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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/31/2025 has been entered.
Note: After further consideration, the examiner has found prior art to reject the claim. Additionally, the examiner’s discussion with a quality assurance specialist, further supported the examiner’s analysis.
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
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a method of determining a tire performance characteristic of a tire, the method comprising: determining that a remote memory, remote from a tire monitoring device associated with the tire, is unavailable, the remote memory configured to store a performance coefficient of the tire corresponding to performance of the tire during a first time period; where the remote memory is unavailable: either calculating the performance coefficient at a remote device or, obtaining, using the remote device, the performance coefficient from a local memory of the tire monitoring device; obtaining, using the remote device and from the tire monitoring device, a plurality of values indicative of a tire parameter of the tire during a second time period; and determining, at the remote device and based on the plurality of values and the performance coefficient, the tire performance characteristic.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of determining that a remote memory, is unavailable. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, determining that a remote memory, is unavailable can be done by a human or pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of calculating the performance coefficient or, obtaining, the performance coefficient. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, calculating a performance coefficient or, obtaining a performance coefficient can be done by a human or pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of obtaining, a plurality of values indicative of a tire parameter of the tire during a second time period. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, obtaining, a plurality of values indicative of a tire parameter can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of determining, based on the plurality of values and the performance coefficient, the tire performance characteristic. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, determining, based on the plurality of values and the performance coefficient, the tire performance characteristic can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea:
the remote memory configured to store a performance coefficient of the tire corresponding to performance of the tire during a first time period; a remote device; a remote memory; a local memory, tire monitoring device; a remote device
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determining a tire performance characteristic in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform calculations of performance coefficients and determinations of a tire performance characteristic. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determining a tire performance characteristic in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the remote device is configured to communicate with the tire monitoring device over a range of no more than 100 meters.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 3 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the calculating the performance coefficient at the remote device comprises calculating the performance coefficient based on a further plurality of values indicative of the tire parameter during the first time period.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 4 depends on claim 3, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising obtaining the further plurality of values using the tire monitoring device, storing the further plurality of values in the local memory, and obtaining, using the remote device, the further plurality of values from the local memory.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 5 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising: obtaining and storing the plurality of values in the local memory using the tire monitoring device, and obtaining, using the remote device, the plurality of values from the local memory to determine the tire performance characteristic.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 6 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising calculating the performance coefficient at the remote device, storing the calculated performance coefficient in the local memory.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 7 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the first time period is at least 25 days.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 8 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the second time period is no more than 10 days.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 9 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the method comprises: determining, at the remote device and based on the determined tire performance characteristic, an updated performance coefficient; and storing the updated performance coefficient in the local memory.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 10 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 10 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the method comprises providing a notification to a user based on the tire performance characteristic.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 11 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 11 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising determining, based on the tire performance characteristic, a maintenance action to be performed on the tire.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 12 depends on claim 11, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 12 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the method comprises causing, based on the tire performance characteristic, the maintenance action to be performed on the tire.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 13 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 13 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the tire parameter comprises one or more of a tire pressure and a tire temperature.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 14 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the tire performance characteristic comprises one or more of a rate of deflation of the tire, a predicted future inflation point of the tire, a pressure leakage rate of the tire, and a predicted time for the tire to cool to a predefined temperature.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 15 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 15 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the tire comprises an aircraft tire.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 16 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 16 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein, where the remote memory is available, the method comprises determining the tire performance characteristic using a processing system remote from the remote device and the tire monitoring device, and based a on a performance coefficient stored in the remote memory and the plurality of values.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 17 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 17 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the determining that the remote memory is unavailable comprises one or more of determining that a network connection to the remote memory is unavailable, and determining that an operator of a vehicle to which the tire belongs does not have permission to access the remote memory.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites a tire performance monitoring system comprising: a tire monitoring device configured to obtain, over respective first and second time periods, first and second pluralities of values indicative of a tire parameter of a tire, the tire monitoring device comprising a local memory configured to store a performance coefficient corresponding to performance of the tire during the first time period; a remote memory configured to store the performance coefficient; and a remote device, remote from the tire monitoring device, the remote device configured to: determine that the remote memory is unavailable, and where the remote memory is unavailable: perform either of calculating the performance coefficient at the remote device, and obtaining the performance coefficient from the local memory of the tire monitoring device; obtain, from the tire monitoring device, the second plurality of values; and determine, based on the second plurality of values and the performance coefficient, the tire performance characteristic.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a system; therefore, it is a machine.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of determine that a remote memory, is unavailable. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, determining that a remote memory, is unavailable can be done by a human or pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of calculating the performance coefficient, and obtaining, the performance coefficient. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, calculating a performance coefficient, and obtaining a performance coefficient can be done by a human or pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of obtain, the second a plurality of values indicative of a tire parameter of the tire during a second time period. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, obtaining, a plurality of values indicative of a tire parameter can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of determining, based on the second plurality of values and the performance coefficient, the tire performance characteristic. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, determining, based on the plurality of values and the performance coefficient, the tire performance characteristic can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea:
the remote memory configured to store a performance coefficient; a remote device, remote from the tire monitoring device; a local memory; the tire monitoring device comprising a local memory configured to store a performance coefficient corresponding to performance of the tire during the first time period; a tire monitoring device configured to obtain, over respective first and second time periods, first and second pluralities of values indicative of a tire parameter of a tire,
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determining a tire performance characteristic in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform calculations of performance coefficients and determinations of a tire performance characteristic. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determining a tire performance characteristic in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 19 depends on claim 18, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 19 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the remote device is configured to communicate with the tire monitoring device over a range of no more than 100m.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 19 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 20 depends on claim 18, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 20 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the tire monitoring device is configured to store the second plurality of values in the local memory, and the remote device is configured to obtain the second plurality of values from the local memory to determine the tire performance characteristic.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
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.
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BILL; Andrew Raymond (US publication #US 20210101423 A1; Bill) in view of Shaw; Mark Layne (US Publication #US 20060082451 A1; hereinafter Shaw).
Regarding claim 1, Bill teaches,
A method of determining a tire performance characteristic of a tire (abstract), the method comprising:
determining that a remote memory, remote from a tire monitoring device associated with the tire (fig.3 #140 par. 14 “The separate electronic device may be provided external to the aircraft. The separate electronic device may be a reader device. The communication between the pressure sensor device and the separate electronic device may be wireless communication, preferably secure wireless communication, for example utilizing encryption of some form. The memory unit may include security key data facilitating such secure communication. The separate electronic device may be a portable device, possibly a hand-held device.” Teaches a remote memory; par. 37 “There may be a step of uploading data from the separate electronic device, which will typically be a portable device, to a further computer, for example a central server, so that data can be collated. Such collated data may then be used for fleet-wide analytics or archived.”), is unavailable (par.56 “Data is wirelessly downloaded from the sensor by means of a handheld device 140 (i.e. not on the aircraft) when the aircraft is on the ground.”, data, which come from the memory, is available only when aircraft is on the ground, thus it is unavailable when in flight), the remote memory configured to store a performance coefficient of the tire corresponding to performance of the tire during a first time period (par.32 “The method may be performed over a period of time of one or more days. Data may be recorded on a rolling basis, such that data older than a certain time are overwritten with new data. There may for example be at least 72 hours of rolling data, and preferably at least 120 hours. It may during performance of the method there are a set number of data sets stored in memory, the set number being greater than 25 (optionally greater than 50) but fewer than 1,000, and possibly fewer than 250. It may be that as a new set of data is stored, the oldest set of data is deleted (effectively overwritten).”);
where the remote memory is unavailable:
either calculating the performance coefficient at a remote device or, obtaining, using the remote device, the performance coefficient from a local memory (par.24 “a memory unit local to the tire for storing data”) of the tire monitoring device (par.28 “There may be a step of a control unit causing first measurements to be taken of the tire pressure and, optionally, of an associated temperature. There may be a step of the control unit recording in a memory unit first data including an indication of the time at which the first measurements are taken, an indication of the tire pressure and, optionally, an indication of the temperature as so measured by the first measurements.” The performance coefficient must make up the data acquired);
obtaining, using the remote device and from the tire monitoring device, a plurality of values indicative of a tire parameter of the tire during a second time period (fig.3 smart sensor 122 includes pressure sensor 124, temperature sensor 126, and accelerometer 132; par. 11-12 teaches pressure/temperature readings performed for tire; par.24 teaches device includes controller (e.g., CPU 128 in FIG. 3) that records multiple sensor readings over time; par.28 “There may be a step of the control unit causing second measurements to be taken of the tire pressure” implicitly teaches a second period with second measurements); and
determining, at the remote device and based on the plurality of values and the performance coefficient, the tire performance characteristic (par.36 “The method may include a step of deciding whether or not to replace the tire, the decision depending on data received by a separate electronic device, for example the above-mentioned portable reader device. The decision may be taken by the separate electronic device and be provided as an output, for example via a visual display unit of the separate electronic device. The decision may be taken taking into account one or more historical measurements, in addition to a more recent measurement (for example the last measurement taken before making the decision). The separate electronic device may for example detect that the tire pressure in the tire had reduced more rapidly than would be expected of a tire in good health. The method may include a step of replacing the tire, if so directed by the separate electronic device.” Determining whether to change a tire is based on the tire performance characteristic which is calculated from the plurality of values and the performance coefficient that make up the data).
Bill doesn’t explicitly teach the performance coefficient from a local memory, but does teach the capability to store and retrieve the performance coefficient from a local memory (par.24 “a memory unit local to the tire for storing data”).
Shaw does fully teach the performance coefficient from a local memory (par.11 teaches various types of data collected relating to the performance coefficient, which is stored withing wheel module 11).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bill to include the teachings of Shaw; which would provide an improved method for detecting movement of vehicular pneumatic tire that uses infrared motion sensing to identify different types of tires on a vehicle as disclosed by Shaw(par.47).
PNG
media_image3.png
700
614
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Bill Figure 3
Regarding claim 2, Bill in view of Shaw teaches the method according to Claim 1, Bill further teaches wherein the remote device is configured to communicate with the tire monitoring device over a range of no more than 100 meters (par.14-15 implicitly teach at least a Bluetooth wireless connection which is no more than 100m.).
Regarding claim 3, Bill in view of Shaw teaches the method according to Claim 1, Bill further teaches wherein the calculating the performance coefficient at the remote device comprises calculating the performance coefficient based on a further plurality of values indicative of the tire parameter during the first time period (par.52 teaches calculating/determining performance parameters/coefficients, based on plurality of values indicative of the tire parameter at numerous periods).
Regarding claim 4, Bill in view of Shaw teaches the method according to Claim 3, Bill further teaches further comprising obtaining the further plurality of values using the tire monitoring device (par.52), storing the further plurality of values in the local memory (par.52), and obtaining, using the remote device, the further plurality of values from the local memory (par.52 teaches multiple smart sensor devices to obtain values, store and obtain ,using the separate handheld devices, the further plurality of values from the local memory).
Regarding claim 5, Bill in view of Shaw teaches the method according to Claim 1, Bill further teaches further comprising:
obtaining and storing the plurality of values in the local memory using the tire monitoring device (par.52 “the sensor takes (step 204) an initial set of readings”), and
obtaining, using the remote device, the plurality of values from the local memory to determine the tire performance characteristic (par.52 “the sensor takes (step 204) an initial set of readings and stores them (step 206) in memory”).
Regarding claim 6, Bill in view of Shaw teaches the method according to Claim 1, Bill further teaches further comprising calculating the performance coefficient at the remote device, storing the calculated performance coefficient in the local memory (par.52 teaches calculating the performance coefficient, through data collected, during takeoff and landing; subsequently stores them).
Regarding claim 7, Bill in view of Shaw teaches the method according to Claim 1, Bill further teaches wherein the first time period is at least 25 days (par.32 “The method may be performed over a period of time of one or more days. Data may be recorded on a rolling basis, such that data older than a certain time are overwritten with new data.”).
Regarding claim 8, Bill in view of Shaw teaches the method according to Claim 1, Bill further teaches wherein the second time period is no more than 10 days (par.32 “The method may be performed over a period of time of one or more days. Data may be recorded on a rolling basis, such that data older than a certain time are overwritten with new data.”).
Regarding claim 9, Bill in view of Shaw teaches the method according to Claim 1, Bill further teaches wherein the method comprises:
determining, at the remote device and based on the determined tire performance characteristic, an updated performance coefficient (par.52 teaches determining updated performance coefficient, based on tire new performance characteristic recorded with new data); and
storing the updated performance coefficient in the local memory (par.52).
Regarding claim 10, Bill in view of Shaw teaches the method according to Claim 1, Shaw further teaches wherein the method comprises providing a notification to a user based on the tire performance characteristic (par.13 teaches providing an alarm).
Regarding claim 11, Bill in view of Shaw teaches the method according to Claim 1, Bill further teaches further comprising determining, based on the tire performance characteristic, a maintenance action to be performed on the tire (par.35 “The method may include a step of deciding whether or not to add more gas to the tire (e.g. to further inflate the tire)”).
Regarding claim 12, Bill in view of Shaw teaches the method according to Claim 11, Bill further teaches wherein the method comprises causing, based on the tire performance characteristic, the maintenance action to be performed on the tire (par.56 “When such a handheld device downloads data from the memory of the smart sensor device, the handheld unit compares the reference pressure with the actual pressure and if the actual pressure (or the trend in pressure reduction over time) is suggestive that the tire is, or soon will be, underinflated a warning message will appear. The tire may then be inflated manually.”).
Regarding claim 13, Bill in view of Shaw teaches the method according to Claim 11, Bill further teaches wherein the tire parameter comprises one or more of a tire pressure (par.56) and a tire temperature (par.21 teaches bother tire pressure and temperature as the parameters).
Regarding claim 14, Bill in view of Shaw teaches the method according to Claim 11, Bill further teaches wherein the tire performance characteristic comprises one or more of a rate of deflation of the tire (par.20 “to indicate whether the actual pressure (or the trend in pressure reduction over time) is suggestive that the tire is, or soon will be, underinflated.”), a predicted future inflation point of the tire (par.35 “whether or not to add more gas to the tire (e.g. to further inflate the tire)”), a pressure leakage rate of the tire, and a predicted time for the tire to cool to a predefined temperature.
Regarding claim 15, Bill in view of Shaw teaches the method according to Claim 11, Bill further teaches wherein the tire comprises an aircraft tire (par.15 “The use of a hand-held device to wirelessly obtain pressure readings, as provided in certain embodiments, allows a single ground crew member to check quickly a large number of aircraft tires”).
Regarding claim 16, Bill in view of Shaw teaches the method according to Claim 11, Bill further teaches wherein, where the remote memory is available, the method comprises determining the tire performance characteristic using a processing system remote from the remote device and the tire monitoring device (par.29 “a separate computer device to perform such data processing tasks.” This computer is remote from the separate hand-held device and pressure sensor device), and based a on a performance coefficient stored in the remote memory and the plurality of values (par.30-32).
Regarding claim 17, Bill in view of Shaw teaches the method according to Claim 11, Bill further teaches wherein the determining that the remote memory is unavailable comprises one or more of determining that a network connection to the remote memory is unavailable (par.56 “Data is wirelessly downloaded from the sensor by means of a handheld device 140 (i.e. not on the aircraft) when the aircraft is on the ground.”, this implicitly teaches network connection to the remote memory is unavailable when aircraft is in flight), and determining that an operator of a vehicle to which the tire belongs does not have permission to access the remote memory (par.20 “Proving details of the aircraft ID or associated reference pressure levels may enable the ground crew member to quickly and reliably check the tire pressures of a fleet containing different aircraft types, using the aforementioned separate electronic device (for example a handheld device).” Teaches the use of IDs to determine that an operator does not have permission to access the remote memory).
Regarding claim 18, Bill teaches
A tire performance monitoring system comprising:
a tire monitoring device configured (tire pressure sensor device (122)) to obtain, over respective first and second time periods (par.28 teaches obtaining tire data with multiple measurements taken at different time periods), first and second pluralities of values indicative of a tire parameter of a tire (par.28 teaches taken 1st and 2nd measurements which include tire parameters such pressure),
a remote memory configured to store the performance coefficient (par.34 teaches separate electric device, which wirelessly receives data, thus making it remote); and
a remote device (par.34 teaches separate electric device, which wirelessly receives data, thus making it remote), remote from the tire monitoring device, the remote device configured to:
determine that the remote memory is unavailable (par.56 “Data is wirelessly downloaded from the sensor by means of a handheld device 140 (i.e. not on the aircraft) when the aircraft is on the ground.”, data, which come from the memory, is available only when aircraft is on the ground, thus it is unavailable when in flight), and where the remote memory is unavailable:
perform either of calculating the performance coefficient at the remote device, and obtaining the performance coefficient from the local memory of the tire monitoring device (par.28 “There may be a step of a control unit causing first measurements to be taken of the tire pressure and, optionally, of an associated temperature. There may be a step of the control unit recording in a memory unit first data including an indication of the time at which the first measurements are taken, an indication of the tire pressure and, optionally, an indication of the temperature as so measured by the first measurements.” The performance coefficient makes up the data/measurements acquired);
obtain, from the tire monitoring device, the second plurality of values (par.28 “There may be a step of the control unit causing second measurements to be taken of the tire pressure”); and
determine, based on the second plurality of values and the performance coefficient, the tire performance characteristic (par.36 “The method may include a step of deciding whether or not to replace the tire, the decision depending on data received by a separate electronic device, for example the above-mentioned portable reader device. The decision may be taken by the separate electronic device and be provided as an output, for example via a visual display unit of the separate electronic device. The decision may be taken taking into account one or more historical measurements, in addition to a more recent measurement (for example the last measurement taken before making the decision). The separate electronic device may for example detect that the tire pressure in the tire had reduced more rapidly than would be expected of a tire in good health. The method may include a step of replacing the tire, if so directed by the separate electronic device.” Determining whether to change a tire is based on the tire performance characteristic which is calculated from the plurality of values and the performance coefficient that make up the data).
Bill doesn’t fully teach the tire monitoring device comprising a local memory configured to store a performance coefficient corresponding to performance of the tire during the first time period; Bill does teach the capability to store a performance coefficient (par.24 “a memory unit local to the tire for storing data”; the performance coefficient is part of the data).
Shaw does fully teach the tire monitoring device comprising a local memory (par.11 teaches wheel module comprising a local memory) configured to store a performance coefficient corresponding to performance of the tire during the first time period (par.11 teaches various types of data collected relating to the performance coefficient, which is stored withing wheel module 11).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bill to include the teachings of Shaw; which would provide an improved method for detecting movement of vehicular pneumatic tire that uses infrared motion sensing to identify different types of tires on a vehicle as disclosed by Shaw(par.47).
Regarding claim 19, Bill in view of Shaw teaches the method according to Claim 18, Bill further teaches wherein the remote device is configured to communicate with the tire monitoring device over a range of no more than 100m (par.14-15 implicitly teach at least a Bluetooth wireless connection which is no more than 100m.).
Regarding claim 20, Bill in view of Shaw teaches the method according to Claim 18, Bill further teaches wherein the tire monitoring device is configured to store the second plurality of values in the local memory (par.28 teaches taking 2nd measurements and storing them), and the remote device is configured to obtain the second plurality of values from the local memory to determine the tire performance characteristic (par.52 teaches retrieving second plurality of values from the local memory to determine the tire performance characteristic).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20150134197 A1; Cahill; Eric Daniel is a tire inflate/deflate indication method and system.
US 20150224831 A1; MILLER T D is a Tire pressure monitoring system for wheeled vehicle e.g. commercial aircraft in electronic communication, has computer comprising non-transitory computer readable medium for recording vehicle data including computer clock time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3991. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am.
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.
/CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858