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
Examiner’s Response re: 101 Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 21 Nov 2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendments to Claim 21 do not overcome the rejection since merely consisting of identifying the tires and noting the respective air temperature pertaining to the tire and its rise times that’s respective to the corresponding wheel position can be easily performed utilizing pencil and paper. Also, as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g), the pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions as another example. Furthermore, rolling in previously rejected claims such as Claims 22-24 do no overcome the 101 rejection since these claims are also a mental process.
Examiner’s Response re: 103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 13-15, filed 21 Nov 24, with respect to Claims 21, 25-33, and 37-40 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of Claims 21, 25-33, and 37-40 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21, 25-33, and 37-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis of Claim 21:
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that Claim 21 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does Claim 21 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a method which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent Claim 21 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites as follows:
Claim 21. A computer-implemented method for vehicle wheel position localization, the method comprising:
accumulating in data storage information regarding temperature characteristics corresponding to each of a respective plurality of wheel positions for each of one or more types of vehicles, wherein the information regarding temperature characteristics comprises information regarding temperature rise characteristics associated with a given load;
collecting contained air temperature data from one or more sensors respectively associated with each of a plurality of tires mounted on a vehicle;
identifying at least a first subset and a second subset of the tires mounted on the vehicle based on comparison of respectively collected contained air temperature information against at least a first temperature characteristic signature comprising information distinguishing wheel positions according to temperature rise times;
for each of the plurality of tires, identifying a respective wheel position based on the respective subset and further based on a second temperature characteristic signature comprising information distinguishing wheel positions according to steady state temperature values.
The method in Claim 21 recites a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and use of a physical aid (e.g. pen and paper) to help perform a mental step does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, therefore, an abstract idea. The limitations of Claim 21 bolded above merely consist of identifying the tires and noting the respective air temperature pertaining to the tire and its rise times that’s respective to the corresponding wheel position.
This is equivalent of a person mentally observing and annotating on with paper and pencil the tires air temperature compared to the first characteristic and the corresponding wheel position and then repeating according to wheel position based on steady state temperatures. As discussed at MPEP 2106.05(g), the tasks are viewed as Insignificant Application similar to that obtaining information about transactions using the internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 21. A computer-implemented method for vehicle wheel position localization, the method comprising:
accumulating in data storage information regarding temperature characteristics corresponding to each of a respective plurality of wheel positions for each of one or more types of vehicles, wherein the information regarding temperature characteristics comprises information regarding temperature rise characteristics associated with a given load;
collecting contained air temperature data from one or more sensors respectively associated with each of a plurality of tires mounted on a vehicle;
identifying at least a first subset and a second subset of the tires mounted on the vehicle based on comparison of respectively collected contained air temperature information against at least a first temperature characteristic signature comprising information distinguishing wheel positions according to temperature rise times;
for each of the plurality of tires, identifying a respective wheel position based on the respective subset and further based on a second temperature characteristic signature comprising information distinguishing wheel positions according to steady state temperature values.
Claim 21 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
Specifically, regarding the additional limitations such as, “accumulating in data storage…” and “collecting contained air temperature data…”, these limitations are claimed generically and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. Also, the limitation “collecting contained air temperature data…” is pre of the pre/post solution activities, respectively, and as such, these additional limitations of Claim 21 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Regarding Step 2B, Claim 21 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field 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. Accumulating and collecting are fundamental, i.e. WURC, associated with gathering information either from data storage or sensors as in Claim 21. Further, applicant’s specification merely recites that the sensor is a TMPS and merely uses this tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g) describes insignificant extra solution activity that indicates that the data gathering is mere performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
CONCLUSION
Thus, since Claim 21 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that Claims 25-31 are also directed towards non-statutory subject matter and therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101. Furthermore, Claims 32-33 and 37-43 are commensurate to Claim 21 and thus directed to an abstract ideas.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21, 25-33, and 37-43 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art, Luo US 20200406690 A1 (herein, Luo) discloses the embodiments of the present invention relate to the technical field of automobiles and disclose a tire positioning method and apparatus, an electronic control unit (ECU) and a tire pressure sensor. The method includes: successively controlling, within a transmission cycle, one of L exciter sets to send a low-frequency signal, L being an integer greater than 1; receiving high-frequency signals fed back by N tire pressure sensors according to the low-frequency signals, N being an integer greater than 1; determining a correspondence between one of the L exciter sets and M tire pressure sensors according to the high-frequency signals, M being an integer greater than 1; and after a quantity of transmission cycles reaches a preset threshold, determining a tire corresponding to each of the N tire pressure sensors according to the correspondence between the exciter set and the M tire pressure sensors determined in each transmission cycle. The tire positioning method is accurate and reliable.
Further, Singh et al. US 20170129498 A1 (herein, Singh) teaches a tire tracking system and method for tracking travel mileage experienced by a vehicle tire includes multiple tire-based sensors affixed to the tire generating identified tire-specific operating condition measurements. The tire-specific operating condition measurements include tire temperature, tire air inflation pressure, a tire wear state measurement and a tire load measurement. A rolling radius estimation model generates a tire rolling radius estimation compensated by the tire-specific operating condition measurements and a vehicle speed estimator generates a vehicle speed estimation based on the compensated tire rolling radius.
Still further, Iizuka US 20230351824 A1 (herein, Iizuka) further teaches, an air pressure management device includes: a temperature conversion air pressure calculation unit that calculates a temperature conversion air pressure based on acquired temperature and air pressure of a tire; an air pressure decrease rate calculation unit that calculates an air pressure decrease rate from a change in the temperature conversion air pressure for a predetermined period, the rate indicating a declining trend of the air pressure; an air pressure decrease rate threshold value setting unit that sets an air pressure decrease rate threshold value corresponding to an acquired thermal history amount using a threshold value table, the threshold value table specifying the air pressure decrease rate threshold value associated with the thermal history amount regarding the tire; and a first determination unit that determines whether the air pressure is abnormal based on the calculated air pressure decrease rate and the set air pressure decrease rate threshold value.
Regarding Claims 21, 32, 41, and 43:
…
identify at least a first subset and a second subset of the tires mounted on the vehicle based on comparison of respectively collected contained air temperature information against at least a first temperature characteristic signature comprising information distinguishing wheel positions according to temperature rise times;
…
identifying a respective wheel position, based on a comparison of the collected contained air temperature over a period of time with respect to the stored information regarding temperature characteristics
Claims 25-31 are also allowed due to dependency on Claim 21. Claims 33 and 37-40 are also allowed due to dependency on Claim 32. Lastly, Claim 42 is also allowed due to dependency on Claim 41.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LUIS G DEL VALLE whose telephone number is (303)297-4313. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 0730 - 1630 MST.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313) 446-6519. 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.
/LUIS G DEL VALLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights