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 Arguments
112 Rejection
Based on applicant’s filed amendments, the previously set forth 112(b) rejections have been overcome. However, based on the newly filed amendments, new 112(b) rejections have been applied.
102 Rejection
Applicant argues Ribreau does not teach the newly recited limitations, citing to how Ribreau compares CRC’s upon pressure changing events. The examiner would like to point below for the Office’s position regarding the newly added limitations, as the examiner is not relying on a disclosed alternative within Ribreau.
As described below, Ribreau discloses an alternative wherein data is sent by a repairer. This data, which does include a unique identification code, will also include data indicating an unused state through the absence of information regarding mileage and wear. This absence will indicate a newly, installed tire. Upon installation, the pressure sensor will be polled to measure pressure, disclose as being used in the estimation of tread-depth [0080], insofar as how the estimating of tread-depth is defined within the claim.
Therefore, the prior art reference Ribreau reads on the claimed invention, as best understood by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 9, the examiner is unclear how the claimed apparatus is configured to perform steps. What is the structure of the apparatus performing these steps. Is a vehicle control system of a vehicle part of the apparatus? Is the control system performing the “determining, based on the tire identifier, whether the tire is in an unused state” and the claimed “automatically initializing tread-depth estimation”? If so, what structure of the apparatus performs the claimed steps?
Claims 2, 10 and 17 are unclear. Claim 10 recites the apparatus is further configured to perform the step of including a tread-depth estimation in one or more usage metrics for the tire. However, the examiner is unsure how the apparatus is configured to perform this step. For example, what structure is performing the claimed step?
Further, with respect to claim 2, 10 and 17, how is a tread-depth estimation included in one or more metrics? What are these metrics and how can more than one that includes the tread-depth estimation? Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ribreau et al. (WO 2019/229343A1).
With respect to claim 9, Ribreau et al. teaches an apparatus (10; Fig. 1) configured to perform steps comprising: receiving (via a communication module), by a vehicle control system of a vehicle (i.e. an on-board computer of the motor vehicle having a tire; [0076]), a tire identifier for a tire corresponding to a tire sensor (i.e. Ribreau et al. teaches configuration data being sent to the control device 10 that includes a serial number that unique identifies the tire, geometry, type of rubber, etc. [0071]; Ribreau et al. also discloses the tire identifier being sent to the control device 10 by an repairer; [0088]); determining, based on the tire identifier (sent by the repair), whether the tire is in an unused state (as when the identifier information is sent by the repair, there will be no configuration data relative to that new tire’s milage or wear level, which would be indicated by an absence of stored usage data associated with the tire identifier for that newly changed tire; insofar as how the apparatus is “configured” to make this type of determination); and responsive to the determining whether the tire is in an unused state (i.e. a new tire, as indicated by the configuration data being absent any information regarding milage or thread-depth), automatically initializing tread-depth estimation (which uses pressure sensor data; [0080]) for the tire (i.e. the newly installed tire) when the tire is in the unused state (as once mounted, Ribreau teaches polling a pressure sensor for measuring the pressure within the tire which is used to deduce tread depth/wear at latter points of operation; [0080], [0102-0103] ), or continuing tread-depth estimation using available usage data when the tire is not in the unused state (i.e. as Ribreau teaches if the apparatus determines a tire change did not occur, tread-depth estimation resumes for that tired and new data for that tire is retained; [0102]).
The method steps of claim 1 are performed during the operation of the rejected structure of claim 9.
With respect to claim 17, Ribreau et al. teaches a computer program product [0077] disposed upon a non-transitory computer readable medium [0077-0079], the computer program product comprising computer program instructions [0077], that when executed, cause a computer system (i.e. an on-board computer) to perform the steps occurring during the operation of the rejected structure of claim 9.
With respect to claims 2, 10 and 18, Ribreau et al. teaches the apparatus (10; Fig. 1) is further configured to perform the step of including a tread-depth estimation in one or more usage metrics for the tire (as best understood by the examiner based on the above 112(b) rejection, Ribreau teaches performing the step of tread-depth estimation as one of the metrics for the newly changed tire upon determination that the tire is new; [0102-0103]).
With respect to claims 3, 11 and 19, Ribreau et al. teaches the apparatus (10; Fig. 1) wherein the one or more usage metrics further comprise a distance traveled for the tire (i.e. a tire’s millage; [0081]).
With respect to claims 4, 12 and 20, Ribreau et al. teaches the apparatus (10; Fig. 1) wherein determining whether the tire is in an unused state comprises querying a database (for example a remote server [0099] which would require a database for such information exchange) with the tire identifier (as Ribreau et al. teaches the control device requests configuration data when the received data or sensed pressure indicates a possible tire change; [0097-0103]).
With respect to claims 5 and 13, Ribreau et al. teaches the apparatus (10; Fig. 1) wherein the steps further comprise: receiving, from the database (i.e. the remote server which would require a database from storing such information), data indicating the one or more usage metrics for the tire (i.e. advanced data); and storing, in the tire sensor (via the memory found in the control device 10), the one or more usage metrics (as Ribreau et al. teaches if the determination indicates the tire was not changed, the advanced data is not erased but rather updated with the repair history, [0103-0106]).
With respect to claims 6 and 14, Ribreau et al. teaches the apparatus (10; Fig. 1) wherein the steps further comprise updating, in the tire sensor (via the memory found in the control device 10), data indicating the one or more usage metrics of the tire (as when the control device determines the tire is not new after re-pressurized, the advanced data is updated; [0103-0106]).
With respect to claims 7 and 15, Ribreau et al. teaches the apparatus (10; Fig. 1) wherein the steps further comprise updating, in a database (i.e. remote server), data indicating the one or more usage metrics of the tire (as Ribreau et al. teaches updating the advanced data; [0102] in a remote car maintenance center [0083] or server [0089], which would require a database for such updating).
With respect to claims 8 and 16, Ribreau et al. teaches the apparatus (10; Fig. 1) wherein the tire identifier is received from the tire sensor (as the tire sensor includes the memory storing configuration data for that tire; [0010-0014]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Achterholt et al. (2019/0344625) which teaches using a tire sensor and a database to determine the wear of a tire.
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 MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853