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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been carefully considered and are not deemed persuasive of error.
The Applicant argues, regarding claim 1 and similarly to claim 14:
Applicant has revised claim 1 to more specifically set forth that the claimed tire monitoring device (set forth in claim 1): 1) is mounted on a wheel; and 2) includes a wireless transceiver that broadcasts the specifically claims message. In other words, broadcasts are performed from each wheel - this specifically claimed technique is not taught by Lim, or its alleged combination with Kauppila.
Lim does mention "broadcasting." However, it is mentioned in the context of a "repeater" - not a tire monitoring device that is mounted to a wheel as claimed. Abstract ("the repeater (300) is adapted for sufficiently transmitting, storing, receiving, retrieving, accumulating, pairing, sharing and/or broadcasting data.").
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lim teaches “broadcasting parameters to the other devices a) at least one cluster module having a repeater in communication with at least one sensor unit for measuring at least one parameter relating to the condition of an article; wherein the repeater is adapted for sufficiently transmitting, storing, receiving, retrieving, accumulating, pairing, sharing and/or broadcasting data or other related information of the sensor unit among the at least one cluster module; and wherein the at least one cluster module is adapted to be either communicated or paired with any other cluster module(s) or with a main controller via the repeater) – see page 4 lines 3-11). This indicates that the cluster module (which can contain at least one sensor) can communicate directly within another cluster module (which can also include at least one sensor) without the use of the repeater, since the repeater is optional (the “or” statement). This suggests that the Lim reference contemplate that the sensors could communicate directly. Sensors are place directly on the wheels – see page 11 lines 12-19.
Applicant argues:
Moreover, Lim contains no teaching of broadcasting a cryptographic parameter from wireless transceiver of a tire monitoring device that is mounted on a wheel as claimed. Instead, as noted above, the repeater that is mentioned in Lim performs the broadcasts and not any component, much less a tire monitoring device that is mounted on the wheel. Thus, Lim fails to teach broadcasting a cryptographic parameter, but it also fails to teach broadcasting a cryptographic parameter from a tire monitoring device. The additional reliance on Kauppila cannot cure these deficiencies as there is no disclosure in Kauppila of broadcasting a message comprising a cryptographic parameter from each wireless transceiver of each tire monitoring device that is mounted to the corresponding wheel.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lim teaches broadcasting from a wireless transceiver of each tire monitoring device that is mounted to the corresponding wheel tire, as discussed above - (see page 4 lines 3-11). Additionally, as explained above, the modification of Lim with Kaupilla suggests broadcasting the cryptographic parameter to the other tire monitoring devices in order to agree upon cipher suites, authenticate, etc. – see [0033] – [0039]. Lim also teaches that the communications between devices may require encryption in order to be more secure (see page 11 lines 6-11). This further suggests the need for the exchange of cryptographic parameters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lim by exchanging cryptographic parameters in order to agree on algorithms and allow the devices to authenticate themselves and determine which cipher suites to use to secure communications, based upon the beneficial teachings provided by Kaupilla. These modifications would result in increased security to the system, especially since Lim teaches the need for encryption of communications to keep the system secure (see page 11 lines 6-11).
Applicant argues:
In a nutshell, claim 1 sets forth features that use broadcasting, as opposed to, unicasting, cryptographic parameters from tire monitoring devices that mounted on a corresponding wheel. This technique improves the efficiency of communications in a network of tire monitoring devices (e.g., over those that use unicast) because each tire monitoring devices broadcasts from the wireless transceiver that is mounted on the wheel. Applicant further respectfully submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified the repeater teachings in Lim to arrive at the specifically claimed broadcasting features. For example, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to mount Lim's repeater to the wheel such that a broadcast is performed from the wheel. This is because, as mentioned in Lim, a repeater is used to "amplify or replicate the signal of sensors located further away from the in-car unit in order for it to be able to reach the in-car unit at the head of the vehicle" Accordingly Lim teaches that the repeater should located closer (e.g., than the sensors) to in-car unit in order for it to be able to reach the in-car unit at the head of the vehicle." Given this teachings, a person of ordinary skill would not have simply placed the repeater onto a wheel. Applicant accordingly respectfully submits that it would not have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the specifically claimed subject matter considering the teachings of Lim and Kauppila.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, in page 4 lines 3-11, Lim suggests that the sensors could communicate directly with one another. It is contemplated that the repeater may not be required. Additionally, as explained above, the modification of Lim with Kaupilla suggests broadcasting the cryptographic parameter to the other tire monitoring devices in order to agree upon cipher suites, authenticate, etc. (see above response to argument). Lim also teaches that the communications between devices may require encryption in order to be more secure (see page 11 lines 6-11). This further suggests the need for the exchange of cryptographic parameters. It is the combination of references that teaches the limitation.
Therefore, the combination of references reasonably suggests the claim limitations.
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “a plurality of tire monitoring devices” in claim 17.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Paragraph [0059] describes a tire pressure monitoring device (which is being interpreted by the Examiner as a tire monitoring device, based on applicant’s specification and claims) as: A tire pressure monitoring device 10 according to an example is shown schematically in Figure 1. The tire pressure monitoring device 10 comprises a processor 12, a memory 14, a transceiver 16, a visual indicator or display which is an LED 18 in this example, a sensor 19 and a power source 21. [0060] The processor 12 may be any suitable processor including single and multi-core processors, an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) or like. The processor 12 is communicatively coupled to the transceiver 16, the LED 18, the memory 14 and the power source 21. The processor 12 is configured to generate various cryptographic parameters, as will be discussed hereinafter.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 10, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (WO 2017/179968 – Applicant’s IDS) in view of Kauppila et al. (US 2021/0136157).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 15, Lim teaches a method (and corresponding devices and systems) of exchanging parameters in a network of tire monitoring devices mounted on a corresponding wheel of a vehicle, each of the tire monitoring devices including a corresponding wireless transceiver (see page 11 lines 12-19), the method comprising broadcasting, from each wireless transceiver of each tire monitoring device that is mounted to the corresponding wheel and to a plurality of other tire monitoring devices, a parameter generated from that respective tire monitoring device (a wireless cluster based system for communication between sensor networks. Accordingly, the wireless cluster based system includes: a) at least one cluster module having a repeater in communication with at least one sensor unit for measuring at least one parameter relating to the condition of an article; wherein the repeater is adapted for sufficiently transmitting, storing, receiving, retrieving, accumulating, pairing, sharing and/or broadcasting data or other related information of the sensor unit among the at least one cluster module; and wherein the at least one cluster module is adapted to be either communicated or paired with any other cluster module(s) or with a main controller via the repeater. It will be appreciated that the wireless communication between at least one cluster module, the repeater, the at least one sensor unit, and the controller is preferably performed by using Bluetooth Technology, WiFi, near field communication (NFC), Zigbee, ANT+ or any other wireless or Radio Frequency (RF) connection. In the preferred exemplary of the present invention, the article is preferably, but not limited to, a vehicle such as a trailer, truck or lorry, or other moving object. It will be appreciated that the at least one sensor unit of the present invention is preferably disposed at each tire of the vehicle for measuring at least one parameter relating to the condition of the tire. By way of example but not limitation, the parameter relating to the condition of the tire measured by the sensor unit includes tire pressure, temperature, wheel speed, acceleration, and/or distance information of the vehicle – see page 4 lines 3-11).
Lim contemplates that the repeater is optional, which would indicate that the sensors themselves communicate directly with one another (wherein the at least one cluster module is adapted to be either communicated or paired with any other cluster module(s) or with a main controller via the repeater) – see page 4 lines 3-11. Lim also states that the sensors are mounted on the wheels – see page 4 lines 3-11.
Lim does not teach that the parameter is a cryptographic parameter, but does teach that the communications between devices may require encryption in order to be more secure (It will also be appreciated that the wireless cluster system (100) is capable of integrating or incorporating encryption between at least one cluster module (200), the repeater (300), the at least one sensor unit (400), and the controller (500) into the wireless communication such that to ensure all units are in association therewith to avoid any violation or theft issues. Thus, the security is increased because each repeater has specific identification (ID) (e.g. the encryption data) and locked with each paired sensor. Besides, the accuracy and efficiency for transmitting, storing, receiving / retrieving, accumulating, pairing, sharing and/or broadcasting data or other related information – see page 11 lines 6-11).
Kaupilla teaches: a client device may use one or more security protocols to authenticate with another server, whereby the client device may use an authentication key exchange protocol to mutually authenticate with the server 4 and to negotiate/establish security parameters. In embodiments the authentication key exchange protocol is a full handshake (e.g. TLS/DTLS handshake), whereby a full handshake involves the exchange of communications between the client device and the server to allow both peers to establish or negotiate security parameters, to allow each peer authenticate the other, to negotiate and to instantiate negotiated security parameters and to report any error conditions. Exchange communications to agree on algorithms. For example, the client device 2 and a server 4, may need to confirm which algorithm(s) or ciphers or cipher suites they will use to secure communication sessions with cryptographic keys. Exchange the necessary cryptographic parameters needed for use of the proposed algorithms. Exchange certificates (e.g. X.509 certificates) and cryptographic information to allow the client device and server to authenticate themselves. Generate a master secret from a premaster secret – see [0033] – [0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lim by exchanging cryptographic parameters in order to agree on algorithms and allow the devices to authenticate themselves and determine which cipher suites to use to secure communications, based upon the beneficial teachings provided by Kaupilla. These modifications would result in increased security to the system.
Regarding claims 16-18 and 20, the Examiner notes that Lim is directed towards vehicles which require tire pressure monitoring. Lim states “the article is preferably, but not limited to, a vehicle such as a trailer, truck or lorry, or other moving object.” Aircraft clearly fall within this list, as they are a vehicle/moving object which also require tire pressure monitoring.
Regarding claim 10, Lim teaches that the plurality of tire monitoring devices comprises at least three tire monitoring devices – see figure 1 and claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, Lim teaches that the plurality of tire monitoring devices comprises a plurality of tire pressure monitoring devices (see page 6, last paragraph – sensor unit includes tire pressure).
Claims 2, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (WO 2017/179968 – Applicant’s IDS) in view of Kauppila et al. (US 2021/0136157), and further in view of Micciancio (Commitment Schemes).
The teachings of Lim and Kauppila have been relied upon for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 5, Lim and Kauppila do not teach that the cryptographic parameter comprises a cryptographic commitment, or broadcasting an input to the open the cryptographic commitment and verifying the commitments receives using the respective inputs.
Micciancio teaches that cryptographic commitments allow a sender to commit a chosen value or statement while keeping it hidden to the receiver, and the receiver has the ability to reveal the commitment later. In the commit phase, the sender holds a message m, picks a random key k (i.e., random number – claim 5), and encodes (commit) the message with k and some randomness r. The encoding result c is called a commitment which sent to the receiver in this phase. In the reveal phase, the sender sends k (i.e., input) to the receiver. The receiver can open the commitment c using k, and then use check (i.e., verify) to determine whether to accept or reject that commitment – see 1.1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lim and Kauppila by generating cryptographic commitments and using them for verification, in order to secure communications, based upon the beneficial teachings provided by Micciancio. These modifications would result in increased security to the system.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (WO 2017/179968 – Applicant’s IDS) in view of Kauppila et al. (US 2021/0136157), and further in view of Ju et al. (US 10,630,477).
The teachings of Lim and Kauppila have been relied upon for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 4, Lim and Kauppila do not teach broadcasting a public key and generating the cryptographic parameter using the public keys.
Ju teaches: broadcasting, by each node, its public key puki to other nodes, and combining n public keys pukx into a complete public key PUK according to an elliptic curve operation after receiving the public keys pukx broadcasted by other n−1 nodes, performing, by each node, the (t, n) threshold processing on its private key ptki according to the secret sharing protocol to map ptki to n segments ptkij, and sending ptkij to a corresponding node numbered j, and selecting t available nodes, when a signature is performed, and recovering, by each of the t available nodes, the received n ptkij according to a recovery method of the selected secret sharing protocol to obtain ptki′ - see column 2 lines 21-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lim and Kauppila by broadcasting public keys in order to generate a complete public key (i.e., cryptographic parameter), in order to complete an overall signature, based upon the beneficial teachings provided by Ju. These modifications would result in increased security to the system.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (WO 2017/179968 – Applicant’s IDS) in view of Kauppila et al. (US 2021/0136157), and further in view of Tang et al. (CN 113472790).
The teachings of Lim and Kauppila have been relied upon for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Lim and Kauppila do not teach providing at each tire monitoring device, a signal indicative of a state of the tire monitoring device and verifying by an operator whether each signal matches each other signal, and wherein the signal is based on configuration data and public keys generated and received by the devices.
Tang teaches: specifically, it can use the Hash algorithm (such as MD5) agreed with the server, performing Hash calculation to the root certificate public key, to obtain the hash value of the root certificate public key, marked as Hash1. then reading the configuration file Client.xml of the client, polling all nodes in the Client.xml (certificate information), and matching the Hash1 with the node value (the Hash value of the public key certificate), if the Hash1 is matched with the node value of any node, checking by; if all the node values are not matched successfully, then the verification is failed, and the connection is refused – see page 12, second to last paragraph. Although Tang does not explicitly teach including a random number, the Examiner notes that it would notoriously well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce randomness into any secure data in order to provide additional security.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lim and Kauppila by providing signals at each device indicating the state of the device, wherein the signal comprises configuration data, public keys, and random numbers for verification, in order to verify each device, based upon the beneficial teachings provided by Tang. These modifications would result in increased security to the system.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (WO 2017/179968 – Applicant’s IDS) in view of Kauppila et al. (US 2021/0136157), and further in view of Calvert et al. (US 2021/0406893).
The teachings of Lim and Kauppila have been relied upon for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 6, Lim and Kauppila do not teach using configuration data and generating the cryptographic parameter using the configuration data.
Calvert teaches: In some embodiments, the vehicle identification information (i.e., configuration data – note that Applicant’s spec teaches that the aircraft identifier can be the config data) that is received by the merchant is hashed. Generating any one of vehicle identification and user identification information may be performed by a variety of other techniques disclosed herein. In some embodiments, the user identification information and/or vehicle identification information may be a hash value generated by the hash technique (i.e., cryptographic parameter). The hash technique may be based on a cryptographic algorithm or other suitable mathematical algorithms for generating a hash code. For example, values of the action attributes and the mappings (e.g., alphanumeric values) may be converted to data that is further converted into a hash value via the hash function utilizing the hash code – see [0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lim and Kauppila by using the configuration information, such as vehicle/aircraft identifier, to generate the cryptographic parameter, such as a hash value, in order to verify the ID of the aircraft, based upon the beneficial teachings provided by Calvert. These modifications would result in increased security to the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is allowed.
Claims 7-9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art is indicated above. In addition, closest prior art is:
Truu et al. (US 2021/0021429) which teaches: Note that in this system, sk can be used only once, since it is tied to time. A user who wants to generate several tags must prepare as many key pairs. Hash-tree aggregation can be used to combine the public keys of multiple one-time key pairs into one “master” public key, and membership of individual public keys in the set proven/verified using hash chains as in the previous example – see [0045].
Martino et al. (US 2019/0050855) which teaches: According to some embodiments, a blockchain system may be configured for use with one or more public-key signing schemes (e.g., like that of Bitcoin™) in which incoming transactions are signed with a provided public key (or keys). According to some embodiments of a blockchain system, before executing any code the execution environment runtime first verifies all signatures (e.g., aborting a transaction on a verification failure). If all signatures are verified, the execution environment may be populated with any verified keys. Executed code can then match verified keys against one or more predefined rules (a “keyset”) that combine a defined set of public keys with a keyset predicate function. In some embodiments, the keyset predicate function may specify logic determining how transaction keys may match against the keyset, for example: one match only, match all, match a majority, etc. – see [0089].
However, the prior art does not teach or suggest: generating, at each tire monitoring device, a shared key pair for the tire monitoring device and each other tire monitoring device; each shared key pair comprising a first shared key and a second shared key; generating, at each tire monitoring device, using a function based on the respective first shared keys, a value to communicate to each other tire monitoring device; transmitting, from each tire monitoring device to each other tire monitoring device, a respective generated value; verifying, at each tire monitoring device, received generated values; and where received generated values are correctly verified, establishing secure future communication between respective tire monitoring devices using the respective second shared key.
In other words, the prior art does not teach generating the key pairs for itself and every other device, creating the value based on all the keys pairs, sharing the value with the other devices, verifying the received values, and then using the second keys of the key pairs for communication.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA C LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7am-2pm.
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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached at 571-272-3739. 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.
/LISA C LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495