DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action drafted on the merits of the subject application. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected as cited below.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 11 is directed to a method for optimizing tire performance (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 11 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 following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 11 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized in bold below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 11 recites:
A method for optimizing tire performance, comprising:
obtaining, via a vehicle computing device, sensor data from a sensor affixed to an innerliner of a vehicle;
determining, via the vehicle computing device, footprint length of a tire of a vehicle based at least in part on the sensor data;
comparing, via the vehicle computing device, the footprint length with a target footprint length range; and
sending, via the vehicle computing device, an instruction to an automatic tire inflation system of the vehicle to initiate inflating or deflating the tire in an instance in which the footprint length is outside the target footprint length range.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
“determining … footprint length of a tire of a vehicle based at least in part on the sensor data” in the context of this claim may encompass a person using sensor readings as input into a simple equation which calculates a footprint length (e.g. measured deflection (mm) * 1.875 = footprint length (mm)).
“comparing … the footprint length with a target footprint length range” in the context of this claim may encompass a person cross referencing the calculated footprint length with a data table and forming a simple judgement (e.g. the calculated result is outside the approved range).
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”):
A method for optimizing tire performance, comprising:
obtaining, via a vehicle computing device, sensor data from a sensor affixed to an innerliner of a vehicle;
determining, via the vehicle computing device, footprint length of a tire of a vehicle based at least in part on the sensor data;
comparing, via the vehicle computing device, the footprint length with a target footprint length range; and
sending, via the vehicle computing device, an instruction to an automatic tire inflation system of the vehicle to initiate inflating or deflating the tire in an instance in which the footprint length is outside the target footprint length range.
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 limitation of “obtaining, via a vehicle computing device, sensor data from a sensor affixed to an innerliner of a vehicle”, the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that merely uses a computer (vehicle computing device) to perform the process. This step, which acquires data from an external source (sensor), is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The sending step, “sending, via the vehicle computing device, an instruction to an automatic tire inflation system of the vehicle to initiate inflating or deflating the tire in an instance in which the footprint length is outside the target footprint length range”, which merely sends a signal is also recited at a high level or generality, and amounts to post-solution transmission of data, which is a form of insignificant post-solution activity. Lastly, the “vehicle computing device” merely describes how to generally apply the otherwise mental judgements/calculations in a generic or general purpose vehicle computing environment. This simply automates the determining and comparing steps.
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).
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 11 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 elements of using computer hardware components to simply determine and compare a length 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 “obtaining, via a vehicle computing device, sensor data from a sensor affixed to an innerliner of a vehicle”, and “sending, via the vehicle computing device, an instruction to an automatic tire inflation system of the vehicle to initiate inflating or deflating the tire in an instance in which the footprint length is outside the target footprint length range”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity, and insignificant post-solution activity, respectively.
Dependent claims 12-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause claim 11 to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of 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. These claims simply further narrow down the mental process (claims 12-16 and 19), or link the judicial exception to a particular technological field (claims 17-18, and 20), which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 12-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 11.
Therefore, claims 12-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim 1 recites an system used to perform the method detailed in claim 11, therefore it is rejected for the same reason. Additionally, claim 1 further recites computer hardware components (sensor, tire inflation system, computing device, memory, machine-readable instructions) yet does not integrate the judicial exception in a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-10 do not recite any further limitations that cause claim 1 to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of 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. These claims simply further narrow down the mental process (claims 2-6 and 9), or link the judicial exception to a particular technological field (claims 7-8, and 10), which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 2-10 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al.
(US Pub. 2022/0024266 A1; hereafter Wei), in view of Wittmann et al. (US Pub. 2017/0124784 A1; hereafter Wittmann).
Regarding claim 1, Wei teaches:
A system for optimizing tire performance, the system comprising:
a sensor affixed to an innerliner of a tire of a vehicle (second sensor 155);
an automatic tire inflation system coupled to the tire (air regulator 135);
a computing device comprising a processor (processor 405) and a memory (At least ¶ [0041] “other memory”), the sensor and the automatic tire inflation system being communicatively coupled to the computing device (At least ¶ [0036] “Each of the other components is shown as being in signal communication with the processor 405.”); and …
send an instruction to the automatic tire inflation system to initiate inflating or deflating the tire in an instance in which the footprint length is outside the target footprint length range (At least ¶ [0046] “The processor 405 transmits signals to the air regulator 455 to inflate or deflate the tire, and thus adjust the air pressure inside the tire until the observed tire deflection is within a predetermined amount of the desired tire deflection.”).
Wei does not teach:
machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to at least:
determine a footprint length of the tire based at least in part on sensor data obtained from the sensor;
compare the footprint length with a target footprint length range.
However, Wittmann, within the same field of endeavor, teaches:
machine-readable instructions stored in the memory (At least ¶ [0121] “machine executable instructions for executing the processes of the present invention.”) that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to at least:
determine a footprint length of the tire based at least in part on sensor data obtained from the sensor (At least ¶ [0135] “a CPU or micro controller 1000, similar to CPU 56, may obtain tire information from sensors 1100 (for example, sensor units 12/32, 14/34) such as Footprint length (FL) 1110 …”);
compare the footprint length with a target footprint length range (At least ¶ [0019] “… footprint length, wheel radius, tread depth, sidewall height and/or footprint angle (known hereinafter as “tire characteristics”) of a static or rotating tire. The measured tire characteristics may be adjusted according to the assessed temperature change and compared to a predetermined limit in the database for that car or model with a known wheel load.” and [0143] “The cold length is the basis for comparison and is compared (to be greater than) to a reference threshold factor for maximum length TH_FACTOR MAX LENGTH, at block 526. Here, “MAX_LENGTH” is indicative of under inflation, or “MIN_LENGTH” might indicate over inflation. Depending on vehicle type, the Max (maximum or MAX_LENGTH) and Min (minimum or MIN_LENGTH) lengths may be different for loaded and unloaded configurations, and are determined separately per vehicle and tire setup.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wei with Wittmann. This modification would have been obvious as both Wei and Wittmann contain subject matter within the same field of endeavor (tire monitoring systems) and Wei ¶ [0031] notes that “On some vehicles, it may be desirable for tires to have different footprints for different applications. For example, in an agricultural vehicle, it may be desirable for a tire to have a large footprint and greater deflection when the vehicle is traveling over a field to avoid damaging crops or damaging the tires.” Introducing the Witmann system to Wei helps further adjust the footprint of the vehicle by comparing the measured footprint to a predetermined limit. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this predetermined limit may change based on the current application of the vehicle (e.g. the footprint MAX length may increase when the vehicle is traveling over soft ground). Therefore, a different footprint may be used for different applications. This may help increase the efficiency and usability of the Wei system.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Wei and Wittmann teaches The system of claim 1, Wittmann further teaches wherein the tire is inflated when the footprint length is above the target footprint length range (At least ¶ [0143] “The cold length is the basis for comparison and is compared (to be greater than) to a reference threshold factor for maximum length TH_FACTOR MAX LENGTH, at block 526. Here, “MAX_LENGTH” is indicative of under inflation,”. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the measured footprint length being greater than the MAX LENGTH indicates inflation is needed. The inflation system of Wei may be used to correct this.).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wei and Wittmann teaches The system of claim 1, Wittmann further teaches wherein the tire is deflated when the footprint length is below the target footprint length range (At least ¶ [0143] “The cold length is the basis for comparison and is compared (to be greater than) to a reference threshold factor for maximum length TH_FACTOR MAX LENGTH, at block 526. Here, “MAX_LENGTH” is indicative of under inflation, or “MIN_LENGTH” might indicate over inflation.” One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the measured footprint length being less than the MIN LENGTH indicates deflation is needed. The inflation system of Wei may be used to correct this.).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wei and Wittmann teaches The system of claim 1, Wittmann further teaches:
wherein the footprint length comprises a first footprint length (At least ¶ [0141] “raw footprint length (represented by the data field FP_LENGTH) …”), when executed, the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to:
determine a second footprint length based at least in part on subsequent data obtained from the sensor (At least ¶ [0143] “The obtained TIRE TEMP and REF TEMP are used to calculate the adjusted cold footprint length (COLD_LENGTH) …”); and
While Wei further teaches:
instruct the automatic tire inflation system to stop inflating or deflating the tire in an instance in which the second footprint length is within the target footprint length range (At least ¶ [0046] “The processor 405 transmits signals to the air regulator 455 to inflate or deflate the tire, and thus adjust the air pressure inside the tire until the observed tire deflection is within a predetermined amount of the desired tire deflection.”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Wei and Wittmann teaches The system of claim 1, Wittmann further teaches wherein the target footprint length range is based at least in part on a tire position on the vehicle and a tire type (At least ¶ [0143] “Depending on vehicle type, the Max (maximum or MAX_LENGTH) and Min (minimum or MIN_LENGTH) lengths may be different for loaded and unloaded configurations, and are determined separately per vehicle and tire setup.” Tire setup may include position and type. Additionally, tire types are normally matched with the vehicle type (e.g. all-terrain for an SUV), which is determined as stated above.).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wei and Wittmann teaches The system of claim 1, Wittmann further teaches wherein, when executed, the machine-readable instructions cause the computing device to at least select the target footprint length range from a plurality of predefined footprint lengths based at least in part on a tire position, a tire type, or a tire load (At least ¶ [0143] “Depending on vehicle type, the Max (maximum or MAX_LENGTH) and Min (minimum or MIN_LENGTH) lengths may be different for loaded and unloaded configurations …”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wei and Wittmann teaches The system of claim 1, Wei further teaches wherein the automatic tire inflation system is communicatively coupled to the computing device via a control area network (CAN) bus of the vehicle (At least ¶ [0036] “Each of the other components is shown as being in signal communication with the processor 405. The communication may be through wires or other physical media …”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Wei and Wittmann teaches The system of claim 1, Wei further teaches wherein the sensor is in wireless communication with the computing device (At least ¶ [0036] “Each of the other components is shown as being in signal communication with the processor 405. The communication may be through wires or other physical media, or it may be through wireless communication means, such as through radio frequency (RF) transmissions.”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Wei and Wittmann teaches The system of claim 1, Wei further teaches wherein the footprint length is determined independent of a vehicle load (At least ¶ [0045] “the processor 405 may determine a desired tire deflection based on one or more of the vehicle speed, vehicle acceleration, terrain data, vehicle load, and engine strain.” One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that determining a tire deflection (i.e. footprint length) according only to the vehicle speed, indicates that said deflection is calculated independent of vehicle load.).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Wei and Wittmann teaches The system of claim 1, Wei further teaches wherein the sensor comprises an accelerometer configured to measure the footprint length (At least ¶ [0032] “the sensor 140 may further include a position sensor or an accelerometer to provide data for determining the position of the sensor 140 and the monitored area 150.”).
Claims 11-20 recite a method which is performed by the system of claims 1-10, respectively; thus claims 11-20 are rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan E Reinert whose telephone number is (571)272-1260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 7AM - 5PM EST.
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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/BRIAN P SWEENEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights