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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In Figure 1, the block elements should be labeled with its description within its block element.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 and 17-19 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 1, line 10, the phrase -- and/or determined -- should be inserted after the word “measured” to provide proper antecedent basis. In line 13, the phrase -- and/or determined -- should be inserted after the word “measured” to provide proper antecedent basis.
In claim 5, lines 2-3, the phrase “the aggregated variables” should be changed to -- the aggregated estimated respective tire health variables -- to provide better clarification antecedent basis.
In claim 6, line 2, the phrase -- and/or determined -- should be inserted after the word “measured” to provide consistency on how the input values are measures and/or determined.
In claim 17, line 3, the phrase “the aggregated variables” should be changed to -- the aggregated estimated respective tire health variables -- to provide better clarification antecedent basis.
In claim 19, line 4, the phrase “the type” should be changed to -- the given type --.
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 1-20 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.
In claim 12, line 12, the phrase “the at least one tire component” lacks antecedent basis. In line 13, the phrase “the one or more selected models” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 2, line 1, the phrase “the input values” is vague. Is this referring to the “first set of input values” or the “second set of input values” or both the first set and the second set of input values? Please clarify. In line 2, the phrase “the input values” is vague. Is this referring to the “first set of input values” or the “second set of input values” or both the first set and the second set of input values? Please clarify. In line 3, the phrase “the input values” is vague. Is this referring to the “first set of input values” or the “second set of input values” or both the first set and the second set of input values? Please clarify.
In claim 3, line 1, the phrase “the plurality of selectable tire health models” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 4, line 2, the phrase “the tire” is vague. Is this referring to the “first tire” or the “given type of tire”” Please clarify.
In claim 5, line 2, the phrase “the tire” is vague. Is this referring to the “first tire” or the “given type of tire”” Please clarify. In line 4, the phrase “the tire” is vague. Is this referring to the “first tire” or the “given type of tire”” Please clarify.
In claim 7, line 1, line 1, the phrase “the plurality of selectable tire health models” lacks antecedent basis. In line 3, the phrase “the tire” is vague. Is this referring to the “first tire” or the “given type of tire”” Please clarify.
In claim 8, line 1, the phrase “the plurality of selectable tire health models” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 9, line 1, the phrase “the plurality of selectable tire health models” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 10, line 1, the phrase “the plurality of selectable tire health models” lacks antecedent basis. In line 10, the phrase “the tire” is vague. Is this referring to the “first tire” or the “given type of tire”” Please clarify.
In claim 12, lines 2-3, the phrase “the selected models” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 15, line 10, the phrase “the values” is vague. Is this referring to the “first set of input values” or the “second set of input values” or both the first set and the second set of input values? Please clarify. In line 12, the phrase “the values” is vague. Is this referring to the “first set of input values” or the “second set of input values” or both the first set and the second set of input values? Please clarify. In line 16, the phrase “the at least one tire component” lacks antecedent basis. In line 17, the phrase “the one or more selected models” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 16, line 2, the phrase “the plurality of selectable tire health models” lacks antecedent basis. In line 6, the phrase “the tire” is vague. Is this referring to the “first tire” or the “given type of tire”” Please clarify.
In claim 17, line 3, the phrase “the tire” is vague. Is this referring to the “first tire” or the “given type of tire”” Please clarify. In line 4, the phrase “the tire” is vague. Is this referring to the “first tire” or the “given type of tire”” Please clarify.
In claim 18, line 2, the phrase “the method” lacks antecedent basis. In line 3, the phrase “the input values” Is this referring to the “first set of input values” or the “second set of input values” or both the first set and the second set of input values? Please clarify.
In claim 19, line 1, the phrase “the plurality of selectable tire health models” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 20, line 1, the phrase “the plurality of selectable tire health models” lacks antecedent basis. In line 2, the phrase “the tire” is vague. Is this referring to the “first tire” or the “given type of tire”” Please clarify.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed towards the statutory category of a process.
Claim 15 is directed towards the statutory category of an apparatus.
Step 2, Claim 1
Step 2A – Prong 1
The claims recited an abstract idea of a mental process. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
The mental process recited in claim 1 is:
aggregating model generation data in data storage over time, and iteratively generating a plurality of tire health models based on the aggregated model generation data, said model
generation data correlating various combinations of a first set of input values for a given type of
tire to each of one or more tire health variables for each of a plurality of tire components;
measuring and/or determining a second set of the input values via one or more sensors
associated with a first tire of the given type of tire and/or associated with a vehicle upon which the first tire is mounted;
selecting an appropriate model for at least one of the one or more tire health variables with respect to each of one or more of the plurality of tire components based on the measured second set of the input values;
estimating respective tire health variables for each of the at least one tire component via
the one or more selected models and based on the measured second set of the input values;
generating an output signal corresponding to a health of the first tire based on a comparison of the estimated tire health variables.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of a generic computer component. Examiner notes that generating a physics-based model can be done by person writing equation using pen and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. A person would readily be able to perform this process either mentally or with the assistance of pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
As such, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP $2106.04(d).
The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the "Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other task( (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more":
… using the plurality of tire health models
Examiner notes the act of using the model that can be produced by a human using pen and paper can be performed by instructing a computer to implement an abstract idea. Therefore, this is equivalent to using the word "apply-it".
In addition, the following limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activities, as discussed in MPEP $ 2106.05(d):
aggregating model generation data in data storage over time
measuring and/or determining a second set of the input values via sensors
selecting an appropriate model for at least one of the one or more tire health variables
The additional elements are merely collecting data for computer to process so that a computer can implement an abstract idea.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements/limitations that amount to significantly more.
As noted above in step 2A, prong 2 analysis, additional elements are merely using the word “apply-it” to implement abstract idea on a computer or being insignificant extra solution activities.
In addition, the above insignificant extra-solution activities are also considered as well- understood, routine, and conventional activities, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d):
aggregating model generation data in data storage over time
this is considered similar to the example WURC activity as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) of: storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. V. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPO2d at 1092-93;
measuring and/or determining a second set of the input values via sensors; selecting an appropriate model for at least one of the one or more tire health variables
(See the instant application's disclosure, paragraph [0007], which is part of "background", "This history may for example be determined either directly or indirectly via tire sensors such as tire pressure monitoring system sensors and/or tire monitor system sensors (TPMS/TMS), and vehicle sensors such as accelerometer, wheel speed sensor, global positioning system (GPS) sensor, etc.”; paragraph [0010]), which is part of “background”, “An appropriate model is selected for at least one of the one or more tire health variable with respect to each of the one or more of the plurality of tire components based on the measured second set of input values. Respective tire health variable are estimated for each of the least one tire component via the one or more selected models and based on the measured second set of input values“)
Therefore, as shown by Applicant's specification, prior to effective filing date of present invention, using tire-mounted sensor to collect values are already widely known and prevalent in the relevant field for at least the reason that doing so is already "typically" performed, "currently" available, and being "dependable".
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea.
As such, the claim is directed towards a mental process without significantly more. Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims
Claims 2-14 merely recites additional mental steps that further narrow the abstract idea recited in claim 1. Step 2A prong 2 and step 2B would remain substantially similar. Therefore, claims 2-14 are also ineligible.
As such, the claims are also ineligible.
Step 2, Claim 15
Step 2A - Prong 1
The claims recite an abstract idea of a mental process. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
The mental process recited in claim 15 is:
generating a second set of the input values via direct measurement of certain ones of the values from one or more sensors associated with a first tire of the given type of tire and/or associated with a vehicle upon which the first tire is mounted and/or via indirect determination of certain ones of the values from directly measured values;
selecting an appropriate model for at least one of the one or more tire health variables with respect to each of one or more of the plurality of tire components based on the measured second set of the input values;
estimating respective tire health variables for each of the at least one tire component via the one or more selected models and based on the measured second set of the input values;
generating an output signal corresponding to a health of the first tire based on a comparison of the estimated tire health variables.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of a generic computer component. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. A person would readily be able to perform this process either mentally or with the assistance of pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
As such, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP $2106.04(d).
The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the "Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more":
… using the plurality of tire health models
Examiner notes the act of using the model that can be produced by a human using pen and paper can be performed by instructing a computer to implement an abstract idea. Therefore, this is equivalent to using the word "apply-it".
In addition, the following limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activities, as discussed in MPEP $ 2106.05(d):
a data storage having stored thereon model generation data aggregated over time
The additional element is merely storing data on a computer to process so that a computer can implement an abstract idea.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements/limitations that amount to significantly more.
As noted above in step 2A prong 2 analysis, additional elements are merely using the words "apply-it" to implement abstract idea on a computer or being insignificant extra solution activities.
In addition, the above insignificant extra-solution activities are also considered as well- understood, routine, and conventional activities, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d):
a data storage having stored thereon model generation data aggregated over time
this is considered similar to the example WURC activity as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) of: storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. V. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPO2d at 1092-93;
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea.
As such, the claim is directed towards a mental process without significantly more. Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims
Claims 16-20 merely recites additional mental steps that further narrow the abstract idea recited in claim 1. Step 2A prong 2 and step 2B would remain substantially similar. In addition, the active safety unit is merely "apply-it" as modifying operation can be merely updating stored setting. Therefore, claims 16-20 are also ineligible.
As such, the claims are also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 11-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0277910 (Suh et al.).
With regards to claim 1, Suh et al. discloses a predictive peer-based tire health monitoring system, as illustrated in Figures 1-32, a computer-implemented tire health estimation method 100 (e.g. process includes six primary step; paragraph [0069]) comprising aggregating model generation data in data storage over time (e.g. tire health assessment model 126 updates model parameters generated from historical data according to the latest data received is trained via steps 102,104,106,122,124,126 – paragraphs [0069],[0070],[0075],[0097]; paragraph [0160] indicates an initial training set may include data collected between the last inflation event and the leakage detection event), and iteratively generating a plurality of tire health models based on the aggregated model generation data (e.g. paragraph [0106] the tire health assessment model 126 is built for each tire of a vehicle, like 18 tires of a truck where 18 models are generated based on the aggregated model generation data based on the training data for each tire) such that the model generation data correlating various combinations of a first set of input values for a given type of tire to each of one or more tire health variables for each of a plurality of tire components (e.g. paragraphs [0072] and [0075] indicate input values in the form of TPMS data are used for model training for a given type of tire to each of one or more health variable values HV for each of a plurality of tires as the tire components); measuring and/or determining a second set of the input values via one or more sensors 28 (e.g. TPMS sensors; paragraphs [0055]-[0058]) associated with a first tire of the given type of tire and/or associated with a vehicle 14,16 (e.g. tractor trailer, bus; paragraphs [0053],[0055]-[0058]) upon which the first tire is mounted (e.g. paragraphs [0097] and [0106] indicate in an operational mode of a trained/initialized health monitoring system, new TPMS data associated with each tire are determined via TPMS sensors 28); selecting an appropriate model for at least one of the one or more tire health variables with respect to each of one or more of the plurality of tire components based on the measured second set of the input values (e.g. paragraphs [106] to [0121] indicate for each tire, a tire health assessment model 126 is selected where the models maybe of logistic regression LR type, of self organizing map SOM type, of self organizing map-mean quantization type, or based on statical pattern recognition Gaussian mixture models, neural networks); estimating respective tire health variables (e.g. health value HV or an individual health value IHV of a tire; paragraphs [0075],[0103],[0104]) for each of the at least one tire component via the one or more selected models and based on the measured second set of the input values (e.g. paragraphs [0102],[0103],[0112]; Figure 9B); generating an output signal corresponding to a health of the first tire based on a comparison of the estimated tire health variables (e.g. paragraphs [0076] to [0078] indicate a notification of an urgent event in block 140 is generated to a service provider agent/operator or other interested party). (See, paragraphs [0047] to [0190]).
With regards to claim 2, Suh et al. further discloses at least one of the input values are directly measured via the one or more sensors and at least one of the input values are determined indirectly via the at least one directly measured input value (e.g. paragraphs [0056], [0058],[0074],[0091] to [0094]).
With regards to claim 5, Suh et al. further discloses aggregating the estimated respective tire health variables over time and predicting a remaining useful life of the tire based at least in part on the aggregated variables, wherein the output signal corresponds to the predicted remaining useful life of the tire (e.g. paragraphs [0051],[0078],[0162]-[0164],[0172]-[0175]; Figures 19A-25B).
With regards to claim 6, Suh et al. further discloses selecting appropriate models for subsequent iterations of the method based on a newly measured set of the input values and further on historical analysis of the aggregated estimated respective tire health variables over time (e.g. paragraphs [0075],[0079],[0106],[0114]-[0117],[0160],[0174]).
With regards to claim 11, Suh et al. further discloses the output signal is generated corresponding to a lowest predicted life remaining from among the estimated tire health variables (e.g. paragraph [0180]).
With regards to claim 12, Suh et al. further discloses the output signal is generated corresponding to a predicted life remaining based on a combination of interrelated tire health variables as identified from the selected models (e.g. paragraph [0180]).
With regards to claim 13, Suh et al. further discloses the output signal is selectively generated to a display unit associated with a user interface based on a determined passive intervention alert condition (e.g. paragraphs [0057],[0061]).
With regards to claim 14, Suh et al. further discloses the output signal is selectively generated to one or more vehicle control units based on a determined active intervention alert condition (e.g. paragraphs [0011],[0053]-[0055]).
With regards to claim 15, the claim is directed to an apparatus claim and is commensurate in scope with the above method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
With regards to claims 17-18, the claims are directed to an apparatus claim and is commensurate in scope with the above method claims 5-6 and are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
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, 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 3, 4, 7, 10, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0277910 (Suh et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0230412 (Morman, Jr. et al.).
With regards to claim 3, Suh et al. does not disclose the plurality of selectable tire health models comprises fatigue estimation models corresponding to relevant fracture variables for one or more of the plurality of tire components.
Morman, Jr. et al. discloses a system for predicting failure in aging in tires, as illustrated in Figures 1-8, a computer-implemented tire health estimation method comprising aggregating model generation data in data storage over time (e.g. paragraphs [0037]-[0042]), and iteratively generating a plurality of tire health models based on the aggregated model generation data such that the model generation data correlating various combinations of a first set of input values for a given type of tire to each of one or more tire health variables for each of a plurality of tire components (e.g. paragraphs [0031]-[0032],[0037]-[0042],[0061]-[0066],[0043],[0112], [0114]); measuring and/or determining a second set of the input values via one or more sensors associated with a first tire of the given type of tire and/or associated with a vehicle upon which the first tire is mounted (e.g. paragraphs [0053]-[0058],[0114]); selecting an appropriate model for at least one of the one or more tire health variables with respect to each of one or more of the plurality of tire components based on the measured second set of the input values (e.g. paragraphs [0041]-[0043],[0112]-[0114]); estimating respective tire health variables for each of the at least one tire component via the one or more selected models and based on the measured second set of the input values (e.g. paragraphs [0061]-[0065]); generating an output signal corresponding to a health of the first tire based on a comparison of the estimated tire health variables (e.g. paragraphs [0107]-[0111],[0119]-[0124]); the plurality of selectable tire health models comprises fatigue estimation models corresponding to relevant fracture variables for one or more of the plurality of tire components (e.g. paragraphs [0021],[0022],[0028],[0032], [0051]). (See, paragraphs [0020] to [0052]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have readily recognize the advantages and desirability of employing the plurality of selectable tire health models comprises fatigue estimation models corresponding to relevant fracture variables for one or more of the plurality of tire components as suggested by Morman, Jr. et al. to system of Suh et al. to provide a more accurate and enhanced tire modeling for tread separation in that it accounts for the temperature rise in rolling tires which accelerates tire aging and adversely affects the resistance of the tire construction materials to fatigue propagation and tread separation. (See, paragraphs [0021]-[0022] of Morman, Jr. et al.).
With regards to claim 4, Morman, Jr. et al. further discloses the fatigue estimation models comprise crack growth rate models for estimating crack growth rates at each of a plurality of locations on the tire and as a function of at least an estimated strain and temperature at each of the plurality of locations (e.g. paragraphs [0006],[0007],[0022],[0025],[0028],[0051]).
With regards to claim 7, Morman, Jr. et al. further discloses the plurality of selectable tire health models comprise aging estimation models accounting for tire series changes in relevant variables for one or more of the plurality of tire components relative to the type of the first tire (e.g. paragraphs [0021],[0032],[0046],[0051]).
With regards to claim 10, Morman, Jr. et al. further discloses the plurality of selectable tire health models comprise one or more carcass health models for predicting a remaining useful life of the tire based at least in part on a predicted time before occurrence of conditions selected from a group consisting of: belt edge separation; belt leaving belt; belt leaving carcass; and ply end separation (e.g. paragraphs [0021],[0026]).
With regards to claim 16, the claim is directed to an apparatus claim and is commensurate in scope with the above method claims 3-4 and is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
With regards to claims 19-20, the claims are directed to an apparatus claim and is commensurate in scope with the above method claims 7,10 and is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0277910 (Suh et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0260934 (Pascucci et al.).
With regards to claim 8, Suh et al. does not disclose the plurality of selectable tire health models comprise damage estimation models accounting for determined external impacts relevant to tire health for one or more of the plurality of tire components.
Pascucci et al. discloses a tire damage detection system comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1-5, a computer-implemented tire health estimation method comprising aggregating model generation data in data storage over time (e.g. paragraphs [0046]-[0052]; Figure 4); the plurality of selectable tire health models comprise damage estimation models accounting for determined external impacts relevant to tire health for one or more of the plurality of tire components (e.g. speed bumps, potholes, sidewalks, speed of the vehicle, tire inflation pressure; paragraphs [0037]-[0039],[0053]-[0069]). (See, paragraphs [0037] to [0149]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have readily recognize the advantages and desirability of employing the plurality of selectable tire health models comprise damage estimation models accounting for determined external impacts relevant to tire health for one or more of the plurality of tire components as suggested by Pascucci et al. to the system of Suh et al. to have the ability to develop an innovative tire damage detection technology with improved efficiency and reliability during performing several tests with different external obstacles at different vehicle speeds. (See, paragraphs [0037] to [0039] of Pascucci et al.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0277910 (Suh et al.) in view U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0245554 (Ciaravola et al.).
With regards to claim 9, Suh et al. does not disclose the plurality of selectable tire health models comprise tire wear estimation models accounting for a determined and/or predicted tread depth.
Ciaravola et al. discloses a tread wear monitoring system comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1-5, a computer-implemented tire health estimation method comprising aggregating model generation data in data storage over time (e.g. paragraphs [0046]-[0052]; Figures 1-2); the plurality of selectable tire health models comprise tire wear estimation models accounting for a determined and/or predicted tread depth (e.g. paragraphs [0094] to [0097]). (See, paragraphs [0050] to [0124]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have readily recognize the advantages and desirability of employing the plurality of selectable tire health models comprise tire wear estimation models accounting for a determined and/or predicted tread depth as suggested by Ciaravola et al. to the system of Suh et al. to have the ability to develop an innovative tread wear monitoring technology with improved accuracy and reliability by detecting an approaching end-of-life condition for the given tire of the motor vehicle if the remaining tread depth reaches a predefined threshold. (See, paragraphs [0095],[0097] of Ciaravola et al.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references cited, particularly McPhilan, Kim and Shick, are related to systems for monitoring, estimating and predicting the tire health.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Helen C Kwok whose telephone number is (571)272-2197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:30 to 4:00 EST.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/HELEN C KWOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights