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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 7/29/2024. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a threshold determination unit”, “a step determination unit”, “a threshold setting unit”, “a threshold comparison unit”, “an upper limit threshold setting unit”, “a differential value calculation unit”, “a measurement value holding unit” and “a lower limit threshold setting unit” in claims 2-4, which are interpreted under the descriptions of Figs. 5, 7 and paragraphs 0039 and 0059-0064 in US PG PUB US 20250153520 A1 of the instant application.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (Federal Register vol. 79, No. 241. pp. 74618-74633). The analysis follows several steps. Step 1 determines whether the claim belongs to a valid statutory class. Step 2A prong 1 identifies whether an abstract idea is claimed. Step 2A prong 2 determines whether any abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. If the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application the claim is patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Last, step 2B determines whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea. In most cases the existence of a practical application predicates the existence of an additional element that is significantly more.
The 35 USC 101 analysis between each element of claims and its combination is presented in the table below
Claim number and elements
Judicial exception (Step 2A Prong one)
Practical application (Step 2A Prong two)/ Significantly more (Step 2B)
Claim 1
Step2A Prong one: Yes
Step 2A Prong two: No / Step 2B: No
A step detection device that detects a step in a case where a tire of a vehicle runs over the step, the step detection device comprising:
Step 1: Yes, statutory class
a plurality of strain detection elements disposed on a tire inner circumferential surface of the tire at predetermined intervals in a circumferential direction of the tire; and
Insignificant
“a plurality of strain detection elements” are indicative of sensors and recited as a high level of generality to merely collect routine data (sensed data).
Step 2B: No “a plurality of strain detection elements disposed on a tire inner circumferential surface ~ ….” is well-understood, routine, conventional activities as JP 2002087032 A and US 6539295 B1 teach sensors disposed at intervals in a rim of a tire. (Fig. 4, 11a and 11 b, “Since the strain gauges 11a and 11b detect the amount of strain in a predetermined mounting direction, in this example, the strain gauges 11a and 11b are used.”)
a signal processor that processes detection signals of the plurality of strain detection elements, wherein the signal processor detects the step based on detection signals of two or more adjacent strain detection elements among the plurality of strain detection elements.
Abstract idea,
math or mental process
“a signal processor that processes detection signals …” is insignificant extra-solution activity to perform a generic computer function related to data processing itself.
“detection signals of the plurality of strain detection elements” are routine data sensed by a generic computer component (i.e., sensor).
“detects the step based on detection signals of two or more adjacent strain detection elements among the plurality of strain detection elements …” is a math or mental process calculated or inferred based on the routine data (i.e., detected signals).
“a signal processor” is a high level of generality recited to merely collect routine data used to perform abstract idea.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-7 are directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as addressed below and presented in the above table.
Step 2A: Prong One
Regarding Claim 1, the limitations recited in Claim 1, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mathematical calculations and/or the mind, as presented in the above table. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or the mathematical calculations. For example, “the signal processor detects the step based on detection signals of two or more adjacent strain detection elements among the plurality of strain detection elements” in the context of this claim may encompass mathematical calculations and/or inferring the step based on the collected routine data (i.e., signals detected from the plurality of strain detection elements), which is data processing itself related to an arithmetic process to be performed by a generic computer function of a generic computer component, where the “detection signals of the plurality of strain detection elements” are routine data sensed/detected by a generic computer component (i.e., sensor).
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is abstract ideal itself and not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the specification details use of a processor to perform mathematical calculations of “the signal processor detects the step based on detection signals of two or more adjacent strain detection elements among the plurality of strain detection elements”. The plurality of strain detection elements and the signal processor are recited at high-level of generalities to merely gather routine data (i.e., the detection signals) and to perform a generic computer function related to data processing itself of a generic computer component. The limitation of “a plurality of strain detection elements disposed on a tire inner circumferential surface of the tire at predetermined intervals in a circumferential direction of the tire” insignificant extra-solution activity necessary merely recited to be indicative of a field of use for where the data (i.e., the detection signals) comes from. The limitation of “a signal processor that processes detection signals of the plurality of strain detection elements” is an insignificant extra-solution activity to perform a generic computer function related to data processing itself. See MPEP 2106.05(g). There is no showing of integration into a practical application such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, or use of a particular machine.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation of “a signal processor that processes detection signals of the plurality of strain detection elements” is an insignificant extra-solution activity to perform a generic computer function related to data processing itself. The limitation of “a plurality of strain detection elements disposed on a tire inner circumferential surface of the tire at predetermined intervals in a circumferential direction of the tire” insignificant extra-solution activity necessary merely recited to be indicative of a field of use for where the data (i.e., the detection signals) comes from, wherein the plurality of strain detection elements are disposed on a tire inner circumferential surface of the tire at predetermined intervals in a circumferential direction of the tire and configured to detect signals related to the step is well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, as the OTANI reference (JP 2002087032 A) teaches (see at least 11) and the Katzen (US 6539295 B1) reference teach sensors disposed at intervals in an inner rim of a tire (see at least Fig. 4 11a and 11 b, “Since the strain gauges 11a and 11b detect the amount of strain in a predetermined mounting direction, in this example, the strain gauges 11a and 11b are used” in JP 2002087032 A; Fig. 2 in US 6539295 B1). See MPEP 2106.05(d).
As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the processor to perform “the signal processor detects the step based on detection signals of two or more adjacent strain detection elements among the plurality of strain detection elements” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept cannot provide statutory eligibility. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 2-6, the limitations are further directed to an abstract idea, as described in claim 1. The limitations of “calculates a differential value of a measurement value of each of the plurality of strain detection elements, compares the differential values of the measurement values of the plurality of strain detection elements with a preset threshold, and determines whether the differential values of the measurement values of the plurality of strain detection elements exceed the threshold; … determines that the step has been detected in a case where differential values of measurement values of two or more adjacent strain detection elements among the differential values of the measurement values of the plurality of strain detection elements exceed the threshold” in claim 2, “obtains the measurement values by performing smoothing processing on the detection signals of the plurality of strain detection elements and calculates the differential values by time- differentiating the measurement values; … sets an upper limit threshold and a lower limit threshold; and … determines that the differential value exceeds the threshold in a case where the differential value is outside a threshold range between the upper limit threshold and the lower limit threshold” in claim 3, “holds a reference value, a maximum value, and a minimum value of the measurement value during a certain period; … sets the upper limit threshold based on the reference value and the maximum value of the measurement value; and … sets the lower limit threshold based on the reference value and the minimum value of the measurement value” in claim 4, “determines the upper limit threshold to be equal to or larger than a value smaller than a differential between the reference value and the maximum value of the measurement value, and the lower limit threshold setting unit determines the lower limit threshold to be smaller than a value larger than a differential between the reference value and the minimum value of the measurement value” in claim 5 may encompass further mathematical calculations and/or inferring the step based on the collected routine data (i.e., the detection signals).
The additional elements of the threshold determination unit, the step determination unit, the differential value calculation unit, the threshold setting unit, the threshold comparison unit, the upper limit threshold setting unit, the measurement value holding unit and the lower limit threshold setting unit, all of which are recited in claims 2-5, are high level of generalities to perform mathematical calculations executed by a generic computer function of a generic computer component. The additional element of the semiconductor in claim 6 is a high level of generality to perform a generic computer function of a generic computer component such as a sensor to detect/sense a strain from a road surface while vehicle operates on a road. For the reasons described above with respect to claim 2-6, the judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 7, it is a device type claim depending on claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above. The limitation of “controls an accelerator or a brake of a vehicle based on the determination result” is an insignificant extra-solution activity to perform a generic function of a generic vehicle for controlling speed of the vehicle based on the mathematical/inferred result, where the accelerator and the brake are high level of generalities. For the reasons described above with respect to claims 1 and 7, the judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by OTANI et al. (JP 2002087032 A, hereinafter referred to as “OTANI” cited in IDS dated 7/29/2024).
Regarding Claim 1, OTANI teaches a step detection device (Fig. 10, detection device 10) that detects a step in a case where a tire of a vehicle runs over the step, the step detection device comprising:
a plurality of strain detection elements (Fig. 4, 11a and 11b) disposed on a tire inner circumferential surface of the tire at predetermined intervals in a circumferential direction of the tire (At least pages 6 and 8, and Fig. 4 teach a plurality of sensors disposed on a tire inner circumferential surface of the tire at predetermined intervals, “The inner surface distortion in the tire width direction is continuously measured by 11a and 11b. The measured inner surface strain in the tire width direction is sequentially sent to the strain displacement amount calculating means 12. The strain displacement amount calculating means 12 calculates the waveform of the time change with respect to the tire inner surface strain measured by the two strain gauges 11a and 11b, respectively, and when the tire rolls, the strain gauge 11a positioned on the tread surface” in page 6 of English machine translation; “The number of strain gauges is not limited to two, but may be one or three or more” in 8 of English machine translation); and
a signal processor (Fig. 12, a vehicle control device 20) that processes detection signals of the plurality of strain detection elements, wherein the signal processor detects the step based on detection signals of two or more adjacent strain detection elements among the plurality of strain detection elements (At least Fig. 12, and pages 3 and 6 teaches calculating waveforms/signals detected from the sensor disposed on inner circumference of a tire to determine a step on a road surface run by a vehicle, “When the tire rolls and the measuring point reaches the front of the tread, that is, the stepping point, tensile strain (b in the figure) is generated in the width direction of the tread inner surface, and as described above, the circumferential direction of the tread inner surface is increased. Causes compression distortion (FIG. 3c). When the tire further rolls and the measuring point reaches the vicinity of the center of the tread, the tensile strain in the width direction generated in decreases as shown in d and e of FIG. After the strain sharply decreases, it shifts to the tensile strain side” in page 3 of English machine translation; “reference numerals 11a and 11b denote strain gauges 11a and 11b which are means for measuring the inner surface strain of the tire, and the strain gauges 11a and 11b correspond to the main grooves 2 on the inner surface 1A” in page 3 of English machine translation; “The inner surface distortion in the tire width direction is continuously measured by 11a and 11b. The measured inner surface strain in the tire width direction is sequentially sent to the strain displacement amount calculating means 12. The strain displacement amount calculating means 12 calculates the waveform of the time change with respect to the tire inner surface strain measured by the two strain gauges 11a and 11b, respectively, and when the tire rolls, the strain gauge 11a positioned on the tread surface … The strain displacement amount calculating means 12 calculates the waveform of the time change with respect to the tire inner surface strain measured by the two strain gauges 11a and 11b, respectively, and when the tire rolls” in page 6 of English machine translation)
Regarding Claim 6, OTANI teaches wherein the strain detection element is a semiconductor (strain gauges 11a and 11b) that outputs a strain amount according to a change in electric resistance (a resistance wire) (“FIG. 1 is a diagram showing a temporal change in tread inner surface distortion during normal running”; “As the strain gauges 11a and 11b, for example, a resistance wire strain gauge or an optical fiber strain gauge can be used … due to hysteresis loss due to rolling, … measuring the inner surface strain of the tire” in page 6 of English machine translation; “The strain displacement amount calculating means 12 calculates the waveform of the time change with respect to the tire inner surface strain measured by the two strain gauges 11a and 11b, respectively, and when the tire rolls” in page 6 of English machine translation; “(3) The positions of the step portion and the kick-out portion can be specified from the temporal change of the strain displacement amount” in page 8 of English machine translation).
Regarding Claim 7, OTANI teaches a vehicle controller (Fig. 12, a vehicle control device 20) that acquires a determination result of step detection from the step detection device according to claim 1; and
controls an accelerator or a brake of a vehicle based on the determination result (Para 0034, “Vehicle control means 21 for controlling the running state of the vehicle”; Para 0036, “controlling the brake device of each wheel”).
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Katzen et al. (US 6539295 B1) teaches a vehicle tire monitoring system provides enhanced information about the contact patch interface area between the tire and the underlying road surface. The system has first, second, and third sensors (20A, 20B, and 20C) located on a tire (12) and sensing first, second, and third tread contact lengths (L.sub.A, L.sub.B, and L.sub.C) during which the tire (12) contacts the ground surface (18). The system also includes a controller (42) for processing the first, second, and third tread contact lengths (L.sub.A ; L.sub.B, and L.sub.C) to determine a characteristic of the monitored tire (12).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BYUNG RO LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3707. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-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, Lee Rodak can be reached on (571) 270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-2555.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/BYUNG RO LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights