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 .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/843,399 filed on 09/03/2024.
• Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made NON-FINAL.
• The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Kai Wang.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
The certified copy has been filed in Application No. 18/843,399 filed on 09/03/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/03/2024, 11/06/2024 and 04/13/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: statements (S1), (S2) and (S9) should be deleted from the Abstract.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: determiner in claim 8.
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 § 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, 5, 8, 10, 14, 17 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, 5, 8, 10, 14, 17 recite limitations directed to “a retreadability determination method for determining whether a tire can be retreaded”. The phrase “can be retreaded” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear what standard must be satisfied for the tire to qualify as one that “can be” retreaded. The term does not recite any objective structural or procedural criteria for making that determination, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of claims. Therefore, claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 14, 17 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 2-7, 9-20 are rejected because their dependence on independent claim 1.
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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The complete step-by-step analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 is provided below:
STEP One: Do Claims 1 and 8 Fall Within One of The Statutory Categories?
Yes, claim 1 is directed towards a method (process), and claim 8 is directed towards a machine.
STEP Two A , Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, claim 1 recites executing the first determination; wherein the first determination is one of a chemical degradation state determination using a residual durability of the base tire calculated based on a chemical change in rubber material of the tire and a physical degradation state determination using a residual durability of the base tire calculated based on a state of physical damage to the tire, and executing the second determination in a case in which it is determined in the first determination that the tire can be retreaded, and the second determination is the other of the chemical degradation state determination and the physical degradation state determination. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at collected tire state characteristic value and calculate the first determination as one of a chemical degradation state determination using a residual durability of the base tire calculated based on a chemical change in rubber material of the tire and a physical degradation state determination using a residual durability of the base tire calculated based on a state of physical damage to the tire. Then performing the second determination in a case in which it is determined in the first determination that the tire can be retreaded. Thus, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea of mental process. Claim 8 is not patent eligible under the same rational as provided for the rejection of claim 1.
STEP Two A , Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites acquiring a state characteristic value, indicating a state of the tire, to be used in a first determination and a second determination. The obtaining data step from the sensors in the tires is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle tire data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
STEP Two B: Does the Claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the acquiring data step was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle tires, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. The claim 1 and 8 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-20 are not patent eligible under the same rational as provided for the rejection of claim 1, and 8.
Claims 2, 4, 6-7, 9, 13 recite what is the additional use, what is the first determination referring to, what is the physical degradation state determination and what is the chemical degradation state determination. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 5, 10, 14, 17 recite a third determination determines whether the tire can be retreaded by comparing the residual durability of the base tire in the first determination or the second determination with a threshold determined based on a cost of replacement with a new tire. These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a person can compare the residual durability of the base tire in the first determination or the second determination with a threshold and make a simple judgment based on a cost of replacement with a new tire. Thus, claim 5 recites a mental process.
Claims 3, 11-12, 15-16, 18-120 recite how to correct the residual duration of the base tire, how to inspect a tire and calculate the residual durability of the base tire. These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a person can take a look at the X-ray image of the tire, and determine if there is a crack or hole in the tire . Thus, claims 3, 15-16 recite a mental process.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,4, 6, 8, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiroshi (JP2017128255A).
Regarding claims 1 and 8:
Hiroshi teaches:
A retreadability determination method for determining whether a tire can be retreaded, the tire including a tread and a base tire disposed on a tire radial inner side of the tread, the retreadability determination method comprising: (Hiroshi, para [01], “a tire retreadability determination method”, and Fig. 1 depicts a tire including a tread and a base tire disposed on a tire radial inner side of the tread)
acquiring a state characteristic value, indicating a state of the tire, to be used in a first determination and a second determination; (Hiroshi, para [34], “when the tire deterioration detection device 10 deteriorates due to oxidation, its weight (specific gravity), oxygen adsorption capacity, electrical resistance, hardness, fracture characteristics, and viscoelastic properties change with the deterioration. Therefore, the degree of deterioration of a pneumatic tire can be accurately determined based on the amount of change in these physical properties from when it was new”)
executing the first determination ; (Hiroshi, para [09], “the physical characteristics of the removed tire deterioration determination tool are measured…the degree of deterioration of the pneumatic tire is determined based on the amount of change”, and para [10], “the pneumatic tire is determined to be retreadable by comparing the measured value of the amount of change with the threshold value”)
executing the second determination (Hiroshi, para [34], “it is possible to chemically analyze the tire deterioration assessment tool 10 and use the analysis results as an indicator of the degree of deterioration”, para [10], “the pneumatic tire is determined to be retreadable”)
in a case in which it is determined in the first determination that the tire can be retreaded, (Hiroshi, para [09], “the physical characteristics of the removed tire deterioration determination tool are measured…the degree of deterioration of the pneumatic tire is determined based on the amount of change”, and para [10], “the pneumatic tire is determined to be retreadable by comparing the measured value of the amount of change with the threshold value”)
wherein the first determination is one of a chemical degradation state determination using a residual durability of the base tire calculated based on a chemical change in rubber material of the tire (Hiroshi, para [34], “it is possible to chemically analyze the tire deterioration assessment tool 10 and use the analysis results as an indicator of the degree of deterioration.”)
and a physical degradation state determination using a residual durability of the base tire calculated based on a state of physical damage to the tire, (Hiroshi, para [36], “a determination chart is prepared that correlates the remaining durability of the internal parts of the pneumatic tire with the amount of change in the physical properties of the tire deterioration determination tool 10 attached to the inner surface of the pneumatic tire from when it was new”, para [03], “visual inspections are performed to check for the presence or absence of external damage, in order to confirm the remaining durability of the tread tires” )
and the second determination is the other of the chemical degradation state determination and the physical degradation state determination. (Hiroshi teaches in para [34] and [36] both the chemical degradation state determination and the physical degradation state determination, and it would be obvious to a person skilled in art to perform these determinations in either order because the reference does not attribute any critical significance to which determination is performed first.)
Regarding claim 4:
Hiroshi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hiroshi teaches:
The retreadability determination method according to claim 1, wherein the first determination is the chemical degradation state determination. (Hiroshi, para [34], “it is possible to chemically analyze the tire deterioration assessment tool 10 and use the analysis results as an indicator of the degree of deterioration.”)
Regarding claims 6 and 18:
Hiroshi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1 and 4. Hiroshi teaches:
The retreadability determination method according to claim 1, wherein in the physical degradation state determination, the state of physical damage to the tire is obtained by at least one of visual inspection of an exterior of the tire, inspection using an image of the exterior, and inspection of an interior of the tire using a shearograph, x-ray, or echo. (Hiroshi, para [03], “shearography inspections are performed to check for the presence or absence of internal separation, and visual inspections are performed to check for the presence or absence of external damage”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 9, 11, 13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi (JP2017128255A) in view of Morar (US20070222568A1).
Regarding claim 2:
Hiroshi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hiroshi teaches:
after the first determination is executed until the second determination is executed. Examiner note: Hiroshi teaches in para [34] and [36] both the chemical degradation state determination and the physical degradation state determination as the first determination and second determination, it would be obvious to a person skilled in art perform these determinations in either order as a design choice because the reference does not attribute any critical significance to which determination is performed first.
Hiroshi does not explicitly teach, but Morar teaches:
The retreadability determination method according to claim 1, wherein additional use, such that the tire is used for driving while still attached to a vehicle, is possible (Morar, Fig. 1 depicts a tire of a car which is used for driving while the tire is attached to a vehicle, and para [48] , “the tire is certified for additional use ”, and para [02], “gauging a use parameter of a tire while it is mounted on a vehicle.” )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify method for determining tire reclamation possibility from Hiroshi to include these above teachings from Morar in order to include wherein additional use, such that the tire is used for driving while still attached to a vehicle, is possible. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to make more accurate decision about whether to retread, recycle, or dispose of the tire.
Regarding claim 3:
Hiroshi in view of Morar, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Hiroshi teaches:
The retreadability determination method according to claim 2, wherein the residual durability of the base tire in the first determination is corrected (Hiroshi, para [36], “a determination chart is prepared that correlates the remaining durability of the internal parts of the pneumatic tire”)
Hiroshi does not explicitly teach, but Morar teaches:
based on driving conditions of the vehicle in the additional use. (Morar, para [48] , “the tire is certified for additional use”, and para [02], “gauging a use parameter of a tire while it is mounted on a vehicle”, and claim 11, “usage information comprises parameters that comprise at least one of mileage of the tire, a maximum speed of the tire, an inflation pressure during use”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify method for determining tire reclamation possibility from Hiroshi to include these above teachings from Morar in order to include wherein the residual durability of the base tire in the first determination is corrected based on driving conditions of the vehicle in the additional use. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to make more accurate decision about whether to retread, recycle, or dispose of the tire.
Regarding claim 9 and 13:
Hiroshi in view of Morar, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2 and 3. Hiroshi teaches:
The retreadability determination method according to claim 2, wherein the first determination is the chemical degradation state determination. (Hiroshi, para [34], “it is possible to chemically analyze the tire deterioration assessment tool 10 and use the analysis results as an indicator of the degree of deterioration.”)
Regarding claims 11 and 15:
Hiroshi in view of Morar, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2 and 3. Hiroshi teaches:
The retreadability determination method according to claim 2, wherein in the physical degradation state determination, the state of physical damage to the tire is obtained by at least one of visual inspection of an exterior of the tire, inspection using an image of the exterior, and inspection of an interior of the tire using a shearograph, x-ray, or echo. (, para [03], “shearography inspections are performed to check for the presence or absence of internal separation, and visual inspections are performed to check for the presence or absence of external damage”)
Claim(s) 5, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi (JP2017128255A) in view of KEIJI (JP2004279217A).
Regarding claims 5 and 17:
Hiroshi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1 and 4. Hiroshi teaches:
The retreadability determination method according to claim 1, further comprising executing a third determination, wherein the third determination determines whether the tire can be retreaded by comparing the residual durability of the base tire in the first determination or the second determination with a threshold (Hiroshi, para [38], “the physical properties of the removed tire deterioration determination device 10 are measured, and the amount of change in the physical properties from when the tire was new is determined using the measured values, and the measured value of this change is compared with a threshold B…For example, if the change in physical properties from when the tire was new is greater than threshold B, it means that the pneumatic tire does not have the standard remaining durability A, and is therefore judged to be unsuitable as a base tire”)
in a case in which it is determined in the first determination or the second determination that the tire can be retreaded (Hiroshi, para [10], “the pneumatic tire is determined to be retreadable by comparing the measured value of the amount of change with the threshold value.”)
Hiroshi does not explicitly teach, but KEIJI teaches:
based on a cost of replacement with a new tire. (KEIJI, para [05], “calculating the timing of tire replacement and rotation and the estimated costs”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify method for determining tire reclamation possibility from Hiroshi to include these above teachings from KEIJI in order to include wherein the third determination determines whether the tire can be retreaded by comparing the residual durability of the base tire in the first determination or the second determination with a threshold determined based on a cost of replacement with a new tire. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to make more accurate decision about whether to retread, recycle, or dispose of the tire.
Regarding claim 20:
Hiroshi in view of KEIJI, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. Hiroshi teaches:
The retreadability determination method according to claim 5, wherein in the physical degradation state determination, the state of physical damage to the tire is obtained by at least one of visual inspection of an exterior of the tire, inspection using an image of the exterior, and inspection of an interior of the tire using a shearograph, x-ray, or echo. (Hiroshi, para [03], “shearography inspections are performed to check for the presence or absence of internal separation, and visual inspections are performed to check for the presence or absence of external damage”)
Claim(s) 7, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi (JP2017128255A) in view of Iizuka (US20230130069A1) and Nobuyuki (JP 2007216634 A).
Regarding claims 7 and 19:
Hiroshi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1 and 4. Hiroshi does not explicitly teach, but Iizuka teaches:
The retreadability determination method according to claim 1, wherein in the chemical degradation state determination, the residual durability of the base tire is calculated using a total thermal history (Iizuka, claim 1, “The casing life prediction unit 41 predicts the remaining life period of the casing from the estimated accumulation heat amount for one year”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify method for determining tire reclamation possibility from Hiroshi to include these above teachings from Iizuka in order to include the residual durability of the base tire is calculated using a total thermal history. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to make more accurate decision about whether to retread, recycle, or dispose of the tire.
Hiroshi does not explicitly teach, but Nobuyuki teaches:
including an effect of retreading vulcanization on the tire. (, para [06], “a vulcanization step of vulcanizing the base tire”, and para [19], “effect of minimizing the number of types of vulcanizing molds used for retreading”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify method for determining tire reclamation possibility from Hiroshi to include these above teachings from Nobuyuki in order to include an effect of retreading vulcanization on the tire. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to make more accurate decision about whether to retread, recycle, or dispose of the tire.
Claim(s) 10, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi (JP2017128255A) in view of Morar (US20070222568A1), further in view of KEIJI (JP2004279217A).
Regarding claims 10 and 14:
Hiroshi in view of Morar, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2 and 3. Hiroshi teaches:
The retreadability determination method according to claim 2, further comprising executing a third determination, wherein the third determination determines whether the tire can be retreaded by comparing the residual durability of the base tire in the first determination or the second determination with a threshold (Hiroshi, para [38], “the physical properties of the removed tire deterioration determination device 10 are measured, and the amount of change in the physical properties from when the tire was new is determined using the measured values, and the measured value of this change is compared with a threshold B…For example, if the change in physical properties from when the tire was new is greater than threshold B, it means that the pneumatic tire does not have the standard remaining durability A, and is therefore judged to be unsuitable as a base tire”)
in a case in which it is determined in the first determination or the second determination that the tire can be retreaded (Hiroshi, para [10], “the pneumatic tire is determined to be retreadable by comparing the measured value of the amount of change with the threshold value.”)
Hiroshi does not explicitly teach, but KEIJI teaches:
based on a cost of replacement with a new tire. (KEIJI, para [05], “calculating the timing of tire replacement and rotation and the estimated costs”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify method for determining tire reclamation possibility from Hiroshi to include these above teachings from KEIJI in order to include wherein the third determination determines whether the tire can be retreaded by comparing the residual durability of the base tire in the first determination or the second determination with a threshold determined based on a cost of replacement with a new tire. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to make more accurate decision about whether to retread, recycle, or dispose of the tire.
Claim(s) 12, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi (JP2017128255A) in view of Morar (US20070222568A1), further in view of Iizuka (US20230130069A1) and Nobuyuki (JP 2007216634 A).
Regarding claims 12 and 16:
Hiroshi in view of Morar, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2 and 3. Hiroshi does not explicitly teach, but Iizuka teaches:
The retreadability determination method according to claim 2, wherein in the chemical degradation state determination, the residual durability of the base tire is calculated using a total thermal history (Iizuka, claim 1, “The casing life prediction unit 41 predicts the remaining life period of the casing from the estimated accumulation heat amount for one year”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify method for determining tire reclamation possibility from Hiroshi to include these above teachings from Iizuka in order to include the residual durability of the base tire is calculated using a total thermal history. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to make more accurate decision about whether to retread, recycle, or dispose of the tire.
Hiroshi does not explicitly teach, but Nobuyuki teaches:
including an effect of retreading vulcanization on the tire. (, para [06], “a vulcanization step of vulcanizing the base tire”, and para [19], “effect of minimizing the number of types of vulcanizing molds used for retreading”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify method for determining tire reclamation possibility from Hiroshi to include these above teachings from Nobuyuki in order to include an effect of retreading vulcanization on the tire. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to make more accurate decision about whether to retread, recycle, or dispose of the tire.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kintscher (US11498371B2) teaches a tire monitoring system that collects and displays information about a vehicle’s tires. Sensors on to give drivers an easy-to or in the tire measure tire pressure and temperature, while other-read, tire-by-tire view components track tire wear state and wear rate. Tire identification information is stored so the system can match each reading to of tire condition and maintenance needs the correct tire on the vehicle. A processor gathers the data, can combine it with other vehicle or wheel sensor.
Rimkus (US20060235651A1) teaches a method of determining the cause of tire pressure change based on tire pressure and temperature.
Kimura (US20180162177A1) teaches a method to figure out how much load a large tire is carrying while the vehicle is actually running. A displacement meter is mounted on the rim, not on the tire itself, and it measures the changing distance to the tire’s inner surface. A separate sensor inside the tire chamber measures tire internal pressure. A derivation section uses those two measurements together to estimate the load on the tire.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights