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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/30/2025 and 11/10/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The previous claim interpretation has been addressed and hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 4 has been canceled and the previous rejection under Claim 4 are hereby withdrawn.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 1 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A physical quantity detection device that detects a physical quantity acting on a tire, mitigates an influence of the physical quantity on a measurement result, and improves a measurement accuracy, the physical quantity detection device comprising:
a strain sensor configured to detect strain of the tire generated by a plurality of physical quantities including displacement of the tire and outputs a result of the detection as an actually measured strain amount;
a first sensor configured to detect an air pressure of the tire among the plurality of physical quantities;
a second sensor configured to detect a vehicle speed of a vehicle mounted with the tire among the plurality of physical quantities;
a third sensor configured to detect a temperature of the tire among the plurality of physical quantities;
a processor configured to calculate a load acting on the tire using the actually measured strain amount, the air pressure, the vehicle speed, and the temperature; and
storage configured to store data describing a relationship among the actually measured strain amount, the air pressure, the vehicle speed, the temperature, and the load,
wherein the data describes a reference strain amount assumed to be detected by the strain sensor when the air pressure is a reference air pressure, the vehicle speed is a reference vehicle speed, and the temperature is a reference temperature,
wherein the data describes a difference between the reference strain amount and the actually measured strain amount is described for each value of a first difference between the reference air pressure and the air pressure, for each value of a second difference between the reference vehicle speed and the vehicle speed, and for each value of a third difference between a reference load and the load,
wherein the calculation unit processor:
calculates a first strain amount of the tire generated by the first difference, a second strain amount of the tire generated by the second difference, and a third strain amount of the tire generated by the third difference,
calculates, as a reference value correction amount, a difference between the reference strain amount and an actual strain amount, the actual strain amount being actually detected by the strain sensor when the air pressure is a reference air pressure, the vehicle speed is a reference vehicle speed, and the temperature is a reference temperature,
calculates an assumption value of the actually measured strain amount for each value of the load by adding up the first strain amount, the second strain amount, the third strain amount, the reference strain amount, and the reference value correction amount,
calculates an estimation value of the load applying the actually measured strain amount detected by the strain sensor to the assumption value calculated for each value of the load, and
corrects a strain measurement signal of the strain sensor based on the estimation value of the load.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
In the instant case, claim 1 is found to recite at least one judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea), that being a Mental Process and a Mathematical Concept. This can be seen in the claim limitations of “to calculate a load acting on the tire using the actually measured strain amount, the air pressure, the vehicle speed, and the temperature”, “store data describing a relationship among the actually measured strain amount, the air pressure, the vehicle speed, the temperature, and the load”, “wherein the data describes a reference strain amount assumed to be detected by the strain sensor when the air pressure is a reference air pressure, the vehicle speed is a reference vehicle speed, and the temperature is a reference temperature”, “wherein the data describes a difference between the reference strain amount and the actually measured strain amount is described for each value of a first difference between the reference air pressure and the air pressure, for each value of a second difference between the reference vehicle speed and the vehicle speed, and for each value of a third difference between a reference load and the load”, “calculates a first strain amount of the tire generated by the first difference, a second strain amount of the tire generated by the second difference, and a third strain amount of the tire generated by the third difference”, “calculates, as a reference value correction amount, a difference between the reference strain amount and an actual strain amount, the actual strain amount being actually detected by the strain sensor when the air pressure is a reference air pressure, the vehicle speed is a reference vehicle speed, and the temperature is a reference temperature”, “calculates an assumption value of the actually measured strain amount for each value of the load by adding up the first strain amount, the second strain amount, the third strain amount, the reference strain amount, and the reference value correction amount”, “calculates an estimation value of the load applying the actually measured strain amount detected by the strain sensor to the assumption value calculated for each value of the load”, and “corrects a strain measurement signal of the strain sensor based on the estimation value of the load” which is the judicial exception of a mental process because these limitations are merely data observations, evaluations, and/or judgements in order to calculate and store physical quantities acting on a tire through the sensor system and is capable of being performed mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, the aforementioned limitations recite mathematical calculations such these sections in the specifications that recite formulas used to calculate data: [0041], [0050], also these sections that recite operations to calculate data: [0015], [0017], and [0036].
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, the claimed system recites additional elements including “A physical quantity detection device that detects a physical quantity acting on a tire, mitigates an influence of the physical quantity on a measurement result, and improves a measurement accuracy”, “a strain sensor configured to detect strain of the tire generated by a plurality of physical quantities including displacement of the tire and outputs a result of the detection as an actually measured strain amount”, “a first sensor configured to detect an air pressure of the tire among the plurality of physical quantities”, “a second sensor configured to detect a vehicle speed of a vehicle mounted with the tire among the plurality of physical quantities”, “a third sensor configured to detect a temperature of the tire among the plurality of physical quantities” however these elements are found to be data gathering and output steps, which are recited at a high level of generality, and thus merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,”. Furthermore, the claim recites that the steps “calculates” and “storage” recited in the claim are performed by a “processor” within a “device” however this is found to be equivalent to adding the words “apply it” and mere instructions to apply a judicial exception on a general-purpose computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, are recited at such a high level of generality (e.g. using “processor”, “storage” and “sensors”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, although the claims recite sensors and a calculation unit, the result is limited to calculating estimations values of strain amounts, loads and tire parameters. The claim does not use the calculated values in any practical application, such as controlling tire pressure, adjusting the vehicle dynamics, or providing any improvement. Instead, the recited steps of the claims amount to data collection and mathematical manipulation, which fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely performs insignificant extra-solution activit(ies) (claim 1). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 1 and 5-8, merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for parent claim 1. Specifically:
With respect to dependent claim 5 specifically, the claim further recites configuring the strain sensor, air pressure sensor, and temperature sensor together as one physical quantity sensor. However, combining multiple known sensors into a single sensor configuration merely changes the environment in which data is collected and does not add a meaningful limitations. Such activity is considered data gathering, which is “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity” under See MPEP 2106.05(h): “For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags). Therefore, claim 5 fails to add significantly more to the abstract idea.
With respect to dependent claim 6 specifically, the claim further recites the addition of a wear sensor and the use of data describing a relationship among strain, air pressure, vehicle speed, temperature, load, and wear. However, the addition of another sensor is merely a data gathering step that fails to provide a meaningful limitation. Collecting more data of the same type, without improving how the data is process or the functioning of the system, is considered “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity”. See MPEP 2106.05(h): “For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation.”. Accordingly, claim 6 fails to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
With respect to dependent claim 7 specifically, the claim further recites calculating the load acting on each tire and calculating a balance of loads across the wheels of the vehicle. However, these limitations are directed to mathematical evaluations of the collected strain and load data, which are abstract mental steps or mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(f). Such calculations could be performed manually with pen and paper and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
With respect to dependent claim 8 specifically, the claim further recites calculating the weight of a load added to a vehicle based on the determined tire load. However, this limitation represents additional mathematical post-processing of collected data, which is considered “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity” under See MPEP 2106.05(h): “For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags). The limitations do not provide any improvements to the underlying technology or integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Therefore, claim 8 amounts to nothing more than an application of mathematical concepts and does not add significantly more.
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.
Claims 1, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190291518 A1, Steele (hereinafter Steele) in view of US 5864056 A, Bell et al (hereinafter Bell).
Regarding Claim 1, Steele discloses a physical quantity detection device that detects a physical quantity acting on a tire (Steele, [0003] The combined system includes a dual tire pressure sensor and a wheel torque sensor. The dual sensor has a body interconnected with the wheel. A strain sensor and a tire pressure sensor are interconnected with the body of the dual sensor. The dual sensor includes an electronic control unit (ECU) interconnected with the body and configured to receive strain data from the strain sensor. The ECU is also configured to receive pressure data from the tire pressure sensor. The ECU processes the strain data and outputs processed strain data. The ECU also processes the tire pressure data and outputs processed pressure data), the physical quantity detection device comprising:
a strain sensor configured to detect strain of the tire generated by a plurality of physical quantities including displacement of the tire (Steele, Fig. 5, [0047] In operation, strain data is generated from one or more strain sensors 60 interconnected with body 62 of the dual sensor) and outputs a result of the detection as an actually measured strain amount (Steele, [0047] The strain data, pressure data and temperature data are normalized and otherwise processed by ECU 70 of the dual sensor system. The processed strain data and processed pressure data are transmitted in a wireless signal via wireless transceiver 76 to the remote wireless transceiver 33d of remote controller 33 of the dual sensor system);
a first sensor (Steele, Fig. 5 (78) air pressure sensor) configured to detect an air pressure of the tire among the plurality of physical quantities (Steele, Fig. 5 (78) air pressure sensor, [0043] a tire pressure sensor (78) that senses the pressure of the fluid (e.g. air, nitrogen) in the tire);
a second sensor (Steele, Fig. 12B (248) wheel sensor data) configured to detect a vehicle speed of a vehicle mounted with the tire among the plurality of physical quantities (Steele, Fig. 12B, [0071] raw wheel speed sensor data (obtained by wheel speed sensors) are input at block (246) and are synchronized (using timestamps) with wheel torque data at block (248));
a third sensor (Steele, Fig. 5 (82) temperature sensor) configured to detect a temperature of the tire among the plurality of physical quantities (Steele, Fig. 5, [0047] temperature data is generated by a temperature sensor (82) interconnected with body (62));
a processor configured to calculate a load acting on the tire (Steele, Fig. 10B, the input data used for obtaining the normalized strain data are: [0059] accelerometer data (122) (along the 3 major axes) from IMU (80); [0060] gyroscopic or orientation data (124) (along the 3 major axes) from IMU (80); [0061] raw longitudinal wheel strain data (126); [0062] raw side-load or lateral wheel strain data (128)) using the actually measured strain amount, the air pressure, the vehicle speed, and the temperature (Steele, Fig. 10B, [0058] After the sensors are read at block (98), the raw tire pressure data and the raw strain sensor data are normalized or processed at block (114) of FIG. 10B); and
storage configured to store data (Steele, Fig. 2, [0027] The non-transitory memory of the remote dual controller (33) includes a program storage area (33b) in its non-transitory read only memory (ROM) (33b) and a data storage area (33c) or buffer such as a random-access memory (RAM))) describing a relationship among the actually measured strain amount, the air pressure, the vehicle speed, the temperature, and the load (Steele, [0054] The measured resistance across terminals of strain gauges 60 changes as a function of wheel torque. As an example of a first wheel torque condition: a positive/tension strain on a first strain gauge 60 at the same time as the existence of a negative/compression strain on a second strain gauge 60, using a physical loading model and calibration of the particular dual sensor/wheel combination, results in the use of a first calibration look-up table (stored in the non-transient memory of ECB 68) and the generation of first processed strain data.),
wherein the data describes a reference strain amount assumed to be detected by the strain sensor (Steele, [0056] At block 92 a decision is made whether the sensor is in factory or programming mode. If the answer is Yes, the factory calibration information (e.g. the calibration look-up tables) are stored in the non-transient memory of dual sensor at block 94. If the answer at block 92 is No, a decision is made at block 96 whether vehicle motion has been sensed or a wireless wake-up signal has been obtained from remote controller 33),
wherein the data describes a difference between the reference strain amount and the actually measured strain amount is described for each value of a first difference between the reference air pressure and the air pressure, for each value of a second difference between the reference vehicle speed and the vehicle speed, and for each value of a third difference between a reference load and the load (Steele, [0071] The synchronized actual data are also used by vehicular systems to correct the respective estimates they use to optimize their system performances, such as: correction of brake effectiveness at block 250; wheel slip control feedback at block 252; correction of a sensorless pressure model feedback at block 254; and for mitigation of ride noise, vibration and harshness at block 256),
wherein the processor (Steele, [0021] one of ordinary skill in the art, and based on a reading of this detailed description, would recognize that, in at least one embodiment, the electronic based aspects of the embodiments may be implemented in software (e.g., stored on non-transitory computer-readable medium) executable by one or more processors):
calculates a first strain amount of the tire generated by the first difference (Steele, [0054] The measured resistance across terminals of strain gauges 60 changes as a function of wheel torque. As an example of a first wheel torque condition: a positive/tension strain on a first strain gauge 60 at the same time as the existence of a negative/compression strain on a second strain gauge 60, using a physical loading model and calibration of the particular dual sensor/wheel combination, results in the use of a first calibration look-up table (stored in the non-transient memory of ECB 68) and the generation of first processed strain data), a second strain amount of the tire generated by the second difference, and a third strain amount of the tire generated by the third difference (Steele, [0054] Also, the processing of the strain data includes adjusting the outputs of the first calibration look-up table for variations that affect the physical loading model that was used. These variations include tire pressure as sensed by pressure sensor 78, surface temperature as sensed by temperature sensor 82 (which affects material strain coefficients), and the wheel speed and accelerations as determined by IMU 80),
calculates (Steele, [0034] Disposed on or otherwise interconnected with ECB 68 are the following components: [0035] central processing unit (CPU) or electronic processor 70; [0036] an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) 72 which includes a strain amplifier that amplifies the strain signal from strain gauge 60 or other strain sensor), as a reference value correction amount, a difference between the reference strain amount and an actual strain amount, the actual strain amount being actually detected by the strain sensor (Steele, [0064] After the data is normalized at block 120, the data to be sent to remote controller 33 are calculated at block 121 and stored in the memory of wireless transceiver 76 at block 123) when the air pressure is a reference air pressure, the vehicle speed is a reference vehicle speed, and the temperature is a reference temperature (Steele, [0064] the data included in the data packet to be sent by wireless transceiver 76 includes: sensor identifier 127, torque 129, side/lateral force 132, vertical load (on the wheel) 134, a timestamp 136, the ambient air temperature 138, surface air temperature 140, tire air pressure 142, and error codes 144)
calculates an assumption value of the actually measured strain amount for each value of the load by adding up the first strain amount, the second strain amount, the third strain amount, the reference strain amount, and the reference value correction amount (Steele, Fig 5, (shows different sensors), [0055] The processing of the strain data includes uses the same types of inputs to adjust the output of the second calibration look-up table), and
Steele does not disclose mitigates an influence of the physical quantity on a measurement result, and improves a measurement accuracy, the physical quantity detection device comprising:
wherein the data describes a reference strain amount assumed to be detected by the strain sensor when the air pressure is a reference air pressure, the vehicle speed is a reference vehicle speed, and the temperature is a reference temperature,
wherein the processor:
calculates an estimation value of the load by applying the actually measured strain amount detected by the strain sensor to the assumption value calculated for each value of the load, and
corrects a strain measurement signal of the strain sensor based on the estimation value of the load.
However, Bell teaches mitigates an influence of the physical quantity on a measurement result, and improves a measurement accuracy (Bell, [Col. 14 Line 12-19] Sensor 68 in FIG. 6 is designed to measure the contact forces present on a discrete tread element 24 in contact with the roadway. The operation is essentially the same as that of the contact force sensor incorporated in sensor 50, gage 64 shown in FIG. 5. Sensor 68 is intended to supplement sensors 46 and 50 when improved contact force measurements are desired to improve the accuracy of the coefficient of friction determination system discussed above), the physical quantity detection device comprising:
wherein the data describes a reference strain amount assumed to be detected by the strain sensor (Bell, [Col. 16 Lines 9-14] processor 110 uses at least one predetermined reference coefficient of friction value, a predetermined numerical model of the motor vehicle handling characteristics, at least one predetermined tire performance characterization value, combined with the tread slip behavior and tread force information) when the air pressure is a reference air pressure, the vehicle speed is a reference vehicle speed, and the temperature is a reference temperature (Bell, [Col. 15 Lines 20-22] a predetermined numerical model of the motor vehicle handling characteristics).
wherein the data describes a difference between the reference strain amount and the actually measured strain amount is described for each value of a first difference between the reference air pressure and the air pressure, for each value of a second difference between the reference vehicle speed and the vehicle speed, and for each value of a third difference between a reference load and the load (Bell, [Col 18 Line 26-31] processor 110 compares the tread wear condition of each tire with the predetermined tread wear value and initiates the tire tread wear out indication 124 as the determined tread wear approaches the predetermined tread wear value contained in data storage 108),
wherein the processor:
calculates a first strain amount of the tire generated by the first difference, a second strain amount of the tire generated by the second difference, and a third strain amount of the tire generated by the third difference (Bell, [Col 16 Line 31-36] Processor 110 further uses the at least one predetermined tire performance characterization value to adjust the initially determined footprint coefficient of friction values to improve their accuracy. The predetermined tire performance characterization value is an empirically derived parameter that relates a tire's tread force and tread slip behavior to the footprint coefficient of friction),
calculates, as a reference value correction amount, a difference between the reference strain amount and an actual strain amount, the actual strain amount being actually detected by the strain sensor when the air pressure is a reference air pressure, the vehicle speed is a reference vehicle speed, and the temperature is a reference temperature (Bell, [Col 16 Line 36-52] the numerical model describes the vehicle handling characteristics and defines a safe operating envelope. The three input variables: vehicle speed, at least one footprint coefficient of friction imbalance variable, and at least one tire performance characterization variable are determined by processor 110 as described below, and input to the model. The output of the numerical model is a skid warning initiation, and an adjusted reference coefficient of friction value. The reference coefficient of friction can be adjusted to fine tune the point where a skid warning should be initiated. For example, the reference value would be increased if processor 110 determines that excessive tread slip is occurring before the footprint coefficient of friction values approach the predetermined value for the reference. Thus, the system is capable of dynamically adjusting appropriate parameters to optimize its function),
calculates an assumption value of the actually measured strain amount for each value of the load by adding up the first strain amount, the second strain amount, the third strain amount, the reference strain amount, and the reference value correction amount (Bell, [Col 16 Line 9-16] processor 110 uses at least one predetermined reference coefficient of friction value, a predetermined numerical model of the motor vehicle handling characteristics, at least one predetermined tire performance characterization value, combined with the tread slip behavior and tread force information, to determine the footprint coefficient of friction value for each tire and to generate the skid warning according to the theory above),
calculates an estimation value of the load by applying the actually measured strain amount detected by the strain sensor to the assumption value calculated for each value of the load (Bell, [Col 16 Line 27-36] the footprint coefficient of friction is determined based on the tread slip behavior and tread forces measured by the tread force sensors described above. Processor 110 further uses the at least one predetermined tire performance characterization value to adjust the initially determined footprint coefficient of friction values to improve their accuracy. The predetermined tire performance characterization value is an empirically derived parameter that relates a tire's tread force and tread slip behavior to the footprint coefficient of friction), and
corrects a strain measurement signal of the strain sensor based on the estimation value of the load (Bell, [Col. 16 Line 42-52] the output of the numerical model is a skid warning initiation, and an adjusted reference coefficient of friction value. The reference coefficient of friction can be adjusted to fine tune the point where a skid warning should be initiated. For example, the reference value would be increased if processor 110 determines that excessive tread slip is occurring before the footprint coefficient of friction values approach the predetermined value for the reference. Thus, the system is capable of dynamically adjusting appropriate parameters to optimize its function);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine both Steele and Bell teaching because Steele discloses detecting strain, air pressure, vehicle speed, and temperature, and determining a load based on the detected values using a model. However, Steele does not explicitly disclose applying measured strain data to a value to calculate an estimation value of load and correct the strain signal. Bell teaches applying measured data to a predetermined model and reference values to generate an estimated value and refine measurement accuracy. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Steel and Bell to apply the model estimation and reference comparison techniques of Bell to the strain system of Steele in order to improve the accuracy and reliability of load estimation and signal correction under operating conditions such as changes in pressure, speed, and temperature.
Regarding Claim 5, Steele in view of Bell discloses the physical quantity detection device (Steele, [0003] One embodiment provides a combined tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) and wheel torque sensor system for a vehicle such as a highly automated driving (HAD) vehicle) according to claim 1, wherein the strain sensor, the second sensor, and the third sensor are configured by one physical quantity sensor that detects the actually measured strain amount (Steele, Fig. 5, [0047] In operation, strain data is generated from one or more strain sensors (60) interconnected with body (62) of the dual sensor), the vehicle speed (Steele, [0071] Raw wheel speed sensor data (obtained by wheel speed sensors) are input at block (246) and are synchronized (using timestamps) with wheel torque data at block (248)), and the temperature (Steele, [0047] Temperature data is generated by a temperature sensor (82) interconnected with body (62)).
Regarding Claim 6, Steele discloses the physical quantity detection device (Steele, [0003] One embodiment provides a combined tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) and wheel torque sensor system for a vehicle such as a highly automated driving (HAD) vehicle) according to claim 1.
Steele does not disclose comprising a fourth sensor that detects wear of the tire,
wherein the data describes a relationship among the actually measured strain amount, the air pressure, the vehicle speed, the temperature, the load, and the wear, and
wherein the processor calculates the estimation value of the load by referring to the data using the air pressure, the vehicle speed, the temperature, the wear, and the actually measured strain amount.
However, Bell teaches comprising a fourth sensor that detects wear of the tire (Bell, Fig. 2A, [Col. 6 Lines 58-61] tread force sensor (46). Sensor (46) consists of a rigid, preferably steel, structural anchor tube and wire feed-through (30) with a flexible, preferably steel, elongated reed (40)),
wherein the data describes a relationship among the actually measured strain amount (Bell, [Col. 8 Lines 51-54] tread force sensors described above provide the capability to sense forces on the tread by means of strain gages mounted to a mechanical support system, which is integrated with a tire), the air pressure, the vehicle speed (Bell, [Col. 15 Line 38-40] vehicle speed is determined by the processor using the tread force sensor information), the temperature (Bell, [Col. 15 Line 4-5] a tire temperature sensor 92 can be added to each tire's tread region), the load, and the wear (Bell, [Col 18 Line 2-7] the expanded system shown in FIG. 10 provides a tire tread wear out indication 124, and at least one additional predetermined tread wear value per tire is added to data storage 108. Tire tread wear out indicator 124 is added to the system and connected to processor 110) and
wherein the processor calculates the estimation value of the load (Bell, [Col. 19 Lines 45-48] contact force sensor can be eliminated from both the preferred and alternate embodiments. The contact force under each tire can be estimated by various well known methods) by referring to the data using the air pressure, the vehicle speed (Bell, [Col. 15 Line 38-40] vehicle speed is determined by the processor using the tread force sensor information), the temperature (Bell, [Col. 15 Line 4-5] a tire temperature sensor 92 can be added to each tire's tread region), the wear (Bell, [Col 18 Line 2-7] the expanded system shown in FIG. 10 provides a tire tread wear out indication 124, and at least one additional predetermined tread wear value per tire is added to data storage 108. Tire tread wear out indicator 124 is added to the system and connected to processor 110), and the actually measured strain amount (Bell, [Col. 8 Lines 50-59] the tread force sensors described above provide the capability to sense forces on the tread by means of strain gages mounted to a mechanical support system, which is integrated with a tire. The sensor is integrated into the tire, as described above, such that roadway forces acting on the tread and resisted by the tire structure (or vice versa) will result in an electrical signal output from the sensors that is proportional to the force).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Steele and Bell because Steele already discloses a system that measures tire-related parameters to monitor vehicle operation, while Bell teaches incorporating a sensor to measure tire wear and calculating values using the air pressure, vehicle speed, temperature, wear, and strain amount. One of ordinary skill in the art would combine these reference in order to add additional functions using the existing data used in the system to improve the tire condition monitoring systems within vehicles.
Regarding Claim 7, Steele in view of Bell discloses the physical quantity detection device (Steele, [0003] One embodiment provides a combined tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) and wheel torque sensor system for a vehicle such as a highly automated driving (HAD) vehicle) according to claim 1, wherein
the calculation unit calculates the load (Steele, [0064] After the data is normalized at block (120), the data to be sent to remote controller (33) are calculated at block (121) and stored in the memory of wireless transceiver (76) at block (123)) acting on each tire mounted on each wheel of the vehicle (Steele, [0003] a combined tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) and wheel torque sensor system for a vehicle such as a highly automated driving (HAD) vehicle. The combined system includes a dual tire pressure sensor and a wheel torque sensor. The dual sensor has a body interconnected with the wheel), and
the calculation unit calculates a balance of a load acting on the each wheel (Steele, [0028] The wheel torque data includes x-direction (propulsion) information that is used in a feedback loop to determine how much additional brake force is required to slow the vehicle and control vehicle performance. The wheel torque data also includes lateral side loading information, which is usable for vehicle stability control, traction control, anti-lock braking (ABS) systems, steering systems, and path planning systems) by using the load acting on the each tire (Steele, [0028] wireless transceiver on the wheel-based portion transmits a combined signal having both tire pressure data and wheel strain data, so that only a single transceiver is used on the wheel for both the TPMS and the wheel torque sensor See FIG. 5. Strain data from the strain sensor is converted to wheel torque).
Regarding Claim 8, Steele in view of Bell discloses the physical quantity detection device (Steele, [0003] One embodiment provides a combined tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) and wheel torque sensor system for a vehicle such as a highly automated driving (HAD) vehicle) according to claim 1, wherein using the load, the processor calculates a weight of a load (Steele, [0064] After the data is normalized at block 120, the data to be sent to remote controller 33 are calculated at block 121 and stored in the memory of wireless transceiver 76 at block 123) loaded on the vehicle mounted with the tire or a weight of a load that can be additionally loaded (Steele, [0072] the synchronized or high resolution data can be used to correct additional estimates or for additional functions as shown in FIG. 12B, including: [0073] vehicle mass correction at block 258).
Response to Arguments
35 USC§ 101
Applicant’s arguments has been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim is not directed to a mental process or mathematical concept because it involves detecting physical quantities and correcting a strain measurement signal. However, the claims are still focused on processing the collected data. Specifically, the claim recites determining differences, calculating strain amounts, generating an assumption value, and estimating a load. These steps correspond to mathematical relationships and data analysis, which fall within abstract ideas, even though the data is obtained from physical sensors.
Applicant further argues that the claims do not recite a mathematical concept because no explicit formula is included. This is not persuasive. The claim still recites calculations and relationships between values (e.g., differences and derived strain amounts), which are mathematical in nature even without an explicit equation.
Applicant argues that the claims provide a technological improvement by improving measurement accuracy. However, unlike a technological improvement to a sensor or measurement system, the claims in the instant case improve accuracy only through calculations applied to collected data. The sensors themselves re not improved and are used in their normal way to gather data.
Applicant argues that the claims are similar to Diamond v. Diehr. However, unlike Diehr, which is directed to improving a physical industrial process (rubber curing) through control of that process, the claims in the instant case are directed to collecting data and performing calculations to generate a corrected value. There is no control or transformation of a physical process.
Applicant further argues that the claims are similar to Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States. However, unlike Thales, which is directed to a specific and unconventional arrangement of sensors that improved tracking accuracy, the claims in the instant case use conventional sensors in a conventional way. The claims do not improve the sensors or their arrangement, but instead rely on processing the data collected from them.
For step 2A, Prong 2, Applicant argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by correcting a measurement signal. However, unlike a claim that improves the operation of a device itself, the claims in the instant case use generic components (sensors, processor, storage) to collect and process data. The correction of the signal results from the calculation, not from any improvement to the technology itself.
For step 2B, Applicant argues that the claims are non-conventional and amount to significantly more. However, unlike a non-conventional arrangement that improves computer or sensor functionality, the claims in the instant case use well-known components for their ordinary purposes. When considered as a whole, the claim still amounts to applying calculations to data using generic components.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
35 USC§ 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 5 and 7-8 of the 35 U.S.C 102 Rejection and claims 3, 4, and 6 of the 35 U.S.C 103 Rejection have been considered but are inapplicable because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references (Steele in view of Bell) being used in the current rejection.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant contends that the references do not teach or suggest the claimed limitations, particularly with respect to calculating an estimation value of the load and correcting the strain measurement signal. However, the cited references when considered in combination teach the claimed amended features. Therefore, Steele in view of Bell teaches the amended limitations described in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection above. Accordingly, dependent claims 5-8.
Conclusion
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 IBRAHIM NAGI SHOHATEE whose telephone number is (571)272-6612. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/IBRAHIM NAGI SHOHATEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 /MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights