DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This is a non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and are addressed below.
The examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted between 11/14/2025 – 0212/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed towards a tire failure determination method (i.e., process) which falls within at least one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (Prong 1)
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 processed.
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
A tire failure determination method to be executed by a computer, the tire failure determination method comprising:
acquiring a thermal image obtained by imaging a tire with a thermographic camera
acquiring an inner cavity temperature of the tire
and estimating a depth of a damaged portion of the tire based on a surface temperature of the damaged portion in the thermal image and the inner cavity temperature at a time when the thermal image was captured
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of limitations in the human mind. For example, the “estimating a depth…” step, in the context of the claims, encompasses a person evaluating acquired temperature information (obtained, received, acquired, etc.) and forming a simple judgement regarding a physical characteristic of the tire (i.e., the depth of the damaged portion) either mentally, or using pen and paper. Thus, claim 1 recites at least one mental process.
STEP 2A (Prong 2)
Claim 1
A tire failure determination method to be executed by a computer, the tire failure determination method comprising:
acquiring a thermal image obtained by imaging a tire with a thermographic camera
acquiring an inner cavity temperature of the tire
and estimating a depth of a damaged portion of the tire based on a surface temperature of the damaged portion in the thermal image and the inner cavity temperature at a time when the thermal image was captured
The examiner submits that the identified additional limitations do not integrate the
previously discussed abstract ideas into practical applications. Regarding the additional
limitations of, “acquiring a thermal image,” and “acquiring an inner cavity,” are forms of insignificant extra- solution activity. The “acquiring” steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving, obtaining etc., tire information regarding temperature from thermal imaging) and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. As such, the additional elements of claim 1 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Additionally, the examiner submits that the identified additional limitations do not integrate the previously discussed abstract ideas into practical applications. The recited facilities such as the “computer,” and “thermographic camera” are generic computer components meant to implement the abstract ideas into a computer and merely “apply” the mental judgements in a general-purpose vehicle controls environment.
STEP 2B
Claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered 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. The additional elements such as a thermographic camera to perform the steps amount to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. General application of an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed towards abstract ideas, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
As per Claim 9.
Claim 9, an apparatus claim (a tire failure determination apparatus), includes limitations analogous to claim 1 an apparatus claim (tire failure determination method). Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-15 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims 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. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 and 10-15 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
As such, claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as being drawn to an abstract
idea without significantly more and thus are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Box Gary William et al. (US20230008450A1), hereinafter referred to as William, in view of Irie Yousuke et al. (US20180372487A1), hereinafter referred to as Yousuke, in further view of Kato Michiya et al. (JP2012144147A), hereinafter referred to as Michiya.
Regarding claim 1, William discloses: a tire failure determination method (see at least William, ¶¶ [0006]-[0010], which discloses a tire defect inspection system and method) to be executed by a computer, the tire failure determination method comprising:
acquiring a thermal image obtained by imaging a tire with a thermographic camera (see at least William, ¶¶ [0031]-[0033], which discloses analyzing thermal images to detect a detect in the tire captured by an infrared, thermographic camera, this means acquiring a thermal image obtained by imaging a tire with a thermographic camera)
William is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Yousuke teaches: acquiring an inner cavity temperature of the tire (see at least Yousuke, ¶¶ [0058]-[0062], which discloses acquiring an inner cavity temperature of the tire during the defect detection mode as indicated by thermal imaging to determine a correction amount, this means acquiring an inner cavity temperature of the tire)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify William to include acquiring an inner cavity temperature of the tire as taught by Yousuke. The examiner would like to note that the primary reference William discloses infrared/thermal images to determine tire defect through factors such as temperature, however, it treats each thermal image as the temperature of a corresponding tire portion rather than using it to determine a defect depth. Incorporating the teachings of Yousuke would allow for an improvement to the base device that incorporates a temporal change in temperature of the surface to the depth estimation.
Modified William is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Michiya teaches: estimating a depth of a damaged portion of the tire based on a surface temperature of the damaged portion in the thermal image and the inner cavity temperature at a time when the thermal image was captured (see at least Michiya, ¶¶ [0009]-[0011], [0030], [0035]-[0038], which discloses measuring the temperature inside a tired to determine a correction amount for an infrared tire surface measurement that estimates a depth of a damaged portion of the tire)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further change modified William to include estimating a depth of a damaged portion of the tire based on a surface temperature of the damaged portion in the thermal image and the inner cavity temperature at a time when the thermal image was captured as taught by Michiya. The examiner would like to note that Yousuke provides the method of depth estimation by acquiring the inner cavity surface temperature by fitting a heat conduction equation which fits neatly with Michiya’s tire correction method that determines a correction amount based on the difference between sensor readings. Incorporating the teaching of Michiya would allow for an improvement of accuracy when estimating a depth of a damaged portion of the tire.
Regarding claim 2, William discloses: the tire failure determination method according to claim 1, further comprising: detecting, as the damaged portion, a portion on an outer surface of the tire appearing in the thermal image (see at least William, Fig.13-14; ¶¶ [0031]-[0033], which discloses analyzing thermal images to detect a detect in the tire captured by an infrared, thermographic camera)
William is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Yousuke teaches: the portion being higher than surrounding portions by a threshold temperature or more, wherein the threshold temperature is changed according to the inner cavity temperature at the time when the thermal image was captured (see at least Yousuke, ¶¶ [0004]-[0005], [0058]-[0059], [0064]-[0068], which discloses detecting a defect from differences in surface temperature provided in the thermal image, this means the portion being higher than surrounding portions by a threshold temperature or more, wherein the threshold temperature is changed according to the inner cavity temperature at the time when the thermal image was captured)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify William to include the portion being higher than surrounding portions by a threshold temperature or more, wherein the threshold temperature is changed according to the inner cavity temperature at the time when the thermal image was captured as taught by Yousuke. The examiner would like to note that the primary reference William discloses infrared/thermal images to determine tire defect through factors such as temperature, however, it treats each thermal image as the temperature of a corresponding tire portion rather than using it to determine a defect depth. Incorporating the teachings of Yousuke would allow for an improvement to the base device that incorporates a temporal change in temperature of the surface to the depth estimation.
Regarding claim 3, William is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Michiya teaches: the tire failure determination method according to claim 1, wherein the estimating of the depth of the damaged portion includes correcting the depth of the damaged portion according to the inner cavity temperature at the time when the thermal image was captured (see at least Michiya, ¶¶ [0009]-[0011], [0030], [0035]-[0038], which discloses measuring the temperature inside a tired to determine a correction amount for an infrared tire surface measurement that estimates a depth of a damaged portion of the tire)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further change modified William to include wherein the estimating of the depth of the damaged portion includes correcting the depth of the damaged portion according to the inner cavity temperature at the time when the thermal image was captured as taught by Michiya. The examiner would like to note that modified William provides the method of depth estimation by acquiring the inner cavity surface temperature by fitting a heat conduction equation which fits neatly with Michiya’s tire correction method that determines a correction amount based on the difference between sensor readings. Incorporating the teaching of Michiya would allow for an improvement of accuracy when estimating a depth of a damaged portion of the tire.
Regarding claim 4, William is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Michiya teaches: the tire failure determination method according to claim 3, wherein the estimating of the depth of the damaged portion includes: correcting the depth of the damaged portion so that a correction amount of the depth of the damaged portion increases as the inner cavity temperature at the time when the thermal image was captured is higher (see at least Michiya, ¶¶ [0009]-[0011], [0030], [0035]-[0038], which discloses measuring the temperature inside a tired to determine a correction amount for an infrared tire surface measurement that estimates a depth of a damaged portion of the tire)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further change modified William to include correcting the depth of the damaged portion so that a correction amount of the depth of the damaged portion increases as the inner cavity temperature at the time when the thermal image was captured is higher as taught by Michiya. Incorporating the teaching of Michiya would allow for an improvement of accuracy when estimating a depth of a damaged portion of the tire.
Regarding claim 5, William discloses: the tire failure determination method according to claim 1, wherein the estimating of the depth of the damaged portion includes correcting the depth of the damaged portion according to a position of the damaged portion in the tire (see at least William, ¶¶ [0032]-[0033], which discloses identifying the physical location of the defect in the section of the tire by correcting the depth of the damaged portion according to a position of the damaged portion in the tire)
Regarding claim 6, William discloses: the tire failure determination method according to claim 1, further comprising determining whether the depth of the damaged portion is within an allowable range of durability of the tire (see at least William, ¶¶ [0094]-[0095], which discloses determining whether the depth of the identified damaged portion is within an allowable range of severity related to durability of the tire)
Regarding claim 7, William discloses the tire failure determination method according to claim 6, wherein the determining includes, in a case in which a plurality of damaged portions is detected in the tire, determining whether depths of the plurality of damaged portions are within the allowable range based on relative depths of the plurality of damaged portions (see at least William, ¶¶ 0094]-[0095], which discloses determining whether the depth of the identified damaged portion is within an allowable range of severity related to durability of the tire; [0097]-[0099], which discloses the tire failure determination method that is able to store and detect multiple defects within a specific tire, this means in a case in which a plurality of damaged portions is detected in the tire, determining whether depths of the plurality of damaged portions are within the allowable range based on relative depths of the plurality of damaged portions)
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Box Gary William et al. (US20230008450A1), hereinafter referred to as William, in view of Irie Yousuke et al. (US20180372487A1), hereinafter referred to as Yousuke, in further view of Kato Michiya et al. (JP2012144147A), hereinafter referred to as Michiya, in further view of Tsuchiya Kei et al. (US20210223143A1), hereinafter referred to as Kei.
Regarding claim 8, further modified William is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Kei teaches: the tire failure determination method according to claim 6, further comprising:
acquiring a travel distance or travel time of a vehicle on which the tire is mounted (see at least Kei, ¶¶ [0028], which discloses acquiring a travel distance and driving time from the use history of the vehicle’s tires from the tire information management server)
wherein the determining includes determining whether the depth of the damaged portion is within the allowable range based on the depth of the damaged portion and the travel distance or travel time of the vehicle (see at least Kei, ¶¶ [0028], which discloses acquiring a travel distance and driving time from the use history of the vehicle’s tires from the tire information management server; ¶¶ [0067]-[0073], which discloses the life prediction unit that predicts the life of the tire by using correlation analysis, the lifetime correlation being the allowable range based on the depth of the damaged portion and the recorded tire use history of travel distance and time)
and wherein the allowable range is set so that the depth of the damaged portion is more likely to fall outside the allowable range as the depth of the damaged portion is deeper and the travel distance or travel time of the vehicle is shorter (see at least Kei, ¶¶ [0028], which discloses acquiring a travel distance and driving time from the use history of the vehicle’s tires from the tire information management server; [0047]-[0048], [0067]-[0073], which discloses the life prediction unit that predicts the life of the tire by using correlation analysis, the lifetime correlation being the allowable range based on the depth of the damaged portion and the recorded tire use history of travel distance and time)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to change further modified William to include acquiring a travel distance or travel time of a vehicle on which the tire is mounted, wherein the determining includes determining whether the depth of the damaged portion is within the allowable range based on the depth of the damaged portion and the travel distance or travel time of the vehicle, and wherein the allowable range is set so that the depth of the damaged portion is more likely to fall outside the allowable range as the depth of the damaged portion is deeper and the travel distance or travel time of the vehicle is shorter as taught by Kei. The examiner would like to note that while the disclosure of Kei doesn’t explicitly state the limitation above, however, the system of Kei’s life prediction unit suggests that the deeper crack (see at least Kei, ¶¶ [0047]-[0048]) corresponded to a reduced lifespan, the depth being reached after less driving time or distance being a result that the crack progressed at a greater rate. Incorporating the teachings of Kei would allow for a more accurate setting of allowable range to identify rapidly progressing damage before failure occurs.
Regarding claim 15, further modified William is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Kei teaches: the tire failure determination method according to claim 13, further comprising: acquiring a travel distance or travel time of a vehicle on which the tire is mounted (see at least Kei, ¶¶ [0028], which discloses acquiring a travel distance and driving time from the use history of the vehicle’s tires from the tire information management server)
wherein the determining includes determining whether the depth of the damaged portion is within the allowable range based on the depth of the damaged portion and the travel distance or travel time of the vehicle (see at least Kei, ¶¶ [0028], which discloses acquiring a travel distance and driving time from the use history of the vehicle’s tires from the tire information management server; ¶¶ [0067]-[0073], which discloses the life prediction unit that predicts the life of the tire by using correlation analysis, the lifetime correlation being the allowable range based on the depth of the damaged portion and the recorded tire use history of travel distance and time)
and wherein the allowable range is set so that the depth of the damaged portion is more likely to fall outside the allowable range as the depth of the damaged portion is deeper and the travel distance or travel time of the vehicle is shorter (see at least Kei, ¶¶ [0028], which discloses acquiring a travel distance and driving time from the use history of the vehicle’s tires from the tire information management server; [0047]-[0048], [0067]-[0073], which discloses the life prediction unit that predicts the life of the tire by using correlation analysis, the lifetime correlation being the allowable range based on the depth of the damaged portion and the recorded tire use history of travel distance and time)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to change further modified William to include acquiring a travel distance or travel time of a vehicle on which the tire is mounted, wherein the determining includes determining whether the depth of the damaged portion is within the allowable range based on the depth of the damaged portion and the travel distance or travel time of the vehicle, and wherein the allowable range is set so that the depth of the damaged portion is more likely to fall outside the allowable range as the depth of the damaged portion is deeper and the travel distance or travel time of the vehicle is shorter as taught by Kei. The examiner would like to note that while the disclosure of Kei doesn’t explicitly state the limitation above, however, the system of Kei’s life prediction unit suggests that the deeper crack (see at least Kei, ¶¶ [0047]-[0048]) corresponded to a reduced lifespan, the depth being reached after less driving time or distance being a result that the crack progressed at a greater rate. Incorporating the teachings of Kei would allow for a more accurate setting of allowable range to identify rapidly progressing damage before failure occurs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIRSTEN JADE M SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-7442. The examiner can normally be reached Monday: 8:00 am - 4:00 pm, 6:00-8:00 pm (+ with flex).
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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.
/KIRSTEN JADE M SANTOS/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
