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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 14-15 recite “a state” at two separate instances, it is unclear if these are the same or different instances of the same element.
Claims 2-8 and 10-12 are rejected based on their inherited deficiencies.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under step 1, claims 1-15 belong to a statutory category.
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 1 recite(s) “a comparing step of comparing the first μ-S characteristic and the second μ-S characteristic and obtaining a relationship between the two μ-S characteristics; a characteristic converting step of converting the second μ-S characteristic into a corrected μ-S characteristic corresponding to the first μ-S characteristic based on the relationship between the two μ-S characteristics obtained in the comparing step; and a characteristic synthesizing step of synthesizing the first μ-S characteristic measured in the first measurement step and the corrected μ-S characteristic obtained in the characteristic converting step to obtain a synthesized μ-S characteristic of the test tire” which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes based on applicant’s specification for examples see equations 1-5.
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “A tire testing method including:” is considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The elements of “a first measurement step of measuring a first μ-S characteristic of a test tire using a first tire testing device that rotatably holds a test wheel on which the test tire is mounted and causes the test tire to travel along a flat first road surface in a state where the test tire is made to contact the road surface; a second measurement step of measuring a second μ-S characteristic of the test tire using a second tire testing device that causes the test tire to rotate in a state where the test tire is made to contact a second road surface provided on an outer periphery of a rotating drum;” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “A tire testing method including:” is considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself per MPEP 2106.05(h) and is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record). The elements of “a first measurement step of measuring a first μ-S characteristic of a test tire using a first tire testing device that rotatably holds a test wheel on which the test tire is mounted and causes the test tire to travel along a flat first road surface in a state where the test tire is made to contact the road surface; a second measurement step of measuring a second μ-S characteristic of the test tire using a second tire testing device that causes the test tire to rotate in a state where the test tire is made to contact a second road surface provided on an outer periphery of a rotating drum;” are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) (ii) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(i and see prior art of record).
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 9 recite(s) “compares a first μ-S characteristic of the test tire measured by the first tire testing device with a second μ-S characteristic of the test tire measured by the second tire testing device to obtain a relationship between the two μ-S characteristics, converts the second μ-S characteristic into a corrected μ-S characteristic corresponding to the first μ-S characteristic based on the relationship between the two μ-S characteristics, and synthesizes the first μ-S characteristic and the corrected μ-S characteristic to obtain a synthesized μ-S characteristic” which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes based on applicant’s specification for examples see equations 1-5.
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “A tire testing device comprising: a first tire testing device including a carriage that rotatably holds a test wheel to which a test tire is mounted and is capable of traveling along a flat first road surface in a state where the test tire is made to contact the first road surface; a second tire testing device including a rotating drum having a second road surface provided on an outer periphery thereof, a tire holding part that rotatably holds the test tire in a state where the test tire is made to contact the road surface, and a drive part that rotates the rotating drum and the tire holding part;” are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The elements of “a controller that” are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “A tire testing device comprising: a first tire testing device including a carriage that rotatably holds a test wheel to which a test tire is mounted and is capable of traveling along a flat first road surface in a state where the test tire is made to contact the first road surface; a second tire testing device including a rotating drum having a second road surface provided on an outer periphery thereof, a tire holding part that rotatably holds the test tire in a state where the test tire is made to contact the road surface, and a drive part that rotates the rotating drum and the tire holding part;” are considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself per MPEP 2106.05(h) and is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record). The elements of “a controller that” are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d).
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 13 recite(s) “compare the μ-S characteristic of the test tire measured by the first tire testing device input through the first input part with the μ-S characteristic of the test tire measured by the second tire testing device input through the second input part to obtain a relationship between the two μ-S characteristics, convert the μ-S characteristic of the test tire measured by the second tire testing device input through the second input part into the μ-S characteristic of the test tire by the first tire testing device based on the obtained relationship between the two μ-S characteristics, and combine the μ-S characteristic of the test tire measured by the first tire testing device input through the first input part and the μ-S characteristic of the test tire by the first tire testing device obtained by the conversion to obtain the μ-S characteristic of the test tire” which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes based on applicant’s specification for examples see equations 1-5.
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “a tire testing device comprising:”, “the first tire testing device comprising a road surface part having a road surface, and a carriage that rotatably holds a test wheel to which a test tire is mounted and travelable along the road surface in a state where the test tire is made to contact the road surface;”, and “the second tire testing device comprising a rotating drum provided with a road surface on an outer periphery thereof, a tire holding part that rotatably holds a test tire in contact with the road surface, and a drive part that rotates the rotating drum and the tire holding part;” are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The elements of “a first input part to which a measurement result of a μ-S characteristic by a first tire testing device is to be input,” and “a second input part to which a measurement result of a μ-S characteristic by a second tire testing device is to be input,” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. The elements of “a controller configured to” are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “a tire testing device comprising:”, “the first tire testing device comprising a road surface part having a road surface, and a carriage that rotatably holds a test wheel to which a test tire is mounted and travelable along the road surface in a state where the test tire is made to contact the road surface;”, and “the second tire testing device comprising a rotating drum provided with a road surface on an outer periphery thereof, a tire holding part that rotatably holds a test tire in contact with the road surface, and a drive part that rotates the rotating drum and the tire holding part;” are considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself per MPEP 2106.05(h) and is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record). The elements of “a first input part to which a measurement result of a μ-S characteristic by a first tire testing device is to be input,” and “a second input part to which a measurement result of a μ-S characteristic by a second tire testing device is to be input,” are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) (ii) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(i and see prior art of record). The elements of “a controller configured to” are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d).
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 14 recite(s) “a comparing step of comparing the μ-S characteristic of the test tire measured by the first tire testing device read in the first reading step with the μ-S characteristic of the test tire measured by the second tire testing device read in the second reading step and obtaining a relationship between the two μ-S characteristics; a characteristic converting step of converting the μ-S characteristic of the test tire measured by the second tire testing device read in the second reading step to the μ-S characteristic of the test tire by the first tire testing device based on the relationship between the two μ-S characteristics obtained in the comparing step; and a characteristic synthesizing step of synthesizing the μ-S characteristic of the test tire measured by the first tire testing device read in the first reading step and the μ-S characteristic of the test tire by the first tire testing device obtained by the conversion in the characteristic converting step to obtain a synthesized μ-S characteristic of the test tire” which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes based on applicant’s specification for examples see equations 1-5.
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “A tire testing method including:” is considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The elements of “a first reading step of reading a μ-S characteristic of a test tire measured by a first tire testing device that rotatably holds the test wheel to which the test tire is mounted and causes the test tire to travel along a road surface in a state where the test tire is made to contact the road surface; a second reading step of reading the μ-S characteristic of the test tire measured by a second tire testing device that rotates the test tire in a state where the test tire is made to contact a road surface provided to an outer periphery of a rotating drum;” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “A tire testing method including:” is considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself per MPEP 2106.05(h) and is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record). The elements of “a first reading step of reading a μ-S characteristic of a test tire measured by a first tire testing device that rotatably holds the test wheel to which the test tire is mounted and causes the test tire to travel along a road surface in a state where the test tire is made to contact the road surface; a second reading step of reading the μ-S characteristic of the test tire measured by a second tire testing device that rotates the test tire in a state where the test tire is made to contact a road surface provided to an outer periphery of a rotating drum;” are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) (ii) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(i and see prior art of record).
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 15 recite(s) “a comparing step of comparing the μ-S characteristic of the test tire measured by the first tire testing device read in the first reading step with the μ-S characteristic of the test tire measured by the second tire testing device read in the second reading step and obtaining a relationship between the two μ-S characteristics; a characteristic converting step of converting the μ-S characteristic of the test tire measured by the second tire testing device read in the second reading step to the μ-S characteristic of the test tire by the first tire testing device based on the relationship between the two μ-S characteristics obtained in the comparing step; and a characteristic synthesizing step of synthesizing the μ-S characteristic of the test tire measured by the first tire testing device read in the first reading step and the μ-S characteristic of the test tire by the first tire testing device obtained by the conversion in the characteristic converting step to obtain a synthesized μ-S characteristic of the test tire” which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes based on applicant’s specification for examples see equations 1-5.
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions configured to cause a computer to execute:” are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The elements of “a first reading step of reading a μ-S characteristic of a test tire measured by a first tire testing device that rotatably holds the test wheel to which the test tire is mounted and causes the test tire to travel along a road surface in a state where the test tire is made to contact the road surface; a second reading step of reading the μ-S characteristic of the test tire measured by a second tire testing device that rotates the test tire in a state where the test tire is made to contact a road surface provided to an outer periphery of a rotating drum;” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions configured to cause a computer to execute:” are considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d). The elements of “a first reading step of reading a μ-S characteristic of a test tire measured by a first tire testing device that rotatably holds the test wheel to which the test tire is mounted and causes the test tire to travel along a road surface in a state where the test tire is made to contact the road surface; a second reading step of reading the μ-S characteristic of the test tire measured by a second tire testing device that rotates the test tire in a state where the test tire is made to contact a road surface provided to an outer periphery of a rotating drum;” are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) (ii) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(i and see prior art of record).
Claims 2, 4-6, 8, 11 further describe the abstract ideas cited above.
In claim 3 and similarly 10, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “wherein: each of the first tire testing device and the second tire testing device includes a torque generating part that generates torque to be applied to the test tire, and in each of the first measurement step and the second measurement step, measurement is performed at a plurality of measurement speeds, and when measuring the first and second µ-S characteristics at each measurement speed, a slip ratio S is changed by applying torque to the test tire with the torque generating part” merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed and data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Nor does it include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “wherein: each of the first tire testing device and the second tire testing device includes a torque generating part that generates torque to be applied to the test tire, and in each of the first measurement step and the second measurement step, measurement is performed at a plurality of measurement speeds, and when measuring the first and second µ-S characteristics at each measurement speed, a slip ratio S is changed by applying torque to the test tire with the torque generating part” merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed per MPEP 2106.05(h), adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) (ii) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(i and see prior art of record).
In claim 7, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “wherein, in the first measurement step and the second measurement step, the first or second µ-S characteristic is measured while applying a driving force to the test tire” merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed and data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Nor does it include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “wherein, in the first measurement step and the second measurement step, the first or second µ-S characteristic is measured while applying a driving force to the test tire” merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed per MPEP 2106.05(h), adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) (ii) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(i and see prior art of record).
In claim 12, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “wherein: the wear tester is realized by changing gears by a gear box provided in the second tire testing device, and after performing the wear test for a predetermined time period by changing gears by the gear box provided in the second tire testing device, the μ-S characteristic of the test tire is obtained by changing gears by the gear box” merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed and data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Nor does it include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “wherein: the wear tester is realized by changing gears by a gear box provided in the second tire testing device, and after performing the wear test for a predetermined time period by changing gears by the gear box provided in the second tire testing device, the μ-S characteristic of the test tire is obtained by changing gears by the gear box” merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed per MPEP 2106.05(h), adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) (ii) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(i and see prior art of record).
Examiner Note with regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-15 are distinguished over the prior art of record based on the reasons below.
In claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 9 and 13-15, the claim differs from the closest prior arts of record, US 9038449 B2, US 20210025784 A1, KR-20200049140-A, and KR 20110006401 U, in that it fails to anticipate or render obvious “a characteristic converting step of converting the second μ-S characteristic into a corrected μ-S characteristic corresponding to the first μ-S characteristic based on the relationship between the two μ-S characteristics obtained in the comparing step; and a characteristic synthesizing step of synthesizing the first μ-S characteristic measured in the first measurement step and the corrected μ-S characteristic obtained in the characteristic converting step to obtain a synthesized μ-S characteristic of the test tire” based on applicant’s definition of “μ-S characteristic” per applicants specification, see Par. 246 “μ-S characteristic of a tire refers to a relationship (characteristic) between a degree of slip of the rotating tire (slip ratio S) and a friction coefficient (or braking force coefficient) μ between the tire and the road surface during braking or driving” in combination with all the other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20100077847 A1, US 20210010907 A1, US 20150285712 A1, US 20120204633 A1, US 20100077847 A1, US 20080059134 A1 and US 20030051544 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/B.J.B/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights