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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 6, 15, and 22 have been amended.
There are no new claims.
Claims 4-5, 7, 9, 11, 13-14, and 23 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 15-22 are currently pending.
The correspondence below is an after non-final on an RCE.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hac (US 20090177346 A1) in view of Eguchi (JP 5239801 B2), and Lewis (US 3611284 A), in further view of Leo (US 20160123866 A1) and Murayama (WO 2018029944 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 1, Hac discloses, tire-force sensors provided on respective wheels of the vehicle (Hac: [0040] tire forces are obtained from the tire sensors; [0090] the last measurement of tire force was obtained from the tire sensor group; [FIG. 1(top box)]; [FIG. 18(top box)]; [FIG. 31]); a tire-force estimator (Hac: [FIG. 1(top box)]; [FIG. 18(top box)]; [FIG. 31]) configured to estimate tire forces of the respective wheels (Hac: [0007] a method of predicting tire forces for use in a vehicle stability control system, the method including the steps of obtaining measurements of tire forces from one of group consisting of tire normal forces and tire lateral forces; [0034] then measurements of tire normal forces may be used to calculate ... ; [0081] Obtaining measurements of either tire lateral forces or tire normal forces ... [0082] Calculating a corresponding set of expected tire forces; [0087] measurements of the tire normal forces at the front left, front right, rear left, and rear right tires of a four-wheeled vehicle are denoted by N.sub.fl, N.sub.fr, N.sub.rl, and N.sub.rr respectively, and measured tire lateral forces taken from the front left and front right tires, F.sub.Yfl and F.sub.Yfr respectively; [FIG. 1(top box)]; [FIG. 18(top box)]; [FIG. 31]) on a basis of sensor signals outputted from the respective tire-force sensors (Hac: [0040] tire forces are obtained from the tire sensors), each of the tire forces being a combined force of a front-rear force component (Hac: [0007] a method of predicting tire forces for use in a vehicle stability control system, the method including the steps of obtaining measurements of tire forces from one of group consisting of tire normal forces and tire lateral forces; [ABS] obtaining measurements of tire normal or tire lateral forces) and a lateral force component (Hac: [0007] a method of predicting tire forces for use in a vehicle stability control system, the method including the steps of obtaining measurements of tire forces from one of group consisting of tire normal forces and tire lateral forces; [ABS] obtaining measurements of tire normal or tire lateral forces), the front-rear force component being a component of a frictional force generated at a ground contact face of a tire provided on a respective wheel of the respective wheels (Hac: [0080] Estimates of tire forces obtained at high sampling rates may be used by VSC systems to improve the distribution of braking forces/torques among vehicle wheels ... The estimates may also be used by other chassis control systems to detect tire saturation and to improve detection of surface friction; [0093] tire normal and lateral forces to the system for use in a vehicle stability control calculation ... the control system may be a VSC system or another chassis control system such as a traction control system or active suspension system) in a direction parallel to a central plane of the respective wheel of the respective wheels (Hac: [0093] tire normal and lateral forces to the system for use in a vehicle stability control calculation ... the control system may be a VSC system or another chassis control system such as a traction control system or active suspension system), the lateral force component being a component of the frictional force generated in a direction orthogonal to the central plane of the respective wheel of the respective wheels (Hac: [0093] tire normal and lateral forces to the system for use in a vehicle stability control calculation ... the control system may be a VSC system or another chassis control system such as a traction control system or active suspension system).
Hac does not explicitly disclose, a notification unit configured to: determine a first threshold on a basis of a friction coefficient between the ground contact faces and the tires of the respective wheels so that each of the respective wheels is not in a slip state while the each of the tire forces is less than or equal to the first threshold; compare the estimated tire forces of the respective wheels with the second threshold; determine a wheel of the respective wheels being in the limit state in response to a corresponding estimated tire force of the wheel of the respective wheels exceeding the second threshold; determine a level of the limit state of the wheel by subtracting the second threshold from the estimated tire force of the wheel in the limit state.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Eguchi discloses, a notification unit (Eguchi: [0032] to notify the driver that the tire lateral force Fy is in the tire nonlinear region) configured to: determine a first threshold (Eguchi: [0024] as shown in FIG. 3, in the tire linear region where the tire lateral force Fy is smaller than the first threshold Fy1, the tire lateral force Fy and the self aligning torque SAT linearly change with respect to the tire slip angle β Therefore, in the tire linear region, it can be said that the turning axial force Fr is a value whose magnitude is determined in proportion to the tire lateral force Fy) on a basis of a friction coefficient between the ground contact faces and the tires of the respective wheels (Eguchi: [0003] determining the turning limit of the tire using the road surface μ and the estimated value of the tire slip angle, but the road surface μ and the tire slip angle are accurate It was difficult to estimate the turning limit; [0011] "Side force (lateral force)" is a component of the frictional force generated on the ground contact surface at a right angle to the center plane of the tire when the tire turns with a certain slip angle. The “slip angle (side slip angle)” refers to the angle between the traveling direction of the tire and the direction of the tire center plane when the tire in a turning state is viewed from above) so that each of the respective wheels is not in a slip state while the each of the tire forces is less than or equal to the first threshold (Eguchi: [0021] The first threshold Fy1 is, as shown in FIG. 3, the maximum value of the tire lateral force in a linear region where the tire lateral force Fy linearly changes with respect to the tire slip angle β. Further, the second threshold Fy2 is in a non-linear region where the tire lateral force Fy varies nonlinearly with the tire slip angle β, and the saturation value of the tire lateral force Fy; [0024] in the tire linear region where the tire lateral force Fy is smaller than the first threshold Fy1, the tire lateral force Fy and the self aligning torque SAT linearly change with respect to the tire slip angle β Therefore, in the tire linear region, it can be said that the turning axial force Fr is a value whose magnitude is determined in proportion to the tire lateral force Fy); compare the estimated tire forces of the respective wheels with the second threshold (Eguchi: [0032-0034]); determine a wheel of the respective wheels being in the limit state in response to a corresponding estimated tire force of the wheel of the respective wheels exceeding the second threshold (Eguchi: [0024] determining the turning limit of the tire using the road surface μ and the estimated value of the tire slip angle, but the road surface μ and the tire slip angle are accurate It was difficult to estimate the turning limit of the tire accurately by the steering reaction force to the driver; [0030-0032]; [0029]; [0045]); determine a level of the limit state of the wheel by subtracting the second threshold from the estimated tire force of the wheel in the limit state (Eguchi: [0019] first threshold Fy1 and the second threshold Fy2; [0032-0034]; ¶'s [0039-0050] discuss a difference (examiner: an answer to a subtraction problem) between lateral, axial forces, and first and second thresholds), for the benefit of notifying a driver that the tire force is in the tire nonlinear region.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method disclosed by Hac to include notifying a driver that the tire force is in the tire nonlinear region taught by Eguchi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to notify a driver that the tire force is in the tire nonlinear region.
Hac, as modified, remains as applied above. Further, Hac, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, in response to determining that the wheel of the respective wheels is in the limit state, generate a directional warning in a form of at least one of sound, light, heat, ultrasonic waves, or vibration based on the determined level of the limit state of the wheel in the limit state, the directional warning spatially indicating a position of the wheel in the limit state relative to a driver's position in the vehicle, and inform the driver of the vehicle about the position of the wheel in the limit state through the generated directional warning.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lewis discloses, in response to determining that the wheel of the respective wheels is in the limit state (Lewis: The visible alarm identifies for the driver which wheel is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 46-47); Arranged in parallel with the coil 32 of each solenoid valve may be an alarm, such as an indicator light 120 or a buzzer 122, or both, to give visible and audible indication to the driver that one or more of the associated vehicle wheels is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 4-8)), generate a directional warning (Lewis: The visible alarm identifies for the driver which wheel is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 46-47); Arranged in parallel with the coil 32 of each solenoid valve may be an alarm, such as an indicator light 120 or a buzzer 122, or both, to give visible and audible indication to the driver that one or more of the associated vehicle wheels is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 4-8)) in a form of at least one of sound, light, heat, ultrasonic waves, or vibration (Lewis: The visible alarm identifies for the driver which wheel is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 46-47); Arranged in parallel with the coil 32 of each solenoid valve may be an alarm, such as an indicator light 120 or a buzzer 122, or both, to give visible and audible indication to the driver that one or more of the associated vehicle wheels is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 4-8)) based on the determined level of the limit state of the wheel in the limit state (Lewis: The visible alarm identifies for the driver which wheel is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 46-47); Arranged in parallel with the coil 32 of each solenoid valve may be an alarm, such as an indicator light 120 or a buzzer 122, or both, to give visible and audible indication to the driver that one or more of the associated vehicle wheels is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 4-8)), the directional warning (Lewis: The visible alarm identifies for the driver which wheel is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 46-47); Arranged in parallel with the coil 32 of each solenoid valve may be an alarm, such as an indicator light 120 or a buzzer 122, or both, to give visible and audible indication to the driver that one or more of the associated vehicle wheels is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 4-8)) spatially indicating a position of the wheel in the limit state relative to a driver's position in the vehicle (Lewis: The visible alarm identifies for the driver which wheel is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 46-47); Arranged in parallel with the coil 32 of each solenoid valve may be an alarm, such as an indicator light 120 or a buzzer 122, or both, to give visible and audible indication to the driver that one or more of the associated vehicle wheels is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 4-8)), and inform the driver of the vehicle about the position of the wheel (Lewis: The visible alarm identifies for the driver which wheel is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 46-47); Arranged in parallel with the coil 32 of each solenoid valve may be an alarm, such as an indicator light 120 or a buzzer 122, or both, to give visible and audible indication to the driver that one or more of the associated vehicle wheels is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 4-8)) in the limit state (Lewis: The visible alarm identifies for the driver which wheel is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 46-47); Arranged in parallel with the coil 32 of each solenoid valve may be an alarm, such as an indicator light 120 or a buzzer 122, or both, to give visible and audible indication to the driver that one or more of the associated vehicle wheels is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 4-8)) through the generated directional warning (Lewis: The visible alarm identifies for the driver which wheel is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 46-47); Arranged in parallel with the coil 32 of each solenoid valve may be an alarm, such as an indicator light 120 or a buzzer 122, or both, to give visible and audible indication to the driver that one or more of the associated vehicle wheels is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 4-8)), for the benefit of a driver recognizing whether the transfer is in operation or not.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Hac to include visual or audio alerts taught by Lewis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a driver with notification whether the transfer is in operation or not.
Hac discloses two thresholds in the normal direction (x-axis, front-back) and two in the lateral (y-axis). Because Hac discloses two thresholds, the examiner respectfully submits, one has to be less than the other.
However, in the alternative, and in the same field of endeavor, Leo discloses, determine a second threshold on a basis of the friction coefficient (Leo: [FIG. 1]; [0012] FIG. 1 represents three examples of engaged friction (F.sub.x/F.sub.z)/slip (ε) curves for three different conditions of tyre-rolling surface (granite, cement and asphalt) system … [0013] the potential friction identifies a limit condition beyond which the adherence conditions of the tyre begin to degrade, up to an asymptotic condition in which, as the slip increases, the engaged friction remains substantially constant and less than the maximum friction), the second threshold being less than the first threshold (Leo: [FIG. 1]; [0012] FIG. 1 represents three examples of engaged friction (F.sub.x/F.sub.z)/slip (ε) curves for three different conditions of tyre-rolling surface (granite, cement and asphalt) system … [0013] the potential friction identifies a limit condition beyond which the adherence conditions of the tyre begin to degrade, up to an asymptotic condition in which, as the slip increases, the engaged friction remains substantially constant and less than the maximum friction) and indicating a limit state of possible slipping of the tires of the respective wheels (Leo: [FIG. 1]; [0012] FIG. 1 represents three examples of engaged friction (F.sub.x/F.sub.z)/slip (ε) curves for three different conditions of tyre-rolling surface (granite, cement and asphalt) system … [0013] the potential friction identifies a limit condition beyond which the adherence conditions of the tyre begin to degrade, up to an asymptotic condition in which, as the slip increases, the engaged friction remains substantially constant and less than the maximum friction; [0152] show the levels of potential friction estimated by the estimation algorithm according to the invention, respectively for the left front wheel and for the right front wheel of the vehicle), for the benefit of estimating and controlling slip, drift, and avoiding false alarms on different rolling surfaces and different surface conditions (snow, ice, leaves, roughness, etc.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Hac to different µ for different surfaces and different surface conditions taught by Leo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to estimate and control slip, drift, and avoiding false alarms on different rolling surfaces and different surface conditions (snow, ice, leaves, roughness, etc.).
Hac, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, the directional warning being generated from a location in the vehicle corresponding to a direction of the wheel in the limit state relative to the driver's position such that the driver perceives the position of the wheel in the limit state through a direction from which the directional warning is received by the driver, one or both of an intensity or an interval of the directional warning being progressively changed in proportion to the determined level of the limit state of the wheel in the limit state.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Murayama discloses, the directional warning being generated from a location in the vehicle corresponding to a direction of the wheel in the limit state relative to the driver's position (Murayama: [Ln. 133-134] Further, as shown in FIG. 3, the vehicle body side system 3 is configured to include a receiver 31, an operation switch 32, and a display device 33 [Ln. 238-248] The display device 33 is disposed at a place where a driver, which is a user, is viewable during operation of the vehicle, and is installed in the instrument panel of the vehicle 1, for example. The display device 33 is constituted by, for example, a meter display device and displays a display relating to the tire air pressure to the driver. Specifically, the display device 33 receives from the control unit 31 b b the tire air pressure of each of the wheels 4 a - 4 d together with whether the tire air pressure is within an appropriate value range, higher or lower than the range of the appropriate value, Whether it is abnormal or not is received. Then, the display device 33 displays the display relating to the tire air pressure on the basis of the received data. When the operation by the operation switch 32 is a condition of a user request, when the operation of the operation switch 32 is performed and it is confirmed that there is a user request, the display device 33 performs this display display) such that the driver perceives the position of the wheel in the limit state through a direction from which the directional warning is received by the driver (Murayama: [Ln. 133-134] Further, as shown in FIG. 3, the vehicle body side system 3 is configured to include a receiver 31, an operation switch 32, and a display device 33 [Ln. 238-248] The display device 33 is disposed at a place where a driver, which is a user, is viewable during operation of the vehicle, and is installed in the instrument panel of the vehicle 1, for example. The display device 33 is constituted by, for example, a meter display device and displays a display relating to the tire air pressure to the driver. Specifically, the display device 33 receives from the control unit 31 b b the tire air pressure of each of the wheels 4 a - 4 d together with whether the tire air pressure is within an appropriate value range, higher or lower than the range of the appropriate value, Whether it is abnormal or not is received. Then, the display device 33 displays the display relating to the tire air pressure on the basis of the received data. When the operation by the operation switch 32 is a condition of a user request, when the operation of the operation switch 32 is performed and it is confirmed that there is a user request, the display device 33 performs this display display), one or both of an intensity or an interval of the directional warning being progressively changed in proportion to the determined level of the limit state of the wheel in the limit state (Murayama: [Ln. 19-20] a different color with respect to the numerical values; [Ln. 256-258] the degree display section 33 b changes the lighting position and the display color according to the degree of the tire air pressure of each of the wheels; [Ln. 257-259] changes the lighting position and the display color according to the degree of the tire air pressure of each of the wheels 4 a to 4 d by using the five circular dot figures, so that the degree of high and low are set to five levels; [Ln. 273-275] The display color of each circular dot figure may be the same, but for example, "abnormal" or "high" means red, "somewhat low" or "somewhat high" is yellow, and "proper value" is colored like blue I have it), for the benefit of displaying levels of degree corresponding to each tire.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller disclosed by a modified Hac to include varying degrees of intensity corresponding to a tire taught by Murayama. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to display levels of degree corresponding to each tire (severity).
REGARDING CLAIM 2, Hac, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Hac also discloses, the wheels comprise a front wheel and a rear wheel (Hac: [FIG. 31 (choice)]).
Hac does not explicitly disclose, and the notification unit is configured to inform the driver about whether the wheel in the limit state is the front wheel or the rear wheel.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lewis discloses, and the notification unit is configured to inform the driver about whether the wheel in the limit state is the front wheel or the rear wheel (Lewis: (Col. 4, Ln. 46-47); (Col. 4, Ln. 4-8)), for the benefit of a driver recognizing whether the transfer is in operation or not.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Hac to include visual or audio alerts with associated wheels taught by Lewis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a driver with notification whether the transfer is in operation or not.
REGARDING CLAIM 3, Hac, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Hac also discloses, the wheels comprise a left wheel and a right wheel (Hac: [FIG. 31 (choice)]).
Hac does not explicitly disclose, the notification unit is configured to inform the driver about whether the wheel in the limit state is the left wheel or the right wheel.
However, in the same field, Lewis discloses, the notification unit is configured to inform the driver about whether the wheel in the limit state is the left wheel or the right wheel (Lewis: (Col. 4, Ln. 46-47); (Col. 4, Ln. 4-8)), for the benefit of a driver recognizing whether the transfer is in operation or not.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Hac to include visual or audio alerts with associated wheels taught by Lewis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a driver with notification whether the transfer is in operation or not.
REGARDING CLAIM 8, Hac, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Hac, as modified, also discloses, the notification unit is configured to change a position of emitting a light or a wavelength of the light in accordance with the position of the wheel in the limit state (Murayama: [Ln. 19-20]; [Ln. 256-258]; [Ln. 257-259]; [Ln. 273-275]).
REGARDING CLAIM 15, Hac discloses, tire-force sensors provided on respective wheels of the vehicle (Hac: [0040]; [0090]; [FIG. 1(top box)]; [FIG. 18(top box)]; [FIG. 31]); and circuitry configured to: estimate tire forces of the respective wheels (Hac: [FIG. 1(top box)]; [FIG. 18(top box)]; [FIG. 31]) on a basis of sensor signals outputted from the respective tire-force sensors (Hac: [0040]), each of the tire forces being a combined force of a front-rear force component (Hac: [0007]; [ABS]) and a lateral force component (Hac: [0007]; [ABS]), the front-rear force component being a component of a frictional force generated at a ground contact face of a tire provided on a respective wheel of the respective wheels (Hac: [0093]) in a direction parallel to a central plane of the respective wheel of the respective wheels (Hac: [0093]), the lateral force component being a component of the frictional force generated in a direction orthogonal to the central plane of the respective wheel of the respective wheels (Hac: [0093]).
Hac discloses two thresholds in the normal direction (x-axis, front-back) and two in the lateral (y-axis). Hac does not explicitly disclose, determine a first threshold on a basis of a friction coefficient between the ground contact faces and the tire of the respective wheels so that each of the respective wheels is not in a slip state while the each of the tire forces is less than or equal to the first threshold; compare the estimated tire forces of the respective wheels with the second threshold; determine a wheel of the respective wheels being in a limit state in response to a corresponding estimated tire force of the wheel of the respective wheels exceeding the second threshold; determine a level of the limit state of the wheel by subtracting the second threshold from the estimated tire force of the wheel in the limit state.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Eguchi discloses, determine a first threshold on a basis of a friction coefficient between the ground contact faces and the tire of the respective wheels so that each of the respective wheels is not in a slip state while the each of the tire forces is less than or equal to the first threshold (Eguchi: [0003]; [0024]; [0032]); compare the estimated tire forces of the respective wheels with the second threshold (Eguchi: [0032-0034]); determine a wheel of the respective wheels being in a limit state in response to a corresponding estimated tire force of the wheel of the respective wheels exceeding the second threshold (Eguchi: [0003]; [0024]; [0032]); determine a level of the limit state of the wheel by subtracting the second threshold from the estimated tire force of the wheel in the limit state (Eguchi: [0019]; [0032-0034]), for the benefit of notifying a driver that the tire force is in the tire nonlinear region.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method disclosed by Hac to include notifying a driver that the tire force is in the tire nonlinear region taught by Eguchi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to notify a driver that the tire force is in the tire nonlinear region.
Hac, as modified, remains as applied above, and further, Hac, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, in response to determining that the wheel of the respective wheels is in the limit state, inform a driver of the vehicle about a position of the wheel in the limit state through at least one of sound, light, heat, ultrasonic waves, or vibration, on a basis of the determined level of the limit state of the wheel in the limit state.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lewis discloses, in response to determining that the wheel of the respective wheels is in the limit state (Lewis: (Col. 4, Ln. 46-47); (Col. 4, Ln. 4-8), and inform a driver of the vehicle about a position of the wheel in the limit state through at least one of sound, light, heat, ultrasonic waves, or vibration, on a basis of the determined level of the limit state of the wheel in the limit state (Lewis: (Col. 4, Ln. 46-47); (Col. 4, Ln. 4-8), for the benefit of a driver recognizing whether the transfer is in operation or not.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Hac to include visual or audio alerts taught by Lewis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a driver with notification whether the transfer is in operation or not.
Hac, as modified, remains as applied above, and further, Hac, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, determine a second threshold on a basis of the friction coefficient, the second threshold being less than the first threshold and indicating a limit state of possible slipping of the tires of the respective wheels.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Leo discloses, determine a second threshold on a basis of the friction coefficient (Leo: [FIG. 1]; [0012-0013]), the second threshold being less than the first threshold (Leo: [FIG. 1]; [0012-0013]) and indicating a limit state of possible slipping of the tires of the respective wheels (Leo: [FIG. 1]; [0012-0013]; [0152]), for the benefit of estimating and controlling slip, drift, and avoiding false alarms on different rolling surfaces and different surface conditions (snow, ice, leaves, roughness, etc.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Hac to different µ for different surfaces and different surface conditions taught by Leo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to estimate and control slip, drift, and avoiding false alarms on different rolling surfaces and different surface conditions (snow, ice, leaves, roughness, etc.).
Hac, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, the directional warning being generated from a location in the vehicle corresponding to a direction of the wheel in the limit state relative to the driver's position such that the driver perceives the position of the wheel in the limit state through a direction from which the directional warning is received by the driver, one or both of an intensity or an interval of the directional warning being progressively changed in proportion to the determined level of the limit state of the wheel in the limit state.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Murayama discloses, the directional warning being generated from a location in the vehicle corresponding to a direction of the wheel in the limit state relative to the driver's position (Murayama: [Ln. 133-134]; [Ln. 238-248]) such that the driver perceives the position of the wheel in the limit state through a direction from which the directional warning is received by the driver (Murayama: [Ln. 133-134]; [Ln. 238-248]), one or both of an intensity or an interval of the directional warning being progressively changed in proportion to the determined level of the limit state of the wheel in the limit state (Murayama: [Ln. 19-20]; [Ln. 256-258]; [Ln. 257-259]; [Ln. 273-275]), for the benefit of displaying levels of degree corresponding to each tire.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller disclosed by a modified Hac to include varying degrees of intensity corresponding to a tire taught by Murayama. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to display levels of degree corresponding to each tire (severity).
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hac (US 20090177346 A1) in view of Eguchi (JP 5239801 B2), and Lewis (US 3611284 A), in further view of Leo (US 20160123866 A1), and Murayama (WO 2018029944 A1) remain as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Litkouhi (US 20040178893 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 16, Hac, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Hac also discloses, the wheels comprise a front wheel and a rear wheel (Hac: [FIG. 31 (choice)]).
Hac does not explicitly disclose, the notification unit is configured to: in response to the determining that the respective wheels include the wheel in the limit state, determine whether the wheel in the limit state is the front wheel.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lewis discloses, the notification unit is configured to: in response to the determining that the respective wheels include the wheel in the limit state, determine whether the wheel in the limit state is the front wheel (Lewis: (Col. 4, Ln. 46-47); (Col. 4, Ln. 4-8)), for the benefit of a driver recognizing whether the transfer is in operation or not.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Hac to include visual or audio alerts for skidding taught by Lewis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a driver with notification whether the transfer is in operation or not.
Hac in view of Lewis disclose directional audio and visual alerts. Hac in view of Lewis does not explicitly disclose, further comprising a front speaker located in the vehicle and a rear speaker located rearward than the front speaker in the vehicle, in response to determining that the wheel in the limit state is the front wheel, cause the front speaker to generate a warning sound; and in response to determining that the wheel in the limit state is not the front wheel, cause the rear speaker to generate the warning sound.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Litkouhi discloses, comprising a front speaker located in the vehicle (Litkouhi: [FIG. 2(24)]; [0025]) and a rear speaker located rearward than the front speaker in the vehicle (Litkouhi: [FIG. 2(24)]; [0025]), in response to determining that the wheel in the limit state is the front wheel, cause the front speaker to generate a warning sound (Litkouhi: [FIG. 2(24)]; [0025]); and in response to determining that the wheel in the limit state is not the front wheel, cause the rear speaker to generate the warning sound (Litkouhi: [FIG. 2(24)]; [0025]), for the benefit of monitoring zones and generating corresponding warning signals.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Hac to include specified speaker alerts taught by Litkouhi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to generate corresponding warning signals.
REGARDING CLAIM 17, Hac, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 16, and further, Litkouhi also discloses, the front speaker is located frontward than a seatback of a driving seat of the vehicle, and wherein the rear speaker is located rearward than the seatback of the driving seat (Litkouhi: [FIG. 2(24)]; [FIG. 3]; [0025]).
REGARDING CLAIM 18, Hac, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Hac also discloses, the wheels comprise a left front wheel, a right front wheel, a left rear wheel and a right rear wheel (Hac: [FIG. 31 (choice)]).
Hac does not explicitly disclose, wherein the notification unit is configured to: in response to the determining that the respective wheels include the wheel in the limit state, determine whether the wheel in the limit state is the left front wheel, the right front wheel, the right front wheel.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lewis discloses, wherein the notification unit is configured to: in response to the determining that the respective wheels include the wheel in the limit state, determine whether the wheel in the limit state is the left front wheel, the right front wheel, the left rear wheel and the right rear wheel (Lewis: (Col. 4, Ln. 46-47); (Col. 4, Ln. 4-8)), for the benefit of a driver recognizing whether the transfer is in operation or not.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Hac to include directional visual or audio alerts for skidding taught by Lewis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a driver with notification whether the transfer is in operation or not.
Hac in view of Lewis does not explicitly disclose, comprising a left front speaker, a right front speaker, a left rear speaker and a right rear speaker, the left front speaker being located frontward and leftward than a seatback of a driving seat of the vehicle, the right front speaker being located frontward and rightward than the seatback of the driving seat, the left rear speaker being located rearward and leftward than the seatback of the driving seat, the right rear speaker being located rearward and rightward than the seatback of the driving seat, in response to determining that the wheel in the limit state is the left front wheel, cause the left front speaker to generate a warning sound; in response to determining that the wheel in the limit state is the right front wheel, cause the right front speaker to generate the warning sound; in response to determining that the wheel in the limit state is the left rear wheel, cause the left rear speaker to generate the warning sound; and in response to determining that the wheel in the limit state is the right rear wheel, cause the right rear speaker to generate the warning sound.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Litkouhi discloses, comprising a left front speaker, a right front speaker, a left rear speaker and a right rear speaker, the left front speaker being located frontward and leftward than a seatback of a driving seat of the vehicle, the right front speaker being located frontward and rightward than the seatback of the driving seat, the left rear speaker being located rearward and leftward than the seatback of the driving seat, the right rear speaker being located rearward and rightward than the seatback of the driving seat, in response to determining that the wheel in the limit state is the left front wheel, cause the left front speaker to generate a warning sound; in response to determining that the wheel in the limit state is the right front wheel, cause the right front speaker to generate the warning sound; in response to determining that the wheel in the limit state is the left rear wheel, cause the left rear speaker to generate the warning sound; and in response to determining that the wheel in the limit state is the right rear wheel, cause the right rear speaker to generate the warning sound (Litkouhi: [FIG. 2(24)]; [FIG. 3]; [0025]), for the benefit of monitoring zones and generating corresponding warning signals.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Hac to include specified speaker alerts taught by Litkouhi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to generate corresponding warning signals.
Claim(s) 12 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hac (US 20090177346 A1) in view of Eguchi (JP 5239801 B2), and Lewis (US 3611284 A), in further view of Leo (US 20160123866 A1), and Murayama (WO 2018029944 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Altan (US 20070109104 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 12, Hac, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Hac does not explicitly disclose, the notification unit is configured to change a generating position of vibration in accordance with the position of the wheel in the limit state.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Altan discloses, the notification unit is configured to change a generating position of vibration in accordance with the position of the wheel in the limit state (Altan: [0020]; [0046-0048]), for the benefit of relative to auditory alerts, haptic alerts, such as seat vibration alerts, are likely to be perceived as less annoying to drivers (and passengers) during false alarms since they do not interrupt ongoing audio entertainment.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a controller disclosed by a modified Hac to include haptic alerts, such as seat vibration alerts taught by Altan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide less annoying to drivers (and passengers) during false alarms since they do not interrupt ongoing audio entertainment.
REGARDING CLAIM 19, Hac, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Hac also discloses, wherein the wheels comprise a front wheel and a rear wheel (Hac: [FIG. 31 (choice)]).
Hac does not explicitly disclose, in response to the determining that the respective wheels include the wheel in the limit state, determine whether the wheel in the limit state is the front wheel.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lewis discloses, in response to the determining that the respective wheels include the wheel in the limit state, determine whether the wheel in the limit state is the front wheel (Lewis: (Col. 4, Ln. 46-47); (Col. 4, Ln. 4-8)), for the benefit of a driver recognizing whether the transfer is in operation or not.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Hac to include directional visual or audio alerts taught by Lewis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a driver with notification whether the transfer is in operation or not.
Hac in view of Lewis does not explicitly disclose, a first oscillator located in the vehicle and a second oscillator located rearward than the first oscillator in the vehicle, in response to determining that the wheel in the limit state is the front wheel, operate the first oscillator; and in response to determining that the wheel in the limit state is not the front wheel, operate the second oscillator.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Altan discloses, a first oscillator located in the vehicle (Altan: [FIG. 2]; [FIG. 3]) and a second oscillator located rearward than the first oscillator in the vehicle (Altan: [FIG. 2]; [FIG. 3]), in response to determining that the wheel in the limit state is the front wheel, operate the first oscillator (Altan: [0020-0027]; [0046-0048]); and in response to determining that the wheel in the limit state is not the front wheel, operate the second oscillator (Altan: [0020-0027]; [0046-0048]), for the benefit of relative to auditory alerts, haptic alerts, such as seat vibration alerts, are likely to be perceived as less annoying to drivers (and passengers) during false alarms since they do not interrupt ongoing audio entertainment.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Hac to include directional haptic alerts taught by Altan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to relative to auditory alerts, haptic alerts, such as seat vibration alerts, are likely to be perceived as less annoying to drivers (and passengers) during false alarms since they do not interrupt ongoing audio entertainment.
REGARDING CLAIM 20, Hac, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 19, and further, Altan also discloses, the first oscillator is configured to vibrate a steering wheel of the vehicle when the first oscillator is operated, and wherein the second oscillator is disposed on a driving seat of the vehicle (Altan: [0020]; [0046-0048]).
REGARDING CLAIM 21, Hac, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Hac also discloses, the wheels comprise a left front wheel, a right front wheel, a left rear wheel and a right rear wheel (Hac: [FIG. 31 (choice)]).
Hac does not explicitly disclose, the notification unit is configured to: in response to the determining that the respective wheels include the wheel in the limit state, determine whether the wheel in the limit state is the left front wheel, the right front wheel, the left rear wheel and the right rear wheel.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lewis discloses, the notification unit is configured to: in response to the determining that the respective wheels include the wheel in the limit state, determine whether the wheel in the limit state is the left front wheel, the right front wheel, the left rear wheel and the right rear wheel (Lewis: (Col. 4, Ln. 46-47); (Col. 4, Ln. 4-8)), for the benefit of providing a driver with notification whether the transfer is in operation or not.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Hac to include visual or audio alerts taught by Lewis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a driver with notification whether the transfer is in operation or not.
Hac, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, comprising a front oscillator, a left oscillator and a right oscillator, the front oscillator being fixed to a steering column of the vehicle, the left oscillator being disposed in a driving seat of the vehicle, the right oscillator being disposed rightward than the left oscillator in the driving seat, in response to determining that the wheel in the limit state is the left front wheel or the right front wheel, operate the front oscillator; in response to determining that the wheel in the limit state is the left rear wheel, operate the left oscillator; and in response to determining that the wheel in the limit state is the right rear wheel, operate the right oscillator.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Altan discloses, comprising a front oscillator, a left oscillator and a right oscillator (Altan: [FIG. 2]; [FIG. 3]), the front oscillator being fixed to a steering column of the vehicle (Altan: [0020]), the left oscillator being disposed in a driving seat of the vehicle (Altan: [FIG. 2]; [FIG. 3]), the right oscillator being disposed rightward than the left oscillator in the driving seat (Altan: [FIG. 2]; [FIG. 3]), in response to determining that the wheel in the limit state is the left front wheel or the right front wheel, operate the front oscillator (Altan: [0020]; [0046-0048]); in response to determining that the wheel in the limit state is the left rear wheel, operate the left oscillator (Altan: [0020]; [0046-0048]); and in response to determining that the wheel in the limit state is the right rear wheel, operate the right oscillator (Altan: [0020]; [0046-0048]), for the benefit of relative to auditory alerts, haptic alerts, such as seat vibration alerts, are likely to be perceived as less annoying to drivers (and passengers) during false alarms since they do not interrupt ongoing audio entertainment.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Hac to include directional haptic alerts taught by Altan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to relative to auditory alerts, haptic alerts, such as seat vibration alerts, are likely to be perceived as less annoying to drivers (and passengers) during false alarms since they do not interrupt ongoing audio entertainment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03-30-2026, beginning on page 14, in regards to the rejection of the independent claims under 35 USC §103, obviousness, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
To the examiner’s best understanding, the applicant has contended that the prior art fails, Lewis (US 3611284 A), to disclose: “in response to determining that the wheel of the respective wheels is in the limit state, generate a directional warning in a form of at least one of sound, light, heat, ultrasonic waves, or vibration based on the determined level of the limit state of the wheel in the limit state, the directional warning spatially indicating a position of the wheel in the limit state relative to a driver's position in the vehicle, and inform the driver of the vehicle about the position of the wheel in the limit state through the generated directional warning”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As cited above and in prior correspondences, Lewis (US 3611284 A) discloses, in response to determining that the wheel of the respective wheels is in the limit state (Lewis: The visible alarm identifies for the driver which wheel is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 46-47); an alarm, such as an indicator light 120 or a buzzer 122, or both, to give visible and audible indication to the driver that one or more of the associated vehicle wheels is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 4-8)), generate a directional warning (Lewis: The visible alarm identifies for the driver which wheel is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 46-47); indication to the driver that one or more of the associated vehicle wheels is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 4-8)) in a form of at least one of sound, light, heat, ultrasonic waves, or vibration (Lewis: The visible alarm identifies for the driver which wheel is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 46-47); an alarm, such as an indicator light 120 or a buzzer 122, or both) based on the determined level of the limit state of the wheel in the limit state (Lewis: The visible alarm identifies for the driver which wheel is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 46-47) (examiner: an alarm implies a determination that the current state is above a predetermined threshold)), the directional warning (Lewis: The visible alarm identifies for the driver which wheel is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 46-47)) spatially indicating a position of the wheel in the limit state relative to a driver's position in the vehicle (Lewis: The visible alarm identifies for the driver which wheel is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 46-47); an alarm, such as an indicator light 120 or a buzzer 122, or both, to give visible and audible indication to the driver that one or more of the associated vehicle wheels is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 4-8)), and inform the driver of the vehicle about the position of the wheel (Lewis: The visible alarm identifies for the driver which wheel is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 46-47); an alarm, such as an indicator light 120 or a buzzer 122, or both, to give visible and audible indication to the driver that one or more of the associated vehicle wheels is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 4-8)) in the limit state (Lewis: The visible alarm identifies for the driver which wheel is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 46-47)) through the generated directional warning (Lewis: The visible alarm identifies for the driver which wheel is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 46-47); an alarm, such as an indicator light 120 or a buzzer 122, or both, to give visible and audible indication to the driver that one or more of the associated vehicle wheels is skidding (Col. 4, Ln. 4-8)). To the examiner’s best understanding, Lewis (US 3611284 A) discloses the limitations Lewis to which Lewis is mapped on a clear one-to-one basis and appear to explain themselves. Lastly, “In considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” (2144.01 (also see 2144.05.II.A: routine optimization/customization)).
To the examiner’s best understanding, the applicant has contended that it would not be obvious for one of ordinary skill to modify the primary art to include the features disclosed by Lewis (US 3611284 A). The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, primary art and modifying art both pertain to vehicle/tire state and contact/interaction with environment. Lastly, “In considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” (2144.01 (also see 2144.05.II.A: routine optimization/customization)).
To the examiner’s best understanding, arguments beginning on page 17 in regards to Lewis (US 3611284 A), are duplicative and are addressed above. Lastly, “In considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” (2144.01 (also see 2144.05.II.A: routine optimization/customization)).
Also on page 16, arguments filed 03-30-2026, to the examiner’s best understanding, the applicant has contended that the prior art of Altan (US 20070109104 A1) is not analogous art because Altan (US 20070109104 A1) discloses directional alerts regarding collision threats, while the instant application is directed towards tire hazards. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, primary art and modifying art both pertain to vehicle hazards and directional awareness. Lastly, “In considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” (2144.01 (also see 2144.05.II.A: routine optimization/customization)).
Beginning on page 16, arguments files 03-30-2025, the applicant continues, to the examiner’s best understanding, Murayama (WO 2018029944 A1) fails to disclose “one or both of an intensity or an interval of the directional warning being progressively changed in proportion to the determined level of the limit state of the wheel in the limit state”, in the context of the claimed invention. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above and in prior office action, Murayama (WO 2018029944 A1) discloses, one or both of an intensity or an interval of the directional warning being progressively changed (Murayama: [Ln. 19-20] a different color with respect to the numerical values; [Ln. 256-258] the degree display section 33 b changes the lighting position and the display color according to the degree of the tire air pressure of each of the wheels; [Ln. 257-259] changes the lighting position and the display color according to the degree of the tire air pressure of each of the wheels 4 a to 4 d by using the five circular dot figures, so that the degree of high and low are set to five levels; [Ln. 273-275] The display color of each circular dot figure may be the same, but for example, "abnormal" or "high" means red, "somewhat low" or "somewhat high" is yellow, and "proper value" is colored like blue I have it) in proportion to the determined level of the limit state of the wheel in the limit state (Murayama: [Ln. 19-20] a different color with respect to the numerical values; [Ln. 256-258] the degree display section 33 b changes the lighting position and the display color according to the degree of the tire air pressure of each of the wheels; [Ln. 257-259] changes the lighting position and the display color according to the degree of the tire air pressure of each of the wheels 4 a to 4 d by using the five circular dot figures, so that the degree of high and low are set to five levels; [Ln. 273-275] The display color of each circular dot figure may be the same, but for example, "abnormal" or "high" means red, "somewhat low" or "somewhat high" is yellow, and "proper value" is colored like blue I have it). Further, claim 1 claims “a notification of at least on of sound, light …”. Because Murayama (WO 2018029944 A1) discloses that which is claimed, for at least one of sound or light, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC §103, obviousness. Lastly, “In considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” (2144.01 (also see 2144.05.II.A: routine optimization/customization)).
Lastly, beginning on page 17, to the examiner’s best understanding, the applicant has contended that the prior art of record fails to disclose, the amended limitations of the independent claims. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As stated above, Murayama (WO 2018029944 A1) still discloses that which is claimed. Specifically, the directional warning being generated from a location in the vehicle corresponding to a direction of the wheel in the limit state relative to the driver's position (Murayama: [Ln. 238-248] The display device 33 is disposed at a place where a driver, which is a user, is viewable during operation of the vehicle, and is installed in the instrument panel of the vehicle 1, for example. The display device 33 is constituted by, for example, a meter display device and displays a display relating to the tire air pressure to the driver. Specifically, the display device 33 receives from the control unit 31 b b the tire air pressure of each of the wheels 4 a - 4 d together with whether the tire air pressure is within an appropriate value range, higher or lower than the range of the appropriate value, Whether it is abnormal or not is received. Then, the display device 33 displays the display relating to the tire air pressure on the basis of the received data. When the operation by the operation switch 32 is a condition of a user request, when the operation of the operation switch 32 is performed and it is confirmed that there is a user request, the display device 33 performs this display display; [FIG. 5]) such that the driver perceives the position of the wheel in the limit state through a direction from which the directional warning is received by the driver (Murayama: [Ln. 238-248] The display device 33 is disposed at a place where a driver, which is a user, is viewable during operation of the vehicle, and is installed in the instrument panel of the vehicle 1, for example. The display device 33 is constituted by, for example, a meter display device and displays a display relating to the tire air pressure to the driver. Specifically, the display device 33 receives from the control unit 31 b b the tire air pressure of each of the wheels 4 a - 4 d together with whether the tire air pressure is within an appropriate value range, higher or lower than the range of the appropriate value, Whether it is abnormal or not is received. Then, the display device 33 displays the display relating to the tire air pressure on the basis of the received data. When the operation by the operation switch 32 is a condition of a user request, when the operation of the operation switch 32 is performed and it is confirmed that there is a user request, the display device 33 performs this display display; [FIG. 5]). Lastly, “In considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” (2144.01 (also see 2144.05.II.A: routine optimization/customization)). Because the prior art of record still discloses that which is claimed, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of the independent claims under 35 USC §103, obviousness.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 22 contains allowable subject matter.
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 AARRON SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, ANGELA ORTIZ can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights