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
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 3 and 5-8 have been cancelled.
No new claims have been introduced.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are currently pending.
The removal or addition of prior art is not necessarily a concession that the amendments overcame the prior art, but due to overlapping/redundant disclosures.
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.
CLAIM 1 IS 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 1 is directed to a method identifying a wheel location (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 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 follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold text) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 Recites:
(Currently Amended) A method of localizing installation positions of electronic wheel units arranged on vehicle wheels of a vehicle, the method comprising:
determining, with a control device arranged on the vehicle, an initial localization assignment of the electronic wheel units to the vehicle wheels based on a correlation of localization parameter values measured by the electronic wheel units;
acquiring a respective cumulative number of revolutions of each vehicle wheel of the vehicle wheels over a time span using the electronic wheel units;
determining, with the control device, coincidence of the respective cumulative number of revolutions for at least two electronic wheel units based on the respective cumulative number of revolutions being within a tolerance threshold of one another, wherein the tolerance threshold is dynamic and is based on a total number of revolutions for the respective cumulative number of revolutions and the time span;
identifying, with the control device arranged on the vehicle, conjoint electronic wheel units among the electronic wheel units for which the respective cumulative number of revolutions coincide wherein the control device identifies the conjoint electronic wheel units based on comparing with one another the cumulative numbers of revolutions of the vehicle wheels with respect to the tolerance threshold; and
verifying plausibility of the initial localization assignment by comparing the identification of the conjoint electronic wheel units with the initial localization assignment without measuring received signal strengths of radio signals.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed limitation covers performances within the limitations of the human mind. For example, the initial “determining” is equivalent to a person of ordinary skill observing sensor data or an interface and forming a simple judgement based upon symbols or text as to the location of “unit/sensor” (based upon signal strength, etc.). The second “determining” is a simple determination based upon rotation count (see example below). Further, “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing data collected from vehicle sensors representing rpm’s of vehicle wheels and forming a simple judgement. For example, wheel rpm data collected using a sensor during maneuvering, for example turning, would show four different sets of RPM data due to all of the wheels having a different turning radius, and determining location of the wheel, most resolutions corresponding to the front outer, followed by rear outside, then front inside, and lastly rear inside. Additionally, during acceleration, due to slip, rear wheels will spin while front wheels remain stationary, thus observed data would show that the two wheels showing “slip” approximately coincide on the same axle. Lastly, comparing (“verifying”) initial data/input against accumulated/aggregated data is well within the limits of the human mind. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea that can be practically performed in the mind.
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 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”):
Claim 1 Recites:
(Currently Amended) A method of localizing installation positions of electronic wheel units arranged on vehicle wheels of a vehicle, the method comprising:
determining, with a control device arranged on the vehicle, an initial localization assignment of the electronic wheel units to the vehicle wheels based on a correlation of localization parameter values measured by the electronic wheel units;
acquiring a respective cumulative number of revolutions of each vehicle wheel of the vehicle wheels over a time span using the electronic wheel units;
determining, with the control device, coincidence of the respective cumulative number of revolutions for at least two electronic wheel units based on the respective cumulative number of revolutions being within a tolerance threshold of one another, wherein the tolerance threshold is dynamic and is based on a total number of revolutions for the respective cumulative number of revolutions and the time span;
identifying, with the control device arranged on the vehicle, conjoint electronic wheel units among the electronic wheel units for which the respective cumulative number of revolutions coincide wherein the control device identifies the conjoint electronic wheel units based on comparing with one another the cumulative numbers of revolutions of the vehicle wheels with respect to the tolerance threshold; and
verifying plausibility of the initial localization assignment by comparing the identification of the conjoint electronic wheel units with the initial localization assignment without measuring received signal strengths of radio signals.
For the following reason(s), 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 “acquiring”, the examiner submits that this limitation is an insignificant extra-solution (pre-solution) activity using generic sensors to perform the data acquisition process. The receiving step from sensors (electronic wheel units) is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle/tire condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution). Further, the recited “control device” equates to “how to apply” the exception. Lastly, the required temporal function, counting function, and threshold is an expansion on the rules for hoe to apply the otherwise mental process. 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). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (an application that cannot be practically performed in the human mind; in this case, one of ordinary skill would be able to observe sensor data collected and determine, based upon rpm data, wheels that coincide at a location or axle). To the examiner’s best understanding, using sensors to count, and comparing counting’s, is not significantly more the attempted monopoly of the claimed mental process. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using contemporary sensors to perform data acquisition amounts to pre-solution activity using contemporary electronics. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation of “acquiring” via “electronic wheel units” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors (pressure, acceleration) are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle/tire. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The examiner respectfully submits, claim 1 claims an observation and determination well within the limitation of the human mind, is devoid of a control or command beyond the limitation of the human mind, and further, that the data acquisition step amounts to insignificant pre-solution activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2 and 4 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are an expansion on how the exception is to be applied, are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception, or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application beyond the limitations of the human mind. Claims 1-2 and 4 do not contain a control, command, triggering event, or a step is a process beyond the limitations of the human mind and applies the mental process with a processor. Therefore, dependent claims 2-4 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas (US 20160263951 A1) in view of Juzswik (US 20130218364 A1) in further view of Graham (US 20150057876 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 1, Haas discloses, determining, with a control device arranged on the vehicle (Haas: [0049-0053]), an initial localization assignment of the electronic wheel units to the vehicle wheels based on a correlation of localization parameter values measured by the electronic wheel units (Haas: [0049-0053]); acquiring a respective cumulative number of revolutions (Haas: [0042]; [0047-0048]) of each vehicle wheel of the vehicle wheels over a time span using the electronic wheel units (Haas: [0005]; [0038]; [0042]); identifying, with the control device arranged on the vehicle, conjoint electronic wheel units among the electronic wheel units (Haas: [0046]) for which the respective cumulative number of revolutions coincide (Haas: [0039]) wherein the control device identifies the conjoint electronic wheel units based on comparing with one another the cumulative numbers of revolutions of the vehicle wheels (Haas: [0042]; [0047-0048]) and verifying plausibility of the initial localization assignment by comparing the identification of the conjoint electronic wheel units with the initial localization assignment (Haas: [0049-0053]) without measuring received signal strengths of radio signals (Haas: [ABS]).
Haas does not explicitly disclose, determining, with the control device, coincidence of the respective cumulative number of revolutions for at least two electronic wheel units based on the respective cumulative number of revolutions being within a tolerance threshold of one another, and is based on a total number of revolutions for the respective cumulative number of revolutions and the time span; with respect to the tolerance threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Juzswik discloses, determining, with the control device, coincidence of the respective cumulative number of revolutions for at least two electronic wheel units (Juzswik: [0040-0041] ... is affirmative, the wheel angles from all four wheels are temporarily stored ... a determination is made as to whether there has been a sufficient amount of data collected to make a location determination ... 10-20 samplings of data before a location determinations is made ... The vehicle-based receiver/controller 44 correlates the sensors S1, S2, S3, and S4 with tire locations FR, FL, RR, and RL on the vehicle; [0048-0049] One of the inside tire or outside tire or both of the tires of the dually pair can be used for the corner location ... the tire 212 is associated with the corner location at 206, the relationship between the signals of the tire condition sensor units 222 and 226 are used to determine the relative location between the two tires, namely the inside or outside location. This inside or outside location determination is accomplished by monitoring the lead/lag relationship of the transmitted signals which are offset by 130 degrees) based on the respective cumulative number of revolutions being within a tolerance threshold of one another (Juzswik: [0031]; [0038]; [0041]), and is based on a total number of revolutions for the respective cumulative number of revolutions and the time span (Juzswik: [0037] During a first ten minute period after initial tire rotation begins, it may be desirable to transmit a tire condition signal forty times); with respect to the tolerance threshold (Juzswik: [0031]; [0038]; [0041]), for the benefit of determining a condition and relative location of an inner tire and an outer tire of a tire pair mounted on a vehicle, and determining a phase relationship (lead/lag) between the inner tire and the outer tire relative to the tire rotation signal.
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 process disclosed by Haas to include 10-20 samplings taught by Juzswik. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to determine a condition and relative location of an inner tire and an outer tire of a tire pair mounted on a vehicle, and determine a phase relationship (lead/lag) between the inner tire and the outer tire relative to the tire rotation signal.
The examiner respectfully submits, Haas, as modified, discloses, determining, with the control device, coincidence of the respective cumulative number of revolutions for at least two electronic wheel units based on the respective cumulative number of revolutions being within a tolerance threshold of one another, wherein the tolerance threshold is dynamic and is based on a total number of revolutions for the respective cumulative number of revolutions and the time span; with respect to the tolerance threshold.
However, in the alternative, Graham discloses, determining, with the control device, coincidence of the respective cumulative number of revolutions for at least two electronic wheel units based on the respective cumulative number of revolutions being within a tolerance threshold of one another (Graham: [0049-0050] each correlated ABS tooth count per RF transmission is converted into an equivalent bin number and stored along with a number of occurrences of the same bin number in an array. The equivalent bin numbers and the number of occurrences of identical bin numbers are represented in two-dimensional histogram. For each histogram, a confidence interval width value is calculated; [0106-0116] On the other hand, a left rear ABS sensor shows a statistically significant and consistent tooth count values, i.e., 32, 30, 29, 30, 31 at the first time (T1) for the first five transmissions ... A confidence interval provides a range of values which is likely to indicate the population parameter, or the population characteristics. Confidence intervals are constructed at a confidence level, such as 95%; [0124] Only data points which lie within the boundary of the observed confidence level may be considered in the calculation of the COIN width and therefore, extreme data points outside the observed confidence region will likely have no bearing on the COIN width value and the auto-location of the wheel), wherein the tolerance threshold is dynamic (Graham: [0122] Referring to FIGS. 15, 25 and 26, another embodiment of auto-location of wheel units 101, 102, 103 and 104 is further described. In step 1510 of FIG. 15, the location of a wheel unit is further defined by using a COIN width threshold. In one embodiment, the COIN width threshold may be used along with the lowest COIN width value. Alternatively, the COIN width threshold may be used along with both the lowest COIN width value and the COIN width margin criteria. FIG. 25 illustrates two examples of COIN width threshold techniques. The COIN width threshold may be fixed or dynamically changing; [0124] Only data points which lie within the boundary of the observed confidence level may be considered in the calculation of the COIN width and therefore, extreme data points outside the observed confidence region will likely have no bearing on the COIN width value and the auto-location of the wheel) and is based on a total number of revolutions for the respective cumulative number of revolutions and the time span; with respect to the tolerance threshold (Graham: [0071] In one embodiment, the Predetermined Time (T2-1) may be fixed and selected to ensure multiple wheel rotations between the first time (T1) and the second time (T2). In case the difference in wheel speed between vehicle wheels may be small, setting the value of the Predetermined Time (T2-T1) to cover multiple wheel rotations may improve accuracy of the auto-location; [0049-0051] each correlated ABS tooth count per RF transmission is converted into an equivalent bin number and stored along with a number of occurrences of the same bin number in an array. The equivalent bin numbers and the number of occurrences of identical bin numbers are represented in two-dimensional histogram. For each histogram, a confidence interval width value is calculated; [0107-0117]; [0124] Only data points which lie within the boundary of the observed confidence level may be considered in the calculation of the COIN width and therefore, extreme data points outside the observed confidence region will likely have no bearing on the COIN width value and the auto-location of the wheel), for the benefit of identifies the specific location of the wheel whose ABS sensor shows a lowest confidence interval width as a result of a normal distribution pattern or similar pattern.
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 process disclosed by a modified Haas to include dynamic thresholds taught by Graham. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to identifies the specific location of the wheel whose ABS sensor shows a lowest confidence interval width as a result of a normal distribution pattern or similar pattern.
REGARDING CLAIM 2, Haas, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Juzswik also discloses, acquiring the respective cumulative number of revolutions using an acceleration sensor arranged in the respective electronic wheel unit (Juzswik: [ABS]; [0026]; [0022]; [0030]).
REGARDING CLAIM 4, Haas, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Juzswik also discloses, acquiring the respective cumulative number of revolutions by means of a counter updated with each full revolution of the relevant vehicle wheel (Juzswik: [0026]; [0034]; [0026-0027] ¶'s 0026-0027 disclose a count resetting at a zero position as a reference point after every 180 degrees and knowing every pulse is 5 degrees …; [0033-0038] further discloses the counting method ...).
Response to Arguments
No arguments received.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Gow (US 20170203619 A1)
Greer (US 20110313623 A1)
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