DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 04/14/2026 have been entered. Claims 14-16, 18-26, 28-35 remain pending. Claims 14-15, 18-19, 24, 28-29 have been amended. Claims 1-13, 17, & 27 have been cancelled. Claims 34-35 are new.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 10 lines 8-13, filed 04/14/2026, with respect to Drawing Objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of Fig. 2A & Fig. 2B has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 10 lines 14-15, filed 04/14/2026, with respect to Claim Objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 18-19, & 28-29 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Regarding “Claim Interpretation”:
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 10 line 16 to page 14 line 14, filed 04/14/2026, with respect to 112(f) interpretation of claim 24 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 11 line 22 to page 12 line 6):
“While the term “device” taken alone has been recognized as a non-structural placeholder, … , which further explicitly rejects the notion that a specific structure is required to avoid interpretation under 112(f)”
& (page 13 lines 15-18):
“The specification therefore provides sufficient corresponding structure for the “data acquisition device” limitation, namely TPMS sensors with processors and memory configured to collect and transmit pressure data.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See MPEP 2181(I): “Accordingly, examiners will apply 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to a claim limitation if it meets the following 3-prong analysis:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
A determination that a claim is being interpreted according to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) should be expressly stated in the examiner’s Office action.”
Analysis:
In determining whether a 112(f) interpretation is necessary, one must determine whether the claims disclose sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. If the claims use a generic placeholder, a nonce, & insufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function then the claims should be interpreted under 112(f). The Applicant argues that there is sufficient structure disclosed within the specification, which supports the need for a 112(f) interpretation (i.e., “specification therefore provides sufficient corresponding structure for the “data acquisition device” limitation”).
Conclusion:
The claims are interpreted under 112(f) because there is not sufficient disclosure within the claims. If a 112(f) interpretation were not in place then there would have to be 112(b) rejections because the scope of the claims would not be clear (in particular claims 24 “data acquisition device” & “data collection unit”).
Regarding “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101”:
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 14 line 15 to page 15 line 16, filed 04/14/2026, with respect to 135 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 14 lines 17-page 15 line1):
“Applicant respectfully submits that this rejection should be withdrawn in view of the amendments to independent claims 14 and 24. Independent claim 14 has been amended herein and now requires inter alia “training a statistical model to determine a metric associate with slow leak events, at least in part by correlating input data sample sets ….”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A): Revised Step 2A Prong One: “Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
&
“It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula."
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity.”
Analysis:
Limitations directed towards “training a statistical model to determine a metric” are within the judicial exception abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. This limitation is directed towards using data to create a function which evaluates data to make a determination about the pressure within a tire. A “data acquisition device mounted on board a motor vehicle” is directed towards extra solution activity (post solution data gathering) with no specific structure.
Conclusion:
The amendments directed towards “training a statistical model …” & “wherein the data samples are collected …” are not significantly more than further judicial exception(s) and extra solution activity (respectively).
Regarding “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102”:
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 15 line 17 to page 175 line 2, filed 04/14/2026, with respect to 135 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 16 lines 18-20):
“This disclosure in Suh describes a general purpose wireless carrier network with broad geographic coverage, not a geographically-limited fleet yard monitoring system as recited in amended claims 14 and 24.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
The prior version of the claims (filed 07/12/2023) on which the 102 rejection was based did not have a “fleet yard monitoring system” limitation. The 35 USC 103 rejection below includes reference US 20020130771 A1 (Osborne), which does teach a geographically-limited fleet limitation.
The general purpose wireless carrier network with broad geographic coverage has at least the functionality of a geographically-limited fleet yard monitoring system. So long as the system with “general purpose wireless carrier” can locate a geographically-limited fleet then that system teaches the system of the instant application.
Note:
If the instant application teaches limitation ‘A’ and a reference teaches limitation ‘A’ and limitation ‘B’ then the instant application would not be patentable over the reference.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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(s) 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(s) is/are:
Claim 24 lines 2-4: “at least one data acquisition device mounted onboard a motor vehicle having a plurality of tires, and configured to collect data samples corresponding to at least inflation pressure for at least one of the plurality of tires;”.
Claim 24 lines 5-6: ”at least one data collection unit configured to receive the collected data samples from the onboard data acquisition device;”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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(s) to avoid it/them 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(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 24:
Three-Prong test for “data acquisition device”
Prong (A) (As above):
Yes;
“data acquisition device” is a nonce with no specific structural meaning.
Prong (B) (As above):
Yes;
“configured to” is a linking word or phrase connecting the nonce to functional language.
Prong (C) (As above):
Yes;
It is unclear how “collect data samples corresponding to at least inflation pressure for at least one of the plurality of tires” is done by the nonce.
Conclusion:
The limitation of “data acquisition device” for claim 24 and its dependents is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Note: the initially filed specification (filed 12 July 2023) was searched for an interpretation of “at least one data acquisition device mounted onboard a motor vehicle having a plurality of tires, and configured to collect data samples corresponding to at least inflation pressure for at least one of the plurality of tires;”
The following evidence supporting an interpretation was found:
Para 0028: “The data acquisition device may be a standalone sensor unit appropriately configured to collect raw measurement signals, such as for example signals corresponding to a tire's contained air temperature 112 and/or internal air pressure 114, and to continuously or selectively transmit such signals. The data acquisition device may include an onboard computing device in communication with one or more distributed sensors and which is portable or otherwise modular as part of a distributed vehicle data collection and control system, or otherwise may be integrally provided with respect to a central vehicle data collection control system. The data acquisition device may include a processor and memory having program logic residing thereon (not shown)”
Therefore, for the purposes of examination “data acquisition device” is interpreted as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) (i.e., pressure sensor and computing elements which collect pressure data are elements which are necessarily implied by the judicial exception(s) and which provide no further specificity).
Claim 24:
Three-Prong test for “data collection unit”
Prong (A) (As above):
Yes;
“data collection unit” is a nonce with no specific structural meaning.
Prong (B) (As above):
Yes;
“configured to” is a linking word or phrase connecting the nonce to functional language.
Prong (C) (As above):
Yes;
It is unclear how “receive the collected data samples from the onboard data acquisition device” is done by the nonce.
Conclusion:
The limitation of “data collection unit” for claim 24 and its dependents is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Note: the initially filed specification (filed 12 July 2023) was searched for an interpretation of ”at least one data collection unit configured to receive the collected data samples from the onboard data acquisition device;”
The following evidence supporting an interpretation was found:
Para 0016: “and at least one data collection unit configured to receive the collected data samples from the onboard data acquisition device, for example while the motor vehicle is in-yard and not operating on the road. A processing unit is linked to the at least one data collection unit and configured to direct the performance of operations”
Therefore, for the purposes of examination “data collection unit” is interpreted as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) (i.e., pressure sensor and computing elements which collect pressure data are elements which are necessarily implied by the judicial exception(s) and which provide no further specificity).
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Flow diagrams from MPEP 2106(III) & 2106.04(II)(A), respectively.
Claims 14-33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 14:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A tire monitoring method” which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Natural of Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
“training a statistical model to determine a metric associated with slow leak events, at least in part by correlating input data sample sets, comprising measured inflation pressures and corresponding temperatures over time for each of a plurality of tires, with respect to calculated pressure loss rates over defined time windows;”
“calculating a time elapsed from a first data sample within a defined sampling period; applying a statistical model for at least the data samples corresponding to inflation pressure with respect to the time elapsed; ascertaining a slow leak event based on an evaluated amount of decrease in the inflation pressure from the statistical model;”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations of:
“training a statistical model to determine a metric …”
“calculating a time elapsed from a first data sample within a defined sampling period;”
“applying a statistical model for at least the data samples corresponding to inflation pressure with respect to the time elapsed;”
“ascertaining a slow leak event based on an evaluated amount of decrease in the inflation pressure from the statistical model;”
Are mathematical concepts.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim 14 additionally recites:
“collecting, via at least one data acquisition device mounted onboard a motor vehicle having a plurality of tires, data samples corresponding to at least inflation pressure for at least one of the plurality of tires;”
“wherein the data samples are collected while the data acquisition device is within range of one or more data collection units in a fleet yard monitoring system;”
“and selectively generating an output signal corresponding to the ascertained slow leak event for the at least one of the plurality of tires.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “(3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).”:
& See MPEP 2106.05(g): “A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula". 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; Id. (holding that step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was "post-solution activity").”
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.”
Analysis:
These limitations are directed towards the necessary activities/processes (& implied by the judicial exception(s)) of acquiring input data and then outputting output data.
The elements of “a tire” & “fleet yard monitoring system” are no more than a field of use or technological environment limitations. The field of use corresponds to at least the cpc symbol of B60C 23/0476. . . {transmitting the signals by non-mechanical means from the wheel or tyre to a vehicle body mounted receiver} {Measurement control, e.g. setting measurement rate or calibrating of sensors; Further processing of measured values, e.g. filtering, compensating or slope monitoring} {Temperature compensation of measured pressure values}.
Conclusion:
Therefore, these elements/limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) and are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim recites no additional elements beyond those in revised step 2A prong 2.
Conclusion:
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 15:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A tire monitoring method” which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories. (as inherited from claim 14).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Natural of Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 14.
Claim 15 additionally recites limitations directed towards the Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) as shown below:
“wherein the statistical model requires at least a predetermined first threshold value of data samples within the defined sampling period, and the time elapsed from the first data sample must exceed a predetermined second threshold value.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations of:
““wherein the statistical model requires at least a predetermined first threshold value of data samples within the defined sampling period, and the time elapsed from the first data sample must exceed a predetermined second threshold value.”
Are mathematical concepts.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim 15 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim 15 does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 16:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A tire monitoring method” which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories. (as inherited from claim 15 and thereby from claim 14).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Natural of Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 15 and thereby from claim 14.
Claim 16 additionally recites limitations directed towards the Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) as shown below:
“The tire monitoring method of claim 15, wherein the data samples are only collected for the statistical model when a speed of the motor vehicle is determined to have been zero for a third threshold value of time.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations of:
“The tire monitoring method of claim 15, wherein the data samples are only collected for the statistical model when a speed of the motor vehicle is determined to have been zero for a third threshold value of time.”
Are mathematical concepts.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim 16 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim 16 does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 18:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A tire monitoring method” which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories. (as inherited from claim 15 and thereby from claim 14).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Natural of Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 15 and thereby from claim 14.
Claim 18 additionally recites limitations directed towards the Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) as shown below:
“and generating a temperature-compensated inflation pressure value for each of the data samples, wherein the statistical model implements the temperature-compensated inflation pressure values for ascertaining the slow leak event.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations of:
“and generating a temperature-compensated inflation pressure value for each of the data samples, wherein the statistical model implements the temperature-compensated inflation pressure values for ascertaining the slow leak event.”
Are mathematical concepts.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim 18 additionally recites:
“further comprising: collecting, via the at least one data acquisition device mounted onboard a motor vehicle having a plurality of tires, contained air temperatures associated with the data samples corresponding to the inflation pressure for the at least one of the plurality of tires;”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “(3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).”:
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.”
Analysis:
These limitations are directed towards the necessary activities/processes (& implied by the judicial exception(s)) of acquiring input data.
The element of “a motor vehicle having a plurality of tires” is directed towards the field of use or technological environment of the invention, and corresponds to at least the cpc symbol of B60C 23/0476. . . {transmitting the signals by non-mechanical means from the wheel or tyre to a vehicle body mounted receiver} {Measurement control, e.g. setting measurement rate or calibrating of sensors; Further processing of measured values, e.g. filtering, compensating or slope monitoring} {Temperature compensation of measured pressure values}
Conclusion:
Therefore, these elements/limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) and are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim 18 does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 19:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A tire monitoring method” which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories. (as inherited from claim 15 and thereby from claim 14).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Natural of Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 15 and thereby from claim 14.
Claim 19 additionally recites limitations directed towards the Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) as shown below:
“determining whether to selectively generate the output signal corresponding to an ascertained slow leak event based at least in part on the associated contained air temperatures.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations of:
“determining whether to selectively generate the output signal corresponding to an ascertained slow leak event based at least in part on the associated contained air temperatures.”
Are mathematical concepts or mental processes.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts or mental processes.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim 19 additionally recites:
“further comprising: collecting, via the at least one data acquisition device mounted onboard a motor vehicle having a plurality of tires, contained air temperatures associated with the data samples corresponding to the inflation pressure for the at least one of the plurality of tires;”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “(3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).”:
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.”
Analysis:
These limitations are directed towards the necessary activities/processes (& implied by the judicial exception(s)) of acquiring input data.
The element of “a motor vehicle having a plurality of tires” is directed towards the field of use or technological environment of the invention, and corresponds to at least the cpc symbol of B60C 23/0476. . . {transmitting the signals by non-mechanical means from the wheel or tyre to a vehicle body mounted receiver} {Measurement control, e.g. setting measurement rate or calibrating of sensors; Further processing of measured values, e.g. filtering, compensating or slope monitoring} {Temperature compensation of measured pressure values}
Conclusion:
Therefore, these elements/limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) and are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim 19 does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 20:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A tire monitoring method” which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories. (as inherited from claim 19 and thereby from claim 17 and thereby from claim 15 and thereby from claim 14).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Natural of Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 19 and thereby from claim 15 and thereby from claim 14.
Claim 20 additionally recites limitations directed towards the Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) as shown below:
“determining whether to selectively generate the output signal corresponding to an ascertained slow leak event based on an hourly change rate in the associated contained air temperatures with respect to a threshold value.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations of:
“determining whether to selectively generate the output signal corresponding to an ascertained slow leak event based on an hourly change rate in the associated contained air temperatures with respect to a threshold value.”
Are mathematical concepts.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim 20 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim 20 does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 21:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A tire monitoring method” which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories. (as inherited from claim 14).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Natural of Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 14.
Claim 21 additionally recites limitations directed towards the Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) as shown below:
“wherein the slow leak event is ascertained further in view of a median value of a metric corresponding to the evaluated amount of decrease in the inflation pressure, with respect to a second defined sampling period.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations of:
“wherein the slow leak event is ascertained further in view of a median value of a metric corresponding to the evaluated amount of decrease in the inflation pressure, with respect to a second defined sampling period.”
Are mathematical concepts.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim 21 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim 21 does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 22:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A tire monitoring method” which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories. (as inherited from claim 14).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Natural of Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 14.
Claim 22 additionally recites limitations directed towards the Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) as shown below:
“wherein the statistical model comprises a linear regression model with a target variable comprising the inflation pressure and a description variable comprising the elapsed time.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations of:
“wherein the statistical model comprises a linear regression model with a target variable comprising the inflation pressure and a description variable comprising the elapsed time.”
Are mathematical concepts.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim 22 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim 22 does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 23:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A tire monitoring method” which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories. (as inherited from claim 14).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Natural of Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 14.
Claim 23 additionally recites limitations directed towards the Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) as shown below:
“wherein the statistical model comprises a random forest model.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations of:
“wherein the statistical model comprises a random forest model.”
Are mathematical concepts.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim 23 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim 23 does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Regarding claims 24-26, 28-35, these claims are directed towards analogous subject matter to the claims 14-16, & 18-23 and are therefore rejected for analogous reasons as claims 14-16, & 18-23.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9079461 B2 "Predictive Peer-based Tire Health Monitoring" (Suh).
Regarding claim 34, Suh teaches a tire monitoring method, comprising: training a statistical model to determine a metric associated with slow leak events (Fig. 4-134: “Slow Leakage”), at least in part by correlating input data sample sets, comprising measured inflation pressures and corresponding temperatures over time (Fig. 2-28: “TPMS Sensor”, column 5 lines 33-37: “Service 12 is coupled to a database 20 that is used to store tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) data retrieved from vehicles 14, 16, e.g., pressure, temperature, a vehicle identifier, a tire identifier, a wheel identifier, location data and/or a timestamp.”) for each of a plurality of tires (Fig. 4-116: “Are the Tires Good?”, column 8 lines 56-60: “As such, in step 102, a tire check is performed in block 114 to ensure that all tires are in good condition, and based upon whether all tires are good, block 116 either proceeds to block 118 to initiate a tire maintenance operation”), with respect to calculated pressure loss rates over defined time windows (Fig. 6: Pressure vs data points/(time)); collecting, via at least one data acquisition device mounted onboard a motor vehicle having a plurality of tires, data samples corresponding to at least inflation pressure for at least one of the plurality of tires (Fig. 1 – 12 “Tire Health Monitoring Service”, column 5 lines 33-37: “Service 12 is coupled to a database 20 that is used to store tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) data retrieved from vehicles 14, 16, e.g., pressure, temperature, a vehicle identifier, a tire identifier, a wheel identifier, location data and/or a timestamp.”, system collects data on at least temperature and pressure over time); calculating a time elapsed from a first data sample within a defined sampling period (Fig. 4 – 120 “Every Time when new data comes in”, analysis is data vs time); applying the statistical model (Fig. 17 – 204 “historical trends” & Fig. 17 – 226 “retrain models”, statistical model/(“models” based on “historical trends”))) for at least the data samples corresponding to inflation pressure (Fig. 2 – 28 “a plurality of TPMS sensors”) with respect to the time elapsed (Fig. 17 – 220 “Calculate threshold based on historical trends of features”, data samples … with respect to time elapsed/(“historical trends”)), wherein the statistical model requires at least a predetermined first threshold value of data samples within the defined sampling period, and the time elapsed from the first data sample must exceed a predetermined second threshold value (Note: this is equivalent to requiring that the statistical model be trained on a plurality of samples over a time period (which is necessary to train a model), column 13 lines 50-55: “Using a DBA model, the first several data samples from each tire are used to "train" the model baseline for each tire. The center of the data, which is the mean value of data samples from each tire, is calculated to cancel out any data acquisition errors from the TPMS system and establish the normal behavior baseline.”); ascertaining a slow leak event (Fig. 4 – 134 “slow leakage”) based on an evaluated amount of decrease in the inflation pressure from the statistical model (Fig. 4 – 126 “Model”, column 8 lines 61-67: “step 104 to begin monitoring. … by acquiring TPMS data for tires over a time period when the vehicle is known to be stopped to test for any leakages.”, TPMS = Tire Pressure Monitoring System)); and selectively generating an output signal corresponding to the ascertained slow leak event for the at least one of the plurality of tires (Fig. 17 – 212 “calculate anomaly detection features”, Fig. 17 – 226 “inflation in two tires to retrain models for inflated tires”, selectively/(based on “anomaly features”, tires have to be reinflated because there is a slow leak).
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) 14-15, 18-19, 21-22, 24-25, 28-29, & 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9079461 B2 (Suh) in view of US 20020130771 A1 (Osborne).
Regarding claim 14, Suh teaches a tire monitoring method, comprising: training a statistical model to determine a metric associated with slow leak events (Fig. 4-134: “Slow Leakage”), at least in part by correlating input data sample sets, comprising measured inflation pressures and corresponding temperatures over time (Fig. 2-28: “TPMS Sensor”, column 5 lines 33-37: “Service 12 is coupled to a database 20 that is used to store tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) data retrieved from vehicles 14, 16, e.g., pressure, temperature, a vehicle identifier, a tire identifier, a wheel identifier, location data and/or a timestamp.”) for each of a plurality of tires (Fig. 4-116: “Are the Tires Good?”, column 8 lines 56-60: “As such, in step 102, a tire check is performed in block 114 to ensure that all tires are in good condition, and based upon whether all tires are good, block 116 either proceeds to block 118 to initiate a tire maintenance operation”), with respect to calculated pressure loss rates over defined time windows (Fig. 6: Pressure vs data points/(time)); collecting, via at least one data acquisition device (Fig. 2 – 28 “a plurality of TPMS sensors” & Fig. 2 - 30 “a receiver control unit (RCU)”, 28 & 30 are on the motor vehicle 14 and are for data acquisition)) mounted onboard a motor vehicle having a plurality of tires (Fig. 1- 14 “a tractor trailer” or Fig. 1 - 16 “a bus”, vehicles with a plurality of tires)), data samples corresponding to at least inflation pressure ( (Fig. 2 – 28 “TPMS Sensor”, column 1 line 33: “tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMS's)”)) for at least one of the plurality of tires, … ; calculating a time elapsed from a first data sample within a defined sampling period (Fig. 4 – 120 “Every Time when new data comes in”, analysis is data vs time); applying a statistical model (Fig. 17 – 204 “historical trends” & Fig. 17 – 226 “retrain models”, statistical model/(“models” based on “historical trends”)) for at least the data samples corresponding to inflation pressure (Fig. 2 – 28 “a plurality of TPMS sensors”)) with respect to the time elapsed (Fig. 17 – 220 “Calculate threshold based on historical trends of features”, data samples … with respect to time elapsed/(“historical trends”)); ascertaining a slow leak event (Fig. 4 – 134 “slow leakage”) based on an evaluated amount of decrease in the inflation pressure from the statistical model (Fig. 4 – 126 “Model”, column 8 lines 61-67: “step 104 to begin monitoring. … by acquiring TPMS data for tires over a time period when the vehicle is known to be stopped to test for any leakages.”, TPMS = Tire Pressure Monitoring System)); and selectively generating an output signal corresponding to the ascertained slow leak event for the at least one of the plurality of tires (Fig. 17 – 212 “calculate anomaly detection features”, Fig. 17 – 226 “inflation in two tires to retrain models for inflated tires”, selectively/(based on “anomaly features”, tires have to be reinflated because there is a slow leak).
Suh does not as explicitly teach wherein the data samples are collected while the data acquisition device is within range of one or more data collection units in a fleet yard monitoring system.
Osborne teaches wherein the data samples are collected while the data acquisition device is within range of one or more data collection units in a fleet yard monitoring system (Fig. 17: “Wheel interrogation antenna radiation pattern”: para 0033: “The "chip-in-tire" developers have laid out plans to locate the external monitoring equipment at fuel stops, fleet operations yards, maintenance, or repair facilities.” & para 0034: “The present invention provides continuous monitoring and reporting of the operating temperature and pressure of each wheel assembly while the vehicle is moving or stationary since the monitoring equipment is integrated into the on-board system”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Suh with the teachings of Osborne. One would have added to the “Predictive Peer-based Tire Health Monitoring” of Suh the “Vehicle Wheel Monitoring System” with “signal radiating from the wheel probe interface antenna” of Osborne. The motivation would have been that the addition of Osborne’s teachings would lower costs while maintaining monitoring of the pressures (taking into account location information) in the tires of a fleet (see Osborne Abstract: “The cab display compensates the pressure data for local barometric pressure and actual tire temperature and displays the compensated data to the driver. Alarms are included to alert the driver of off specification conditions. The cab display may be removed from the cab for local use.”, & para 0038: “The present invention provides a vehicle wheel monitoring system useful to commercial trucking companies as a tool to help lower operating costs and improve overall road safety.”)
Regarding claim 15, Suh in view of Osborne teaches the tire monitoring method of claim 14,
Suh further teaches wherein the statistical model requires at least a predetermined first threshold value of data samples within the defined sampling period, and the time elapsed from the first data sample must exceed a predetermined second threshold value (Note: this is equivalent to requiring that the statistical model be trained on a plurality of samples over a time period (which is necessary to train a model), column 13 lines 50-55: “Using a DBA model, the first several data samples from each tire are used to "train" the model baseline for each tire. The center of the data, which is the mean value of data samples from each tire, is calculated to cancel out any data acquisition errors from the TPMS system and establish the normal behavior baseline.”).
Regarding claim 18, Suh in view of Osborne teaches the tire monitoring method of claim 15,
Suh further teaches further comprising: collecting, via the at least one data acquisition device mounted onboard a motor vehicle having a plurality of tires, contained air temperatures associated with the data samples corresponding to the inflation pressure for the at least one of the plurality of tires (Fig. 1 – 12 “Tire Health Monitoring Service”, column 5 lines 33-37: “Service 12 is coupled to a database 20 that is used to store tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) data retrieved from vehicles 14, 16, e.g., pressure, temperature, a vehicle identifier, a tire identifier, a wheel identifier, location data and/or a timestamp.”, system collects data on at least temperature and pressure over time); and generating a temperature-compensated inflation pressure value for each of the data samples, wherein the statistical model implements the temperature-compensated inflation pressure values for ascertaining the slow leak event (Fig. 5 – 152 “compensate pressure data for temperature…”, column 9 lines 25-30: “Then, additional preprocessing in the form of compensating for temperature, e.g., via a physical model, may be performed. In one embodiment, for example, the preprocessing of collected data may be used to generate a compensated pressure variable, representative of the tire pressure compensated for temperature effects.”).
Regarding claim 19, Suh in view of Osborne teaches the tire monitoring method of claim 15,
Suh further teaches further comprising: collecting, via the at least one data acquisition device mounted onboard a motor vehicle having a plurality of tires, contained air temperatures associated with the data samples corresponding to the inflation pressure for the at least one of the plurality of tires (Fig. 1 – 12 “Tire Health Monitoring Service”, column 5 lines 33-37: “Service 12 is coupled to a database 20 that is used to store tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) data retrieved from vehicles 14, 16, e.g., pressure, temperature, a vehicle identifier, a tire identifier, a wheel identifier, location data and/or a timestamp.”, system collects data on at least temperature and pressure over time); and determining whether to selectively generate the output signal corresponding to an ascertained slow leak event based at least in part on the associated contained air temperatures (Fig. 4 – 140 “Urgent Event” & Fig. 4 – 134 “Slow leakage”, Fig. 4 – 104 “Data Acquisition”, column 9 lines 10-16: “In step 104, for example, a package of TPMS data, collected and transmitted by the on-board components discussed above in connection with FIG. 2, may be acquired by the tire health monitoring service. Each package may include, for example, the current temperature and pressure of all tires from one vehicle, along with additional data such as a data collection time stamp and GPS location.”, at step 104 data is collected including ‘associated contained air temperatures’/(“current temperature”) and at steps 140 & 134 a selection is made as to whether a output a slow leak signal).
Regarding claim 21, Suh in view of Osborne teaches the tire monitoring method of claim 14,
Suh further teaches wherein the slow leak event is ascertained further in view of a median value of a metric corresponding to the evaluated amount of decrease in the inflation pressure, with respect to a second defined sampling period (Fig. 8 – 166 “Generate a median of all or subset of tires”, column 17 line 65 to column 18 line 1: “If the statement is well accepted, a median value of all or a subset of the tires on the vehicle may be used to serve as an indication of the general tire healthy tire performance, as illustrated by block 166 of FIG. 8.”).
Regarding claim 22, Suh in view of Osborne teaches the tire monitoring method of claim 14,
Suh further teaches wherein the statistical model comprises a linear regression model with a target variable comprising the inflation pressure and a description variable comprising the elapsed time (Fig. 19A and Fig. 19B, column 22 lines 55-61: “FIGS. 19A and 19B respectively illustrate the application of a linear regression model to the datapoints for Events 1 and 2, respectively. Linear regression prediction has been found to have a relatively low vulnerability to local trends, and may be represented as f(t)=at+b, where a is the slope, and b is the intercept, and where the slope is constrained to be less than or equal to zero.”, Figs 19 show linear regression applied to pressure vs time data).
Regarding claim 24, Suh teaches a tire monitoring system comprising: at least one data acquisition device (Fig. 2 – 28 “a plurality of TPMS sensors” & Fig. 2 - 30 “a receiver control unit (RCU)”, 28 & 30 are on the motor vehicle 14 and are for data acquisition) mounted onboard a motor vehicle having a plurality of tires(Fig. 1- 14 “a tractor trailer” or Fig. 1 - 16 “a bus”, vehicles with a plurality of tires), and configured to collect data samples corresponding to at least inflation pressure (Fig. 2 – 28 “TPMS Sensor”, column 1 line 33: “tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMS's)”) for at least one of the plurality of tires, … ; at least one data collection unit configured to receive the collected data samples from the onboard data acquisition device (a “data acquisition device” necessarily implies the existence of a “data collection unit” ); and a processing unit linked to the at least one data collection unit and configured to calculate a time elapsed from a first data sample within a defined sampling period (Fig. 4 – 120 “Every Time when new data comes in”, analysis is data vs time), apply a statistical model (Fig. 17 – 204 “historical trends” & Fig. 17 – 226 “retrain models”, statistical model/(“models” based on “historical trends”)) for at least the data samples corresponding to inflation pressure (Fig. 2 – 28 “a plurality of TPMS sensors”) with respect to the time elapsed (Fig. 17 – 220 “Calculate threshold based on historical trends of features”, data samples … with respect to time elapsed/(“historical trends”)), ascertain a slow leak event (Fig. 4 – 134 “slow leakage”) based on an evaluated amount of decrease in the inflation pressure from the statistical model (Fig. 4 – 126 “Model”, column 8 lines 61-67: “step 104 to begin monitoring. … by acquiring TPMS data for tires over a time period when the vehicle is known to be stopped to test for any leakages.”, TPMS = Tire Pressure Monitoring System), and selectively generate an output signal corresponding to the ascertained slow leak event for the at least one of the plurality of tires (Fig. 17 – 212 “calculate anomaly detection features”, Fig. 17 – 226 “inflation in two tires to retrain models for inflated tires”, selectively/(based on “anomaly features”, tires have to be reinflated because there is a slow leak), column 2 lines 43-45: “and slow leakages may be predicted based upon historical data associated with the determined health condition.”).
Suh does not as explicitly teach wherein the data samples are collected while the data acquisition device is within range of one or more data collection units located in a fleet yard monitoring area.
Osborne further teaches wherein the data samples are collected while the data acquisition device is within range of the one or more data collection units located in a fleet yard monitoring area (Fig. 17c: “Wave Interrogation Antenna Radiation Pattern”, Abstract: “The cab display compensates the pressure data for local barometric pressure and actual tire temperature and displays the compensated data to the driver. Alarms are included to alert the driver of off specification conditions. The cab display may be removed from the cab for local use.” Para 0033: “The "chip-in-tire" developers have laid out plans to locate the external monitoring equipment at fuel stops, fleet operations yards, maintenance, or repair facilities.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Suh with the teachings of Osborne. One would have added to the “Predictive Peer-based Tire Health Monitoring” of Suh the “Vehicle Wheel Monitoring System” with “signal radiating from the wheel probe interface antenna” of Osborne. The motivation would have been that the addition of Osborne’s teachings would lower costs while maintaining monitoring of the pressures (taking into account location information) in the tires of a fleet (see Osborne Abstract: “The cab display compensates the pressure data for local barometric pressure and actual tire temperature and displays the compensated data to the driver. Alarms are included to alert the driver of off specification conditions. The cab display may be removed from the cab for local use.”, & para 0038: “The present invention provides a vehicle wheel monitoring system useful to commercial trucking companies as a tool to help lower operating costs and improve overall road safety.”)
Regarding claim 25, Suh in view of Osborne teaches the tire monitoring system of claim 24,
Suh further teaches wherein the statistical model requires at least a first threshold value of data samples within the defined sampling period, and the time elapsed from the first data sample must exceed a second threshold value (Note: this is equivalent to requiring that the statistical model be trained on a plurality of samples over a time period (which is necessary to train a model), column 13 lines 50-55: “Using a DBA model, the first several data samples from each tire are used to "train" the model baseline for each tire. The center of the data, which is the mean value of data samples from each tire, is calculated to cancel out any data acquisition errors from the TPMS system and establish the normal behavior baseline.”).
Regarding claim 28, Suh in view of Osborne teaches the tire monitoring system of claim 25,
Suh further teaches wherein: the at least one data acquisition device is further configured to collect contained air temperatures associated with the data samples corresponding to the inflation pressure for the at least one of the plurality of tires (Fig. 1 – 12 “Tire Health Monitoring Service”, column 5 lines 33-37: “Service 12 is coupled to a database 20 that is used to store tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) data retrieved from vehicles 14, 16, e.g., pressure, temperature, a vehicle identifier, a tire identifier, a wheel identifier, location data and/or a timestamp.”, system collects data on at least temperature and pressure over time); and the processing unit is configured to generate a temperature-compensated inflation pressure value for each of the data samples, wherein the statistical model implements the temperature-compensated inflation pressure values for ascertaining the slow leak event (Fig. 5 – 152 “compensate pressure data for temperature…”, column 9 lines 25-30: “Then, additional preprocessing in the form of compensating for temperature, e.g., via a physical model, may be performed. In one embodiment, for example, the preprocessing of collected data may be used to generate a compensated pressure variable, representative of the tire pressure compensated for temperature effects.”).
Regarding claim 29, Suh in view of Osborne teaches the tire monitoring system of claim 25,
Suh further teaches wherein: the at least one data acquisition device is further configured to collect contained air temperatures associated with the data samples corresponding to the at least inflation pressure for the one of the plurality of tires (Fig. 1 – 12 “Tire Health Monitoring Service”, column 5 lines 33-37: “Service 12 is coupled to a database 20 that is used to store tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) data retrieved from vehicles 14, 16, e.g., pressure, temperature, a vehicle identifier, a tire identifier, a wheel identifier, location data and/or a timestamp.”, system collects data on at least temperature and pressure over time); and the processing unit is configured to determine whether to selectively generate an output signal corresponding to an ascertained slow leak event based on the associated contained air temperatures (Fig. 4 – 140 “Urgent Event” & Fig. 4 – 134 “Slow leakage”, Fig. 4 – 104 “Data Acquisition”, column 9 lines 10-16: “In step 104, for example, a package of TPMS data, collected and transmitted by the on-board components discussed above in connection with FIG. 2, may be acquired by the tire health monitoring service. Each package may include, for example, the current temperature and pressure of all tires from one vehicle, along with additional data such as a data collection time stamp and GPS location.”, at step 104 data is collected including ‘associated contained air temperatures’/(“current temperature”) and at steps 140 & 134 a selection is made as to whether a output a slow leak signal).
Regarding claim 31, Suh in view of Osborne teaches the tire monitoring system of claim 24,
Suh further teaches wherein the slow leak event is ascertained further in view of a median value of a metric corresponding to the evaluated amount of decrease in the inflation pressure, with respect to a second defined sampling period (Fig. 8 – 166 “Generate a median of all or subset of tires”, column 17 line 65 to column 18 line 1: “If the statement is well accepted, a median value of all or a subset of the tires on the vehicle may be used to serve as an indication of the general tire healthy tire performance, as illustrated by block 166 of FIG. 8.”).
Regarding claim 32, Suh in view of Osborne teaches the tire monitoring system of claim 24,
Suh further teaches wherein the statistical model comprises a linear regression model with a target variable comprising the inflation pressure and a description variable comprising the elapsed time (Fig. 19A and Fig. 19B, column 22 lines 55-61: “FIGS. 19A and 19B respectively illustrate the application of a linear regression model to the datapoints for Events 1 and 2, respectively. Linear regression prediction has been found to have a relatively low vulnerability to local trends, and may be represented as f(t)=at+b, where a is the slope, and b is the intercept, and where the slope is constrained to be less than or equal to zero.”, Figs 19 show linear regression applied to pressure vs time data).
Claim(s) 16, 26, & 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9079461 B2 (Suh) in view of US 11420485 B2 (Greco) in further view of US 20020130771 A1 (Osborne).
Regarding claim 16, Suh in view of Osborne teaches the tire monitoring method of claim 15,
Neither Suh nor Osborne as explicitly teaches wherein the data samples are only collected for the statistical model when a speed of the motor vehicle is determined to have been zero for a third threshold value of time.
Greco teaches wherein the data samples are only collected for the statistical model when a speed of the motor vehicle is determined to have been zero for a third threshold value of time (Fig. 1 – 120 “stationary mode”, column 2 lines 29-33: “There is therefore a first measurement on launching the stationary operating mode of the member, then a second one 15 minutes later, a third one 30 minutes later, then 1 hour later, then 2 hours later, and so on.”, system is checking the tire pressure after the tire has had time to cool down and therefore not measure changes in pressure which are due only to the heated air in the tire).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Suh with the teachings of Greco. One would have added to the “Predictive Peer-based Tire Health Monitoring” with “Vehicle Wheel Monitoring System” of Suh in view of Osborne the “Method For Detecting A Leak In A Tire Of A Stationary Vehicle” of Greco. The motivation would have been that thermal dissipation and load transfers would cause heating and cooling of the air in the tire and thereby cause changes in pressures and volumes to due to thermal expansion (see Suh column 1 line 64- column 2 line 4: “the thermal dissipation from the tire to the rim; load transfers that cause slight variations of the volume of the tires; and heat build-up in the tire due to its hysteretic losses. Such factors can affect the accuracy of information communicated to the driver, failing to alert the driver of marginal tire conditions under some circumstances and issuing false alarms to the driver in other instances.”).
Regarding claim 26, Suh in view of Osborne teaches the tire monitoring system of claim 25,
Neither Suh nor Osborne as explicitly teaches wherein the data samples are only collected for the statistical model when a speed of the motor vehicle is determined to have been zero for a third threshold value of time.
Greco teaches wherein the data samples are only collected for the statistical model when a speed of the motor vehicle is determined to have been zero for a third threshold value of time (Fig. 1 – 120 “stationary mode”, column 2 lines 29-33: “There is therefore a first measurement on launching the stationary operating mode of the member, then a second one 15 minutes later, a third one 30 minutes later, then 1 hour later, then 2 hours later, and so on.”, system is checking the tire pressure after the tire has had time to cool down and therefore not measure changes in pressure which are due only to the heated air in the tire).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Suh with the teachings of Greco. One would have added to the “Predictive Peer-based Tire Health Monitoring” with “Method For Detecting A Leak In A Tire Of A Stationary Vehicle” of Suh in view of Greco the “Method For Detecting A Leak In A Tire Of A Stationary Vehicle” of Greco. The motivation would have been that thermal dissipation and load transfers would cause heating and cooling of the air in the tire and thereby cause changes in pressures and volumes to due to thermal expansion (see Suh column 1 line 64- column 2 line 4: “the thermal dissipation from the tire to the rim; load transfers that cause slight variations of the volume of the tires; and heat build-up in the tire due to its hysteretic losses. Such factors can affect the accuracy of information communicated to the driver, failing to alert the driver of marginal tire conditions under some circumstances and issuing false alarms to the driver in other instances.”).
Regarding claim 35, Suh teaches the tire monitoring method of claim 34,
Suh does not as explicitly teach wherein the data samples are only collected for the statistical model when a speed of the motor vehicle is determined to have been zero for a predetermined threshold value of time, or while the data acquisition device is within range of one or more data collection units in a fleet yard monitoring system.
Greco teaches wherein the data samples are only collected for the statistical model when a speed of the motor vehicle is determined to have been zero for a predetermined threshold value of time (Fig. 1 – 120 “stationary mode”, column 2 lines 29-33: “There is therefore a first measurement on launching the stationary operating mode of the member, then a second one 15 minutes later, a third one 30 minutes later, then 1 hour later, then 2 hours later, and so on.”, system is checking the tire pressure after the tire has had time to cool down and therefore not measure changes in pressure which are due only to the heated air in the tire)),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Suh with the teachings of Greco. One would have added to the “Predictive Peer-based Tire Health Monitoring” of Suh the “Method For Detecting A Leak In A Tire Of A Stationary Vehicle” of Greco. The motivation would have been that thermal dissipation and load transfers would cause heating and cooling of the air in the tire and thereby cause changes in pressures and volumes to due to thermal expansion (see Suh column 1 line 64- column 2 line 4: “the thermal dissipation from the tire to the rim; load transfers that cause slight variations of the volume of the tires; and heat build-up in the tire due to its hysteretic losses. Such factors can affect the accuracy of information communicated to the driver, failing to alert the driver of marginal tire conditions under some circumstances and issuing false alarms to the driver in other instances.”).
Osborne teaches or while the data acquisition device is within range of one or more data collection units in a fleet yard monitoring system (Fig. 17: “Wheel interrogation antenna radiation pattern”: para 0033: “The "chip-in-tire" developers have laid out plans to locate the external monitoring equipment at fuel stops, fleet operations yards, maintenance, or repair facilities.” & para 0034: “The present invention provides continuous monitoring and reporting of the operating temperature and pressure of each wheel assembly while the vehicle is moving or stationary since the monitoring equipment is integrated into the on-board system”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Suh in view of Greco with the teachings of Osborne. One would have added to the “Predictive Peer-based Tire Health Monitoring” with “Method For Detecting A Leak In A Tire Of A Stationary Vehicle” of Suh in view of Greco the “Vehicle Wheel Monitoring System” with “signal radiating from the wheel probe interface antenna” of Osborne. The motivation would have been that the addition of Osborne’s teachings would lower costs while maintaining monitoring of the pressures (taking into account location information) in the tires of a fleet (see Osborne Abstract: “The cab display compensates the pressure data for local barometric pressure and actual tire temperature and displays the compensated data to the driver. Alarms are included to alert the driver of off specification conditions. The cab display may be removed from the cab for local use.”, & para 0038: “The present invention provides a vehicle wheel monitoring system useful to commercial trucking companies as a tool to help lower operating costs and improve overall road safety.”)
Claim(s) 20 & 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9079461 B2 (Suh) in view of US 20020130771 A1 (Osborne) in further view of US 10821788 B2 (Van Wiemeersch).
Regarding claim 20, Suh in view of Osborne teaches the tire monitoring method of claim 19,
Neither Suh nor Osborne as explicitly teach comprising determining whether to selectively generate the output signal corresponding to an ascertained slow leak event based on an hourly change rate in the associated contained air temperatures with respect to a threshold value
Van Wiemeersch teaches comprising determining whether to selectively generate the output signal corresponding to an ascertained slow leak event based on an hourly change rate in the associated contained air temperatures with respect to a threshold value (Fig. 5 – 506 “Collect tire pressure measurement(s) from TPMS sensor(s)”, & Fig. 5 – 512 “Time period ended”, column 2 lines 22-26: “In such examples, the controller is configured to activate the TPMS sensor responsive to the temperature sensor detecting a decrease in temperature over a predetermined period of time that exceeds a temperature change threshold.”, Fig. 5 shows that the evaluation threshold (which includes temperature) takes place over a time period).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Suh with the teachings of Van Wiemeersch. One would have added to the “Predictive Peer-based Tire Health Monitoring” with “Vehicle Wheel Monitoring System” of Suh in view of Osborne the “Activation Of Tire Pressure Measurement Systems” of Van Wiemeersch. The motivation would have been that depending on the type of leak and the rate of the leak, the repair and plans for repair may be different (see Suh column 5 lines 4-10: “In further embodiments, anomalies, such as severe leakage and tire inflations, may also be detected, and may, for example, trigger retraining of tire-specific models, e.g., when the inflation of one or more tires is detected. In addition, in some embodiments, a predictive algorithm may be used to predict a leakage rate of a tire, e.g., so that a time before re-inflation or repair of the tire is required may be calculated.”)
Regarding claim 30, Suh in view of Osborne teaches the tire monitoring system of claim 29,
Neither Suh nor Osborne as explicitly teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to determine whether to selectively generate the output signal corresponding to an ascertained slow leak event based on an hourly change rate in the associated contained air temperatures with respect to a threshold value.
Van Wiemeersch teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to determine whether to selectively generate the output signal corresponding to an ascertained slow leak event based on an hourly change rate in the associated contained air temperatures with respect to a threshold value(Fig. 5 – 506 “Collect tire pressure measurement(s) from TPMS sensor(s)”, & Fig. 5 – 512 “Time period ended”, column 2 lines 22-26: “In such examples, the controller is configured to activate the TPMS sensor responsive to the temperature sensor detecting a decrease in temperature over a predetermined period of time that exceeds a temperature change threshold.”, Fig. 5 shows that the evaluation threshold (which includes temperature) takes place over a time period).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Suh with the teachings of Van Wiemeersch. One would have added to the “Predictive Peer-based Tire Health Monitoring” with “Vehicle Wheel Monitoring System” of Suh in view of Osborne the “Activation Of Tire Pressure Measurement Systems” of Van Wiemeersch. The motivation would have been that depending on the type of leak and the rate of the leak, the repair and plans for repair may be different (see Suh column 5 lines 4-10: “In further embodiments, anomalies, such as severe leakage and tire inflations, may also be detected, and may, for example, trigger retraining of tire-specific models, e.g., when the inflation of one or more tires is detected. In addition, in some embodiments, a predictive algorithm may be used to predict a leakage rate of a tire, e.g., so that a time before re-inflation or repair of the tire is required may be calculated.”)
Claim(s) 23 & 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9079461 B2 (Suh) in view of in view of US 20020130771 A1 (Osborne) in further view of US 20220185032 A1 (Choi).
Regarding claim 23, Suh in view of Osborne teaches the tire monitoring method of claim 14,
Neither Suh nor Osborne teach wherein the statistical model comprises a random forest model.
Choi teaches wherein the statistical model comprises a random forest model (Fig. 1 – S130, para 0019: “According to various exemplary embodiments of the present invention, the multi output regression analysis technique may include a random forest technique”, system uses a random forest in determining wear of tires).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Suh with the teachings of Choi. One would have added to the “Predictive Peer-based Tire Health Monitoring” with “Vehicle Wheel Monitoring System” of Suh in view of Osborne the “Method and Apparatus for Predicting Tire Wear Using Machine Learning” of Choi. The motivation would have been that the decision tree method of Choi would enable quality determinations of tire health taking into consideration of differences in tire pressures (see Suh column 13 lines 32-41: “Though tires may be inflated to different levels, they all still may be considered to be in the same "good" health condition, i.e. they are not leaking. As such, in the illustrated embodiment, discrepancies in inflation levels among different tire instances on a vehicle are desirably compensated for to ensure that all tires are subjected to the same healthy initial condition after maintenance. Otherwise, such discrepancies may mask the real health conditions of the tires and prevent a degrading condition from being early detected.”)
Regarding claim 33, Suh in view of Osborne teaches the tire monitoring system of claim 24,
Neither Suh nor Osborne teach wherein the statistical model comprises a random forest model.
Choi teaches wherein the statistical model comprises a random forest model (Fig. 1 – S130, para 0019: “According to various exemplary embodiments of the present invention, the multi output regression analysis technique may include a random forest technique”, system uses a random forest in determining wear of tires).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Suh with the teachings of Choi. One would have added to “Predictive Peer-based Tire Health Monitoring” with “Vehicle Wheel Monitoring System” of Suh in view of Osborne the “Method and Apparatus for Predicting Tire Wear Using Machine Learning” of Choi. The motivation would have been that the decision tree method of Choi would enable quality determinations of tire health taking into consideration of differences in tire pressures (see Suh column 13 lines 32-41: “Though tires may be inflated to different levels, they all still may be considered to be in the same "good" health condition, i.e. they are not leaking. As such, in the illustrated embodiment, discrepancies in inflation levels among different tire instances on a vehicle are desirably compensated for to ensure that all tires are subjected to the same healthy initial condition after maintenance. Otherwise, such discrepancies may mask the real health conditions of the tires and prevent a degrading condition from being early detected.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200126330 A1 "Tire Inspection System for Vehicle Fleets" (Wofford-Redmond) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 2, 3, & 7.
US 20200294401 A1 "A Method And Apparatus For Collecting And Using Sensor Data From A Vehicle" (Kerecsen) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 3.
US 6630885 B2 "Electronic Tire Management System" (Hardman) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1A-21: "RF circuit".
US 9796219 B2 "Wireless Tire Monitoring System" (Chong) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 2-3, & 5.
US 20240369455 A1 "Estimation of Vertical Load Acting on a Tire as a Function of Tire Inflation Pressure" (Sams) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1.
US 12583268 B2 "Systems And Methods For Determining Tire Inflation Pressure Loss" (Degenhardt) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 3.
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 MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights