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 .
Status
This Final Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 24 November 2025. Claims 1-8 have been canceled currently or previously.
Claims no claim has been amended, claims 9-21 are pending and presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10 September 2025 and 11 December 2025 were filed after the mailing date of the application on 3 April 2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Examiner’s Detailed Response to Applicant’s Arguments (Stewart, US 2023/0202241)
1. “Additional Information Acquisition Unit” Distinct from Position Detection
Applicant’s Argument:Applicant contends that Stewart’s system does not disclose an “additional information acquisition unit” configured to acquire additional information associated with the position information, and asserts that Stewart’s GPS only provides position and linear velocity, not additional information from a separate unit.
Examiner’s Response:Stewart clearly discloses multiple sensor units, each providing distinct types of information to the vehicle control system (VCS):
Tire Monitoring Sensor (TMS): Stewart at [0035], [0044], [0046], and FIG. 6 describes the TMS as a sensor distinct from the GPS, configured to detect and wirelessly transmit tire parameters such as tread wear data, tire pressure, temperature, stiffness, and more to the VCS. The TMS is a separate “unit” from the GPS.
Vehicle Control System (VCS): Stewart at [0046] and FIG. 4 describes the VCS as receiving data from both the TMS and vehicle-based sensors (e.g., wheel speed, yaw rate, inclination) via a CAN interface.
GPS/Position Detection: Stewart at [0049] and [0054] describes the use of GPS for position and linear velocity.
Association of Information:Stewart [0046], [0052], and [0090] teach that the VCS receives tire parameters (from the TMS) and position/velocity (from GPS), and uses both in its calculations and determinations. For example, the TMS transmits tire ID and location data (see [0089], [0090]), allowing the VCS to associate tire-specific data with the vehicle’s position.
Conclusion:Accordingly, Stewart discloses:
a first unit (GPS) for detecting position information, and
a second, separate “additional information acquisition unit” (TMS) for acquiring additional information (tire parameters), and the VCS receives and associates this information.
2. “Additional Information Associated with the Position Information”
Applicant’s Argument:Applicant asserts that Stewart does not associate additional information (e.g., linear velocity, tire data) with position information, and that the TMS data is not associated with position.
Examiner’s Response:Stewart repeatedly describes the VCS as receiving and using both position (via GPS) and additional tire/vehicle data (via TMS and other sensors) for operational determinations. For example:
[0049], [0052], [0090]: The VCS receives tread wear data, tire pressure, temperature, and tire ID from the TMS, as well as position and velocity from GPS.
[0090]: The VCS uses tire ID to map tire data to tire location on the vehicle, and the vehicle’s position is known via GPS.
[0092], [0094]: The VCS determines tread wear based on received data and can compare to reference values, which may be stored per tire and associated with position or vehicle context.
[0095], [0096]: The VCS can output warnings or determinations based on combined information, such as whether a particular tire at a particular position is worn.
The system thus inherently associates additional information (tire data) with position information (vehicle/tire location) in the course of its determinations.
3. “Determination Unit Configured to Determine Whether a Current Position…Is Included in an Area that Satisfies a Determination Condition Extracted from the Additional Information”
Applicant’s Argument:Applicant argues that Stewart does not disclose a “determination unit” that determines whether a current position is included in an area satisfying a condition extracted from additional information.
Examiner’s Response:Stewart describes the VCS as a controller ([0044], [0047], [0049]) that receives both position and additional tire/vehicle data, and makes determinations based on this information. Specifically:
Determination Unit: The VCS controller (401) is described as receiving data and making determinations regarding tread wear, tire condition, and whether thresholds (conditions) are met ([0047], [0095], [0096]).
Area and Condition: Stewart [0095] teaches that the VCS can compare tread wear or other parameters to thresholds, and [0096] teaches that the VCS can output indications or warnings based on these determinations. The “area” can be understood as the logical mapping of tire position (e.g., left front, right rear) or even geographic regions if the system is fleet-managed ([0001]), and the “determination condition” is the tread wear or safety threshold.
Extraction from Additional Information: Stewart [0094], [0095], [0103] shows that determination conditions (e.g., minimum tread depth, reference radius) are extracted from tire data and compared to current values.
Thus, Stewart’s VCS is configured to determine, based on position and additional information, whether a tire (at a given location/position) meets a determination condition (e.g., is above or below a tread wear threshold), satisfying the claim limitation.
4. “Association” and “Combination” of Data Streams
Applicant’s Argument:Applicant suggests Stewart does not combine or associate position and additional tire information in a way that meets the claim.
Examiner’s Response:Stewart’s architecture is expressly designed for integration and association of data from multiple sources:
[0046]: The VCS receives and processes data from wheel speed, yaw rate, inclination sensors, and the TMS.
[0052], [0090]: The VCS receives tire parameters (including tire ID, tire dimension data, etc.), which allows mapping of each data set to a specific position on the vehicle.
[0094], [0095]: The VCS makes determinations (e.g., tread wear status, warnings) that are inherently based on the association of position (which tire/where on the vehicle) and additional data (tire condition, pressure, etc.).
5. Prima Facie Case of Anticipation/Obviousness
Applicant’s Argument:Applicant asserts that the Office has not established a prima facie case because Stewart allegedly lacks the claimed features.
Examiner’s Response:As shown above, Stewart teaches or suggests every element of claim 9:
Distinct units for position and additional information acquisition (GPS and TMS)
Association of additional information (tire/tread data) with position information (tire/vehicle location)
A determination unit (VCS controller) configured to determine whether a current position (tire/vehicle) meets a condition (e.g., tread depth threshold) extracted from additional information (tire data)
Even if any element were not expressly disclosed, the combination of Stewart with Kim (as cited in the 103 rejection) would render the claim obvious, as Kim teaches integration of position and sensor data for vehicle monitoring and control.
6. Conclusion
For the reasons detailed above, Stewart (US 2023/0202241) discloses or suggests all limitations of claim 9, either expressly or integrally, as required under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The rejection is therefore maintained.
References:
Stewart, US 2023/0202241, paragraphs [0035], [0044]– [0049], [0052], [0090]– [0096], [0103], [0105], Figures 4, 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9-10, 12, 15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102 a (2) as being anticipated by Stewart et. al. (US 2023/0202241 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Stewart discloses a tire information detection device configured to detect tire information including at least one of wear of a tire, deformation of the tire, a road surface state, a ground contact state of the tire, presence or absence of failure of the tire, a travel history of the tire, a load state of the tire, or a frictional coefficient, the tire information detection device comprising (1 and 3):
at least one detection unit disposed on a tire inner surface (Para [5] and [44], tire monitoring sensor);
a power supply unit configured to supply power to the detection unit (Para [60], [69] and [69], Fig 6, element 609);
a position information detection unit configured to detect position information of the tire or a vehicle (Para [6]);
an additional information acquisition unit configured to acquire additional information associated with the position information (Para [44] and [49], linear velocity+TMS);
a determination unit configured to determine whether a current position specified based on the position information is included in an area that satisfies a determination condition extracted from the additional information (Para [44], [46] and Fig 6);
and a control unit configured to control measurement of the detection unit based on a determination result from the determination unit (Para [2], [5], [46], [54] and [110], control unit and tread wear measurement).
Regarding Claim 10, Stewart discloses the tire information detection device according to claim 9, wherein the determination unit has at least two determination conditions and selectively uses the at least two determination conditions according to tire information as the detection target (Para [5], [46], [54] and [73]).
Regarding Claim 12, Stewart discloses the tire information detection device according to claim 9, wherein the tire information includes wear of the tire, the determination unit uses information related to the wear of the tire included in the additional information as the determination condition, and the measurement made by the detection unit is repeated until a tire rotation speed reaches 10 rotations or more (Para [3], [43], [55] and [80]).
Regarding Claim 15, Stewart discloses the tire information detection device according to claim 9, further comprising:
a measurement history recording unit configured to record a measurement history of the detection unit at the current position specified based on the position information, wherein the determination unit uses presence or absence of the measurement history of the detection unit as the determination condition, and the control unit controls the measurement of the detection unit based on the presence or absence of the measurement history of the detection unit in an area including the current position (Para [5], [44], [52], [60], [67] and [94], memory storing data captured by sensors or other data entered.)
As for claims 17 and 20 are rejected based on the same rational as described above in rejection of claims 12 and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 11, 13, 16, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart et. al. (US 2023/0202241 A1) referred to hereafter as Stewart in view of Kim et. al. (US 2017/0124987 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Stewart discloses the tire information detection device according to claim 9 and its limitations, but Stewart does not explicitly disclose:
an accident occurrence risk calculation unit configured to calculate an index value of an accident occurrence risk in each area based on the number of accident occurrences included in the additional information, wherein the determination unit uses the index value of the accident occurrence risk in each area as the determination condition, and the control unit controls the measurement of the detection unit based on the index value of the accident occurrence risk in an area including the current position.
However, Kim clearly teaches the above limitations as disclosed (Para [66], [69], [70], [109], [144], [145], and [253], calculating a risk factor for the vehicle for collision (accident) possibility).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the tire wear monitoring system of Stewart to enhance the monitoring of the tire wear and frequency of collecting data with the risk assessment of the Kim to improve the safety of vehicle operation as well as reducing consumption of energy stored in the battery.
Regarding Claim 13, Stewart discloses the tire information detection device according to claim 9 and its limitations, but Stewart does not explicitly disclose:
a measurement frequency calculation unit configured to calculate an index value of a measurement frequency of the detection unit based on environmental information included in the additional information, wherein the determination unit uses the index value of the measurement frequency of the detection unit as the determination condition, and the control unit controls the measurement of the detection unit based on the index value of the measurement frequency of the detection unit in an area including the current position.
However, Kim clearly teaches the above limitations as disclosed (Stewart [106], Kim Para [66], controller utilizing the ambient environment information acquired by at least one of a camera or other sensors to identify obstacle in path of the vehicle).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the tire wear monitoring system of Stewart to enhance the monitoring of the tire wear and frequency of collecting data with the risk assessment of the Kim to improve the safety of vehicle operation by controller utilizing camera or other sensors to avoid obstacles as well as reducing the possibility of collision in further enhancing the combination of environmental observation along with tire wear monitoring.
Regarding Claim 16, Stewart discloses the tire information detection device according to claim 9 and its limitations, but Stewart does not explicitly disclose:
a danger avoidance behavior recording unit configured to record information about danger avoidance behavior at the current position specified based on the position information; and a danger index calculation unit configured to calculate an index value of danger in each area based on the information about the danger avoidance behavior, wherein the determination unit uses the index value of the danger in each area as the determination condition, and the control unit controls the measurement of the detection unit based on the index value of the danger in an area including the current position.
However, Kim clearly teaches the above limitations as disclosed (Para [50], [65], [142], [143], [145], and [253], controller detecting objects or danger outside of the vehicle and distinguishing dangerous objects or obstacles and it calculates a collision (accident) risk index based on the sensor data collections (camera, GPS, environmental condition, etc.) to access the possibility of the collision.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Stewart with that of the Kim’s collision detection and risk assessment to enhance the danger of any collision.
As for claims 18 and 21 are rejected based on the same rational as described above in rejection of claims 13 and 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding Claim 14, both prior art Stewart et. al. (US 2023/0202241 A1) and Kim et. al. (US 2017/0124987 A1) does disclose the general concept of the tire information detection device according to claim 9, however, neither Stewart or Kim or any of the prior arts of record either individually or in combination disclose or teach the following limitation:
an image comparison calculation unit configured to compare a prerecorded surrounding image of the vehicle included in the additional information with an image during travel to calculate a concordance rate of images, wherein the determination unit uses the concordance rate of the images as the determination condition, and the control unit controls the measurement of the detection unit based on the concordance rate of the images in an area including the current position.
Claims 14 and 19 would be allowable if re-written in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 Kambiz Abdi whose telephone number is (571)272-6702. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th 8:30 AM - 7:30 PM.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685