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 filed 12/17/2024 has been fully considered. There are no issues with the submission.
Status of the Claims
The following office action is in response to the communications filed 12/17/2024. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis -Step 1 Claim 1 is directed to a system for determining a difference in tyre wear, and claim 13 is directed to a computer implemented method for determining a difference in tyre wear. Therefore, claim 1 falls within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Examiner notes that although claim 13 does not fall within one of the statutory categories that the analysis will proceed under the assumption that the claim will be amended in which case it would be subject to the same eligibility as claim 1.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding prong 1 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 following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 1, and 13 contain identical information in the form of system and method so independent claim 1 will be used as the example for the 101 rejection. Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below).
Claim 1 recites:
A computer system for determining a difference in tyre wear between a first operating point of a vehicle and a second operating point of a vehicle, the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to:
acquire a first lateral tyre force Fyt,1 for at least one wheel of the vehicle associated with the first operating point;
acquire a second lateral tyre force Fyt,2 for at least one wheel of the vehicle associated with the second operating point;
compare the first lateral tyre force Fyt,1 and the second lateral tyre force Fyt,2; and
upon there being a difference between the first lateral tyre force Fyt,1 and the second lateral tyre force Fyt,2, determine that a tyre wear associated with the first operating point is different from a tyre wear associated with the second operating point;
wherein a slip angle α1 of the at least one wheel associated with the first operating point is substantially the same as a slip angle α2 of the at least one wheel associated with the second operating point.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers the performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “compare…,”, and “determine…,” in the context of these claims encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding prong 2 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 underline portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1:
A computer system for determining a difference in tyre wear between a first operating point of a vehicle and a second operating point of a vehicle, the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to:
acquire a first lateral tyre force Fyt,1 for at least one wheel of the vehicle associated with the first operating point;
acquire a second lateral tyre force Fyt,2 for at least one wheel of the vehicle associated with the second operating point;
compare the first lateral tyre force Fyt,1 and the second lateral tyre force Fyt,2; and
upon there being a difference between the first lateral tyre force Fyt,1 and the second lateral tyre force Fyt,2, determine that a tyre wear associated with the first operating point is different from a tyre wear associated with the second operating point;
wherein a slip angle α1 of the at least one wheel associated with the first operating point is substantially the same as a slip angle α2 of the at least one wheel associated with the second operating point.
For the following reasons, 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 “acquire…,”, “acquire…,”, and “wherein…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra solution activities. Specifically, the steps of acquiring a first and second lateral tyre force are recited at a high level of generality (i.e as a means of data gathering) and would amount to mere data gathering which is an insignificant extra solution activity. The step of making sure that the slip angle of the at least one wheel associated with the first operating point is substantially the same as the slip angle of the at least one wheel associated with the second operating point is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e as a means of data comparison) which is an insignificant extra solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations 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 limitations do 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 during the claim 1 analysis, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of comparing the lateral tyre forces and determining that a tyre wear associated with the first operating point is different from a tyre wear associated with the second operating point amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “acquire…,”, “acquire…,”, and “wherein…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is an 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 “compare…,”, and “determine…,”” are well-understood routine / conventional activities in the field because the specification does not provide any indication that the generation and correction are done by anything other than conventional computer components. 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 collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-20 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 well-understood, routine, and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 and 14-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1, and 13.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to program per se. As the courts’ definition of machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter indicate, a product must have a physical or tangible form in order to fall within one of the four statutory categories. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348, 111 USPQ2d at 1719. Software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). Thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are objected to as being rejected via 35 U.S.C 101 and would be allowable if rewritten in a form that overcomes the 101 rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The independent claims recite determining tire wear based on a comparison of later tier forces obtained under specific vehicle conditions, including comparing lateral forces at different operating points while maintaining substantially the same slip angle, and determining a change in tire performance based on that calculation.
The closest prior art of record WO 2021168286 A1 hereinafter Omote discloses a tire sensor system utilizing capacitive sensor regions disposed within a tire to measure parameters such as strain, deformation, and forces. For example, the reference describes sensor regions including capacitors that vary based on deformation of the tire and are used to estimate tire parameters such as force and road conditions. However, Omote does not disclose or suggest comparing lateral forces at different operating points while maintaining substantially the same slip angle to determine tire wear. Instead the prior art is directed toward measuring tire parameters and estimating tire conditions based on sensor outputs without isolating wear effects through controlled comparisons of force under equivalent slip conditions.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest the claimed technique of holding slip angle substantially constant while comparing lateral forces across different operating points to determine tire wear which provides a targeted mechanism for isolating performance degradation of the tire.
Because independent claims 1 and 13 recite a specific combination of holding slip angle while comparing lateral forces across different operating points that distinguishes over the prior art, the claims are considered allowable. Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-20 recite additional limitations that further narrow and depend from allowable independent claims and would also be deemed allowable if the 101 rejection is overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2021247036 A1 discloses enhanced tracking of tire tread wear based on vehicle force.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua J Penko whose telephone number is (571)272-2604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8-5 ET.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
/JOSHUA JEFFREY PENKO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
4/9/26
Prosecution Insights