Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-5, 8, 10-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an [AltContent: connector]abstract idea without significantly more.
[AltContent: connector]101 Analysis – Step 1
[AltContent: connector]Claim 1 is directed to a method for determining uncompensated footprint length and determining a compensated footprint length based on inflation ratio of tire. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, from a sensor, a tire pressure measurement for a tire;
receiving, from the sensor, an uncompensated footprint length for the tire;
calculating an inflation difference between the tire pressure measurement and a target tire pressure for the tire;
calculating an inflation ratio by at least on finding a quotient of the inflation difference over the target tire pressure for the tire;
determining a compensated footprint length based at least in part on the inflation ratio; and
sending the compensated footprint length to a vehicle computing system.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “calculating…calculating…determining…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person performing a simple subtraction and division, and then determining a compensated footprint length based on calculated number. Also, “calculating…” limitations encompass mathematical concept, which involves mathematical calculation. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”)
Claim 1 recites:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, from a sensor, a tire pressure measurement for a tire;
receiving, from the sensor, an uncompensated footprint length for the tire;
calculating an inflation difference between the tire pressure measurement and a target tire pressure for the tire;
calculating an inflation ratio by at least on finding a quotient of the inflation difference over the target tire pressure for the tire;
determining a compensated footprint length based at least in part on the inflation ratio; and
sending the compensated footprint length to a vehicle computing system.
For the following reason, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving…receiving…” the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities. In particular, the receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving data) and merely performs its intended function, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding the additional limitations of “sending…” the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the sending step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data) and merely performs its intended function, and amounts to mere data transmitting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Also, the mere presence of the sensor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because claim merely uses generic sensor as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Also, these additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “receiving…receiving…sending” amount to nothing more than performing generic computer functions on a generic computer. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “receiving…receiving…sending” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Lastly, “sensor” is recited at a high level of generality merely reciting generic computer component used in its conventional capacity, and thus is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “receiving…receiving…sending” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere communication of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Dependent claim 2 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of this claim merely recite additional abstract idea, and does not change the nature of the claim from the abstract idea to a practical application. Calculation steps being recited can be performed via human mind, and the calculation steps also constitute mathematical concept, where courts have found them to be abstract ideas. Thus, dependent claim 2 is also ineligible because it still recites same abstract idea without adding significantly more.
Dependent claim 3 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of this claim merely recite additional abstract idea, and does not change the nature of the claim from the abstract idea to a practical application. Calculation steps being recited can be performed via human mind, and the calculation steps also constitute mathematical concept, where courts have found them to be abstract ideas. Thus, dependent claim 3 is also ineligible because it still recites same abstract idea without adding significantly more.
Dependent claim 4 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of this claim merely recite additional abstract idea, and does not change the nature of the claim from the abstract idea to a practical application. Determining step being recited can be performed via human mind. Thus, dependent claim 4 is also ineligible because it still recites same abstract idea without adding significantly more.
Dependent claim 5 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of this claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception (e.g. additional insignificant extra-solution activities) and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (“sending…receiving…sending…”). Therefore, dependent claim 5 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claim 8 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of this claim merely recite additional abstract idea, and does not change the nature of the claim from the abstract idea to a practical application. Calculating and determining step is merely a mathematical concept which merely uses sensor (generic sensor) to perform the abstract idea. “Sampling the tire pressure…” is merely an insignificant extra-solution activity which is data gathering. Thus, dependent claim 8 is also ineligible because it still recites same abstract idea without adding significantly more.
Dependent claim 9 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of this claim are directed toward further description of the additional insignificant extra-solution activities recited in claim 1 (receiving step which was data gathering) Merely measuring tire pressure at a time is well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements (application’s specification, paragraph 8) that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 10-14 and 16 are similar in scope to claims 1-5 and 8, therefore, they are rejected under similar rationale.
Therefore, claims 1-5, 8, 10-14, and 16 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim 17 and its dependent claims are found subject matter eligible under 35 USC 101 because causing the tire to adjust the tire pressure to achieve the compensated foot point length provides improvement in an existing technology by simplifying the calculation and remove the dependency on the load (applicant’s specification, paragraphs 8-9, “The present embodiments instead take into consideration a non-linear relationship between the footprint length and the inflation pressure to accurately calculate the compensated footprint length. By doing this, the footprint lengths are normalized, which allows for the comparison of different footprint length datasets that are collected at different tire inflation pressure conditions to depict values that relate to a common scale. “.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed over prior art. In order to place the application in condition for allowance, 35 USC 101 rejection set forth above requires to be addressed and overcome.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The primary reason for the allowance of the Claims 1, 10, and 17 is the inclusion of the limitation, " calculating an inflation difference between the tire pressure measurement and a target tire pressure for the tire; calculating an inflation ratio by at least on finding a quotient of the inflation difference over the target tire pressure for the tire; determining a compensated footprint length based at least in part on the inflation ratio;" in conjunction with all disclosed steps of functions or all disclosed structures performing corresponding functions in claims 1, 10, and 17.
Fischer, Frank et al. (US 20030079536 A1) discloses calculating the optimum tire pressure .rho..sub.opt on the basis of the at least one measured parameter, comparing a measured tire pressure p with the optimum tire pressure .rho..sub.opt in order to generate a deviation signal in the event of a predetermined deviation (abstract).
Singh; Kanwar Bharat et al. (US 20160129737 A1) discloses: A system and method of estimating a load bearing on a vehicle tire includes an inflation pressure measuring sensor for measuring an inflation pressure level within a tire cavity; a contact patch length sensor measuring the rolling contact patch length of the tire; a tire rolling speed sensor measuring a rolling speed of the tire; and a tire wear state estimation calculator estimating a tire wear state of a tread of the tire. An artificial neural network estimates a tire load from the contact patch length, the inflation pressure level, and the tire rolling speed by utilizing as a compensation factor input the estimated tire wear state.
The above listed prior arts as well as cited prior arts in the PTO-892 fail to disclose or suggest relying only on pressure for determining compensated footprint length (e.g. calculating an inflation difference…calculating an inflation ratio by finding a quotient of the inflation difference over the target tire pressure…determining a compensated footprint length based on the inflation ratio). The majority prior arts of record utilize vehicle load value when considering compensated footprint length.
It would have not been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine all prior arts to teach the claim limitations before the effective filing date of instant application unless knowledge from the applicant's disclosure is obtained.
Examiner notes the above limitation is novel over the prior art in view of the entirety of the claim, not just the limitation presented alone. Examiner is pointing out the subject matter of the above-described claims of which is considered novel over the prior art for the benefit of the Applicant and cannot be considered novel alone, but in context of the entirety of the claim language.
Consequently, the prior arts of record individually and as a whole do not teach the claim limitation above.
Claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 depending on claims 1, 10, and 17 respectively, therefore, are considered allowable on the basis as the independent claim as well as for the further limitations set forth.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, JAMES J LEE can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/JUSTIN S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668