DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications received on 06/24/2026. Claims 1-9 and 16-20 have been canceled. Claims 10 and 14 have been amended. Claim 21 has been newly added. Therefore, Claims 10-15 and 21 are pending and have been addressed below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 04/23/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
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 parent Application No. JP2022-193690, filed on 12/02/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 10-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, claim 10 recites a manufacture (i.e., an article that is given a new form, quality, property, or combination through man-made or artificial means). Thus, the claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
5. Under Step 2A – Prong One of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites:
“acquire raw material information including information on raw materials of the tire and manufacturing information including information regarding manufacturing of the tire;”, “calculate a sustainability ratio based on the raw material information and the manufacturing information, the sustainability ratio being a ratio of a weight of sustainable material in the tire to a weight of the tire;” and “manage information regarding the calculated sustainability ratio”, “acquire information on manufacturing or transportation of the tire and information regarding travel of a vehicle having the tire mounted thereon”, “calculate a CO2 emission amount based on the information on manufacturing or transportation of the tire and the information regarding travel of the vehicle”, and “manage the information regarding the sustainability ratio and information regarding the CO2 emission amount.”
The limitations as drafted under the broadest reasonable interpretation recite an abstract idea for calculating and managing a sustainability ratio/CO2 emission amount of a tire which encompasses concepts such as fundamental economic practices, (i.e., mitigating risks), commercial interactions, (i.e., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations), mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical relationships), mental processes, (i.e., observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions), and relates to subject matter that falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, mental processes groupings enumerated in MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)
The Applicant’s specification in at least [0002] emphasizes tire information management has conventionally focused on information such as the tire manufacturing plant, the tire manufacturing date, and the tread remaining groove depth and thermal history during tire use. This information is used from the perspective of product tracing, tire durability, and prediction of replacement time. For example, Patent Literature (PTL) 1 discloses a technique for utilizing information on the remaining groove depth
of a tire.
The limitations of “acquire” and “calculate” in the context of the claim describe techniques for obtaining data for a tire and how to calculate a sustainability ratio and CO2 emissions associated with the tire. The limitation of “manage” in the context of the claim describe techniques for organizing the calculated results and storing the calculated results with information related to tire manufacturers, suppliers, customers which involves fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions that are performed by regulatory professionals in the tire industry. The limitations of “calculate” in the context of the claim also describe mathematical relationships/calculations, i.e., organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations for determining a sustainability ratio/ CO2 emissions, which covers subject matter that falls within mathematical concepts grouping. The limitations of “acquire”, “calculate” and “manage” in the context of the claim also describe mental processes for collecting, evaluating, and providing results relating to the sustainability ratio and CO2 emissions of the tire, which are evaluations that may be performed in the human mind or by a person with pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
6. Under Step 2A – Prong Two of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of: “a tire management apparatus”, “an acquisition interface configured to”, “a calculator configured to”, “an information management unit configured to” – see claim 10 are all recited in the original Specification at a high-level of generality. See Specification [Fig. 1, ¶ 0025, 0028, 0037, 0047] Thus, because Applicant’s Specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the claim limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computer components being used to perform generic computer functions to aid with performance of the judicial exception. At best, the additional elements merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)
The other additional element of: “for calculating and managing a sustainability ratio of a tire” recited in the preamble is merely an attempt to limit the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use but does not add anything meaningful to the claim, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (h)
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims 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 because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: “a tire management apparatus”, “an acquisition interface configured to”, “a calculator configured to”, “an information management unit configured to” – see claim 10, amounts to no more than mere instructions in which to apply the judicial exception and does not provide an inventive concept. Thus, at Step 2B the claim(s) are ineligible.
7. Dependent claims include 11-15 and 21.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the acquisition interface is configured to acquire customer information including information on a user of the tire, and the information management unit is configured to update the customer information based on the calculated sustainability ratio and the CO2 emission amount.” which describes how the customer information may be acquired or updated, and does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 12 recites “wherein the information management unit is configured to provide the user with information on a monetary value based on the sustainability ratio and the CO2 emission amount and manage the monetary value.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, and does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 13 recites “wherein the information management unit is configured to vary the monetary value according to a travel distance of the vehicle.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, and does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 14 recites “wherein the calculator is configured to calculate an environmental score that is a numerical value indicating how environmentally friendly the tire is as a product based on the calculated sustainability ratio and an environmental index different from the sustainability ratio, and the information management unit is configured to manage information regarding the calculated environmental score.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, and does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 15 recites “wherein the information management unit is configured to provide the user with information on a monetary value based on the environmental score and manage the monetary value.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, and does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 21 recites “wherein a notation is provided on the tire based on the calculated sustainability ratio” which further describes a marking that may be included on the tire. Here, the claim recites results-based functional claim language as there are no technical details or computer components relating to how the notion is provided. Accordingly, when viewed individually and in combination with the claimed invention, the dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues “Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 10 has been rewritten in independent form and recites that "a calculator configured to calculate a sustainability ratio based on the raw material information and the manufacturing information, the sustainability ratio being a ratio of a weight of sustainable material in the tire to a weight of the tire" and "the calculator is configured to calculate a CO2 emission amount based on the information on manufacturing or transportation of the tire and the information regarding travel of the vehicle, and the information management unit is configured to manage the information regarding the sustainability ratio and information regarding the CO2 emission amount."
“The invention of claim 10 achieves a technological improvement of "making users more strongly aware of environmental impacts, including the origins of the raw materials of the tire, by linking the sustainable rate and C02 emissions to monetary value" (specification at paragraph [0044]), and can contribute to reducing environmental impact (specification at paragraph [0005]). Managing C02 emissions is not a mere business method. It is a technical field in that it takes environmental considerations into account and provides a "technical contribution" in the form of reducing environmental impact. Even if the invention of amended claim 1 were to be categorized as involving an abstract idea, the invention of amended claim 1 nevertheless constitutes an application of that abstract idea in a meaningful way.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Here, the response restates the steps being performed by the calculator in claim 10 which does not make the claim any less abstract or alter the analysis. It is important for Applicant to note features of the abstract alone cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(a) Next, the response cites to passages [¶ 0005,0044] from the Specification and allege the claim now recites a technological improvement. At best the statements made by Applicant is/are merely an attempt to limit the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use. The courts have previously held “the utility of the method does not make it eligible.” See Univ. of Fla.Rsch. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (automated data synthesis technology did not make claims non-abstract even if it produced "life altering consequences"); In re Elbaum, No. 2023-1418,2023 WL 8794636, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2023) (an abstract idea's tax benefits and usefulness did not confer eligibility); In re Mahapatra, 842 F. App'x 635, 638 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ("[T]he fact that an abstract idea may have beneficial uses does not mean that claims embodying the abstract idea are rendered patent eligible.") Thus, "making users more strongly aware of environmental impacts, including the origins of the raw materials of the tire, by linking the sustainable rate and C02 emissions to monetary value" does not remove the claimed invention from the abstract idea realm or confer patent eligibility. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “But claim 10 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by providing a specific technical solution for comprehensive environmental impact tracking of tires throughout their lifecycle. The claim requires a calculator that performs a specific technical calculation-calculating CO2 emission amounts based on the combination of (1) tire manufacturing or transportation information and (2) vehicle travel information. This is not a generic mathematical operation but rather a concrete technical implementation that produces actionable environmental data.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. At best the statement made by Applicant for a technological solution includes (i.e., comprehensive environmental impact tracking of tires throughout their lifecycle) which is/are merely an attempt to limit the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use. The calculator was an additional element considered under Step 2A-Prong Two of the analysis. The Specification in at least [Fig. 1, ¶ 0040-0041] discusses the calculator at a high-level of generality and provides a general explanation regarding the mathematical operations that may be carried-out by the calculator. As such, the calculator operates in its expected manner to aid in performance of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f) The Specification is silent in regards to any technological improvements with respect to the calculator. The specific of the operations performed by the calculator are features of the abstract idea which does automatically confer patent eligibility. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The claimed apparatus provides a technical improvement in tire management by enabling comprehensive lifecycle environmental tracking-combining sustainability ratio management with CO2 emission tracking across manufacturing, transportation, and vehicle use phases. This integrated management of both sustainability ratio and CO2 emission data represents a specific technological improvement that goes beyond merely automating a mental process. Claim 10 is patent eligible at least for these reasons.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. At best the statement made by Applicant allege the technological improvement includes (i.e., enabling comprehensive lifecycle environmental tracking-combining sustainability ratio management with CO2 emission tracking across manufacturing, transportation, and vehicle use phases) which is/are merely an attempt to limit the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use. Here, the Applicant relies upon the type of data or information (i.e., sustainability ratio and CO2 emission data) being calculated or managed in claim 10 which does not make the claim any less abstract or take the limitations out of the enumerated groupings. The response indicates the alleged improvements are recited within the abstract idea itself, not the generic computing components being used to perform the abstract idea. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Claims 11-15 are patent eligible at least due to their dependency from claim 10.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The response does not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b). As for the dependent claims, the rejection presents findings for each of the dependent claims and explains why the additional limitations recited by these claims do not impart subject matter eligibility. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 4-6, filed 06/24/2026, with respect to claims 10-15 and 21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejections over Katsuno (US 2024/0181816 A1) in further view of Aikawa (US 2024/0078507 A1) of 05/05/26 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EHRIN PRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-3184. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. 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.
/EHRIN L PRATT/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
