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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/12/2023, 01/22/2025, & 10/03/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 2A & Fig. 2B should have the x-axis labeled with units (presumably 'days'), graphs should have axes labeled with both what variable is being plotted on .
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 18-19, & 28-29 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 18-19, & 28-29 line 4(each claim): "the at least inflation pressure"; "at least" doesn't grammatically fit in the phrase. Additionally, there would be no antecedent basis for "the at least inflation pressure" but there is antecedent basis for "the inflation pressure". .
Claims 18, & 28 lines 9 & 8 (respectively): "the slow leak events", "events" in the plural has no antecedent basis. Claim 14 lines 8 states "a slow leak event" in the singular. .
Note: the first instance of an element should be in the form “a [unique descriptive terminology]” and successive references to that element should be in the form “the [unique descriptive terminology]” where [unique descriptive terminology] is the same throughout the claims. This is necessary because similarly phrased elements can be patentably distinct.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“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:
“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;”
“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 element of “a tire” is no more than a field of use or technological environment limitation. 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 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.”
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 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.”
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 17:
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.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 17 additionally recites limitations directed towards necessary data gathering as shown below:
“The tire monitoring method of claim 15, wherein the data samples are only collected while the data acquisition device is within range of one or more data collection units in a fleet yard monitoring system.”
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:
The limitation is effectively no more than stating that data is collected. Necessary data collection is not significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Note: logically data can only be collected when within range.
Reciting “in a fleet yard monitoring system” amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment limitation. The field of use corresponds to at least cpc symbol G08G 1/00
“Traffic control systems for road vehicles arrangement of road signs or traffic signals E01F 9/00; automatic vehicle control B62D”
Conclusion:
The claim does not integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim 17 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 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 17 and thereby 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 events.”
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 events.”
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 at least 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 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 17 and thereby 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.”
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 events.”
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 at least 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 17 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 24-33, these claims are directed towards analogous subject matter to the claims 14-23 and are therefore rejected for analogous reasons as claims 14-23.
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) 14-15, 17-19, 21-22, 24-25, 27-29, & 31-32 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 14, Suh teaches a tire monitoring method, comprising: 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), column 2 lines 43-45: “and slow leakages may be predicted based upon historical data associated with the determined health condition.”).
Regarding claim 15, Suh teaches the tire monitoring method of claim 14,
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 17, Suh teaches the tire monitoring method of claim 15,
Suh further teaches wherein the data samples are only collected while the data acquisition device is within range of one or more data collection units in a fleet yard monitoring system (Fig. 1 – 24 “Fleet Agents” & Fig. 1 -18 “network”, column 5 lines 27-32: “Service 12 wirelessly communicates with vehicles 14, 16 via a network 18, e.g., via a wireless carrier, which may be operated by the same entity that operates service 12, or by a separate entity altogether, and may be public, private or proprietary in nature. Service 12 may be coupled to network 18 by wired and/or wireless communication media.”, the sensors from individual vehicles send tire information to the monitoring system, Note: logically data is necessarily collected when within range and not when outside the range).
Regarding claim 18, Suh teaches the tire monitoring method of claim 17,
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 at least 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 events (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 teaches the tire monitoring method of claim 17,
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 at least 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 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 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.”).
Regarding claim 25, Suh 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