FIRST NON-FINAL REJECTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a tread wear indicator" in line 8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "a tread wear indicator" in line 9 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "a tread wear indicator" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to directed to an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide "inventive concept" that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to two of the four statutory classes, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. Claims 1 and 9 recite “a distance sensor that detects a distance between the tire and the tire groove measuring device; and a processor that calculates depths of the grooves based on output data of the distance sensor, wherein: the tread of the tire is provided with main grooves having a tread wear indicator and sub-grooves not having a tread wear indicator; the processor is configured to: detect a plurality of candidate grooves based on the output data of the distance sensor; select a first groove with a deepest depth from among the plurality of candidate grooves; select, as candidate main grooves, grooves whose depth is within a first predetermined value with respect to the depth of the first groove from among the plurality of candidate grooves; and select a shallowest depth value from among depths of the candidate main grooves”, and “a distance sensor provided in the tire groove measuring device that detects a distance between the tire and the tire groove measuring device; and a processor that calculates depths of the grooves based on output data of the distance sensor, wherein: the tread of the tire is provided with main grooves having a tread wear indicator and sub-grooves not having a tread wear indicator; and the processor is configured to: detect a plurality of candidate grooves based on the output data of the distance sensor; select a first groove with a deepest depth from among the plurality of candidate grooves; select, as candidate main grooves, grooves whose depth is within a first predetermined value with respect to the depth of the first groove from among the plurality of candidate grooves; and select a shallowest depth value from among depths of the candidate main grooves”. These limitations describe functions and steps that can be performed mentally or in a computer and are similar to the kind of ‘organizing human activity’ at issue in Alice Corp. Although the claims are not drawn to the same subject matter, the abstract ideas of calculates depths of the grooves based on output data of the distance sensor, detect a plurality of candidate grooves based on the output data of the distance sensor; select a first groove with a deepest depth from among the plurality of candidate grooves; select, as candidate main grooves, grooves whose depth is within a first predetermined value with respect to the depth of the first groove from among the plurality of candidate grooves; and select a shallowest depth value from among depths of the candidate main grooves are similar to the abstract ideas of managing risk (hedging) during consumer transactions (Bilski) and mitigating settlement risk in financial transactions (Alice Corp.) The method steps described and functions are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where the additional elements are taken as a whole, and we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims recite “a distance sensor that detects a distance between the tire and the tire groove measuring device; and a processor that calculates depths of the grooves based on output data of the distance sensor, wherein: the tread of the tire is provided with main grooves having a tread wear indicator and sub-grooves not having a tread wear indicator”, “a distance sensor provided in the tire groove measuring device that detects a distance between the tire and the tire groove measuring device; and a processor that calculates depths of the grooves based on output data of the distance sensor, wherein: the tread of the tire is provided with main grooves having a tread wear indicator and sub-grooves not having a tread wear indicator”, and “the tread of the tire is provided with main grooves having a tread wear indicator and sub-grooves not having a tread wear indicator; and the tire groove measuring method comprises: detecting a distance between the tire and the tire groove measuring device using a distance sensor” but said limitations, recited at high level of generality, merely are directed to insignificant data collection activity and a general purpose computer. These limitations do not improve the functioning of any devices. In short, the claims do not provide sufficient evidence to show that they are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide "inventive concept" that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims recite “a distance sensor that detects a distance between the tire and the tire groove measuring device; and a processor that calculates depths of the grooves based on output data of the distance sensor, wherein: the tread of the tire is provided with main grooves having a tread wear indicator and sub-grooves not having a tread wear indicator”, “a distance sensor provided in the tire groove measuring device that detects a distance between the tire and the tire groove measuring device; and a processor that calculates depths of the grooves based on output data of the distance sensor, wherein: the tread of the tire is provided with main grooves having a tread wear indicator and sub-grooves not having a tread wear indicator”, and “the tread of the tire is provided with main grooves having a tread wear indicator and sub-grooves not having a tread wear indicator; and the tire groove measuring method comprises: detecting a distance between the tire and the tire groove measuring device using a distance sensor”. Said limitations, recited at high level of generality, merely are directed to data collection activity and a general purpose computer that is well-understood, routine and conventional (See Yuan et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0096325, Boyle et al. ES 2781179, and Pryce et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0008148 all teach hand held tire measurement devices). As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims including the dependent claims that further recite an abstract idea are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
With respect to claims 7 and 8, the claimed an inertial sensor that detects movement of the tire groove measuring device, wherein the processor corrects the output data of the distance sensor based on output data of the inertial sensor, and laser distance sensor also recite limitations that at high level of generality, merely are directed to data collection activity and a general purpose computer that is well-understood, routine and conventional (see Yuan et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0096325, and Boyle et al. ES 2781179 both laser measuring devices having inertial sensors).
With respect to the remaining dependent claims, the limitations described at high level of generality, are also merely directed to insignificant data collection activity and a general purpose computer. These limitations do not improve the functioning of any devices. In short, the claims do not provide sufficient evidence to show that they are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yuan et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0096325.
With respect to claims 1 and 8-10, Yuan teaches a laser distance sensor that detects a distance between the tire and the tire groove measuring device (hand held device 100 having laser emitters 116-1, 116-2 and image sensor 120, paragraphs 20 and 21); and a processor that calculates depths of the grooves based on output data of the distance sensor (depth sensing modules 200-1 and 200-2 and processor 208, paragraphs 24 and 27), wherein: the tread of the tire is provided with main grooves having a tread wear indicator and sub-grooves not having a tread wear indicator (interpreted as major treads 109, minor treads 112, and grooves, of the tire 104, paragraph 19, figure 1A); the processor is configured to: detect a plurality of candidate grooves based on the output data of the distance sensor (depth and position measurements of tread of taken, paragraphs 46-48, figure 3); select a first groove with a deepest depth from among the plurality of candidate grooves (interpreted as the greatest depth measured, paragraph 50); select, as candidate main grooves, grooves whose depth is within a first predetermined value with respect to the depth of the first groove from among the plurality of candidate grooves (interpreted as the difference between the grooves, paragraph 51); and select a shallowest depth value from among depths of the candidate main grooves (interpreted as the smallest depth measured, paragraph 50).
With respect to claim 7, Yuan teaches an inertial sensor that detects movement of the tire groove measuring device, wherein the processor corrects the output data of the distance sensor based on output data of the inertial sensor (position data is updated based on motion sensor 226, paragraphs 30 and 45-46).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pryce et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0008148 teaches a hand held type measurement system.
Ren et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20220343527 teaches a hand held tire groove measurement device.
Miller et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0343126 teaches tire groove pattern detection system.
Neau U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0033368 teaches a tire tread analysis system.
Shklyar et al. U.S. Patent 11707948 teaches a height profile of tire tread determination system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDDIE KIRKLAND III whose telephone number is (571)272-2232. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at (571) 272-4107. 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.
FREDDIE KIRKLAND III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/Freddie Kirkland III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 9/25/2026
Prosecution Insights