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 .
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 10 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the memory as claimed in claim 10 fails to be limited to non-transitory memory.
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 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.
(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.
Claim(s) below is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Singh (20150217607).
Referring to claim 1, Singh shows a sensor device (see figure 3 and 4 note the laser sensor Ref 42) for use in determining at least one property of a wheel assembly comprising a tire mounted on a wheel (see figure 11 note the inner liner radius is measured also note figure 12 showing the load sweep of the vehicle), wherein the sensor device is configured to be attachable to an outer circumferential surface of the wheel which faces an inner circumferential surface of the tire (see figure 3 and 4 Ref 42 is the sensor and figure 3 Ref 20 is the tire); and wherein the sensor device is configured to measure a distance between the sensor device and an object remote from the sensor device (see figure 3 and 4 note the laser distance sensor that senses the distance between the wheel and the tire).
Referring to claim 2, Singh shows the sensor device is configured to measure any or all of:
a distance between the sensor device and the inner circumferential surface of the tire, when the tire is mounted on the wheel; and
a distance between the sensor device and the ground, when the wheel assembly is operating to support a vehicle (see figure 3 note the inner liner radius that is measured also see figure 9).
Referring to claims 4 and 24, Singh shows the sensor device is configured to emit radiation in a direction toward the remote object when the sensor device is attached to the wheel; and to detect a reflection of the emitted radiation (see paragraph 83 note the laser distance sensor that uses a laser and the reflection to measure the radius of the tire).
Referring to claim 5, Singh shows the sensor device is configured to continuously emit the radiation and to continuously detect the reflection during a time period in which there is relative circumferential movement between the sensor device and the wheel (see the graph as shown in figure 9 note the continuous measurement of the inner tire radius).
Referring to claim 6, Singh shows the sensor device is configured to emit the radiation in the form of a beam directed to align with a radial direction of the wheel when the sensor device is attached to the wheel (see figure 4 and 5).
Referring to claim 9, Singh shows a sensor controller (see figure 4 Ref 48) configured to operate the sensor device according to a predetermined measurement protocol (see the measurement protocol that generates a graph of the inner liner radius as shown in figure 9).
Referring to claim 12, Singh shows the predetermined measurement protocol is any one of:
a damage measurement protocol;
a tread depth measurement protocol; and
a load measurement protocol (see figure 12 note the load sweep test).
Referring to claim 15, Singh shows emitting radiation such that the radiation is incident on a reference circumferential surface of the tire, the reference circumferential surface having a known distance from an inner circumferential surface of the tire, and
detecting reflections of the radiation from the reference circumferential surface of the tire (see paragraph 92-96).
Referring to claim 16, Singh shows the sensor device is further configured to measure one or more of: tire pressure; tire gas temperature; and acceleration (see paragraph 94-97).
Referring to claim 17, Singh shows the sensor device is further configured to measure tire pressure, and wherein the load measurement protocol further comprises measuring the tire pressure substantially simultaneously with emitting the radiation (see paragraph 97-100).
Referring to claims 18 and 23, Singh shows a wheel having an outer circumferential surface configured to face an inner circumferential surface of a tire mounted on the wheel (see figure 3 and 4 note the wheel); and
a sensor device attached to the outer circumferential surface of the wheel (see figure 3 and 4 note Ref 42),
wherein the sensor device is configured to determine at least one property of the tire mounted and the sensor device faces the inner circumferential surface of the tire (see figure 11 that measures the inner radius of the tire also see figure 12 note the load sweep test); and
wherein the sensor device is configured to measure a distance between the sensor device and an object remote from the sensor device (see figure 3 and 4 Ref 42 note the laser distance sensor).
Claim(s) 18 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Evans (20030154007).
Referring to claims 18 and 23, Evans shows a wheel having an outer circumferential surface configured to face an inner circumferential surface of a tire mounted on the wheel (see figure 1 Ref 100); and
a sensor device attached to the outer circumferential surface of the wheel (see figure 1 Ref 140),
wherein the sensor device is configured to determine at least one property of the tire mounted and the sensor device faces the inner circumferential surface of the tire (see paragraph 12 and 13); and
wherein the sensor device is configured to measure a distance between the sensor device and an object remote from the sensor device (see paragraph 38 and 39).
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.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (20150217607) in view of Yeom (20150153250).
Referring to claims 7 and 25, Singh shows the sensor device is configured to emit a first beam of radiation in a first direction which is towards the inner circumferential surface of the tire when the sensor device is attached to the wheel (see figure 4 note Ref 42), however Singh fails to show a second beam of radiation in a second, different direction which is towards the inner circumferential surface of the tire when the sensor device is attached to the wheel.
Yeom shows a similar device that includes a second beam of radiation in a second, different direction which is towards the inner circumferential surface of the tire when the sensor device is attached to the wheel (see figure 7 Ref 42). It would have been obvious to include the multiple light sources as shown by Yeom because this allows for an image of multiple points of the tire and develop a change of patter position according to tire variation.
Referring to claim 8, the combination of Singh and Yeom shows an angle between the first beam and the second beam is less than 90° (see the projection system in figure 7 Ref 42).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (20150217607) in view of Evans (20030154007).
Referring to claim 3, Singh fails to show but Evans shows the sensor device is configured to be movably attachable to the outer circumferential surface of the wheel such that the sensor device is able to continuously travel around the circumference of the wheel in a given direction whilst the wheel remains stationary (see figure 3 note the slip ring that allows for the sensor to maintain a vertical direction pointing at the road surface note paragraph 24-25). It would have been obvious to include the movably attached sensor as shown by Evans because this allows for continuous monitoring of the tire foot print under different load and surface conditions as taught by Evans (see abstract).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (20030154007).
Referring to claim 19, Evans obviously show the sensor device is configured to emit radiation towards the inner circumferential surface of the tire and
the wheel assembly further comprises the tire mounted on the wheel,
wherein the tire comprises a circumferential portion of reflective material which is configured to reflect a greater proportion of the radiation than a material which forms a main body of the tire (see figure 1 note the circumferential transmission and reflection of the radar pulses, it is obvious that the timer includes a circumferential portion of reflective material to allow for reflection of the radar pulses).
Claim(s) 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (20150217607) in view of Bickard (20200290411).
Referring to claims 20-22, while Singh fails to show the wheel assembly is onboard an aircraft Bickard shows a similar device that includes the wheel assembly is on an aircraft and is connected to the avionics (see paragraph 28-30). It would have been obvious to include the tire monitoring system in an aircraft as shown by Bickard because this is a common use for a tire monitoring system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 14, 26, and 27 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUKE D RATCLIFFE whose telephone number is (571)272-3110. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/LUKE D RATCLIFFE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645