acceleration of the point during a revolution of the tire, determining a leading portion and a trailing portion of the curve, corresponding to an entry of the point into a footprint region of the tire and corresponding to an exit of the point from the footprint region of the tire, respectively, determining a first measure of a volatility of the signal in the leading portion and a second measure of a volatility of the signal in the trailing portion, and determining an indication of the behavior of the tire based on the first measure and the second measure. Boisset et al (US 11,199,402) disclose a method for determining the thickness of a tire of a motor vehicle being equipped with at least a tire pressure monitoring sensor placed in contact with the internal wall of the tire facing the tread, including the following steps: at least two successive reference times are determined; at least one instant of passage of a half-deflection angle is determined; the half-deflection angle is determined; then the value of a mean external radius, which radius is estimated in a range of angular positions, is determined; a value of a mean internal radius, which radius is estimated in a range of angular positions, is determined; then the thickness of the tire being the difference between the mean external radius and the mean internal radius. Yu et al (US 9,581,610) disclose a method for determining position of a tire pressure monitor equipped on a tire of a vehicle. The method is performed by a controller and includes: detecting a radial acceleration and a tangential acceleration of the tire; computing a radial-versus-gravity value and a tangent-versus-gravity value based on the radial acceleration, the tangential acceleration and a gravity acceleration; determining an operating state according to variations of the radial-versus-gravity value and the tangent-versus-gravity value; determining whether the operating state is changed to another operating state; and when the operating state is changed, determining a position of the tire pressure monitor according to a change sequence of the operating states . Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN H DO whose telephone number is (571)272-2143. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00am-4:00pm. 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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached on 571-272-5960. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /AN H DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/614,950 Page 2 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/614,950 Page 3 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/614,950 Page 4 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/614,950 Page 5 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/614,950 Page 6 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/614,950 Page 7 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/614,950 Page 8 Art Unit: 2853
Prosecution Insights