Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/391,392

SYSTEMS, DEVICES AND METHODS FOR DYNAMICALLY GENERATING TIRE FIRMNESS VALUES IN RESPONSE TO USER SELECTION AND/OR OTHER DATA

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Dec 20, 2023
Examiner
BLOUNT, ERIC
Art Unit
2685
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Cypress Semiconductor Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
774 granted / 991 resolved
+16.1% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+2.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
1009
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
55.5%
+15.5% vs TC avg
§102
20.1%
-19.9% vs TC avg
§112
15.3%
-24.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 991 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the relationships between the first wireless circuits, memory circuits, processing circuits and communication circuits are unclear. More specifically, is this method claim for a vehicle? Are the first wireless circuits configured to be in a vehicle or some other device or structure? Where are the communication circuits in relation to the first wireless circuits? Is there a difference between the first wireless circuits and communication circuits? Are the memory circuits in line 3 the same as the memory circuits in line 9? Where can I find the processing circuits? Are they on the tire, in a vehicle, or at some other location? The claims are indefinite because it is unclear how each of the claimed components operate with each other to perform the claimed method steps. Claims 2-8 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1 and are thus rejected in a similar manner. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the relationships between the first wireless circuits, memory circuits, and processing circuits are unclear. More specifically, is this device claim for a vehicle? Are the first wireless circuits configured to be in a vehicle or some other device or structure? Where are the first wireless circuits located, are they on a tire? What kind of device is being claimed? Where are the memory circuits, on the tire, in a vehicle, or at some other location? The claims are indefinite because it is unclear how each of the claimed components operate with each other to arrive at the claimed device. Claims 10-12 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 9 and are thus rejected in a similar manner. Claim 13 refers to a system claim, however, the claim provokes the same questioning as claim 9 above. As such, the claim is rejected in a similar manner. Claims 14-20 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 13 and are thus rejected in a similar manner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Da Deppo et al [US 20210061027 A1]. As for claim 1, Da Deppo discloses a method, comprising: by operation of first wireless circuits, wirelessly receiving and storing tire information in memory circuits (FIG 1; paragraphs 0153, 0172, 0179, 0291, 0305 and 0307; Da Deppo discloses that tire pressure information can be received and stored in memory. The tire information may be environmental information, operational information, pressure data, and/or desired settings.); by operation of processing circuits, determining an initial tire firmness value for at least one tire using at least the stored tire information (paragraph 0290); by operation of communication circuits, wirelessly transmitting the initial tire firmness value (paragraphs 0299 and 0305-0307); receiving and storing mode information in memory circuits (paragraphs 0292, 0294, 0297, and 0301); in response to the mode information, by operation of processing circuits, determining a revised tire firmness value for the at least one tire using at least the mode information; and by operation of first wireless circuits, wirelessly transmitting the revised tire firmness value (paragraphs 0292-0302; Da Deppo discloses that mode information is stored in memory. Upon, certain conditions being met the optimal tire pressure and mode information is determined. Subsequently, the revised/optimal tire pressure is shared with the tire units for adjustment of the tire pressure.). Claim 2 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above. Claim 3 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above. See also paragraphs 0297 and 0301. Da Deppo discloses that the receiving and storing mode information can be done manually by user. As for claim 4¸ receiving and storing mode information includes receiving vehicle state information (paragraphs 0294-0303). As for claim 5, the claim is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above. See also paragraphs 0153, 0154, and 0179. Claim 6 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above. As for claims 7-8, Da Deppo discloses generating tire history data comprising at least tire firmness values for the at least one tire, including changes in tire firmness for the at least one tire; and storing the tire history data in nonvolatile memory (paragraphs 0305-0307). Claims 9 and 13 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above. As for claims 10 and 14¸ the first wireless circuits are compatible with at least one Bluetooth standard (paragraph 0153). As for claims 11-12 the claims are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claims 3-4 above Claim 15 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 6 above. See also paragraphs 0297-0300. As for claim 16, Da Deppo discloses second wireless circuits compatible with at least a second wireless standard (paragraphs 0153, 0168, and 0179). Claims 17-19 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above. See also paragraphs 0305-0307. As for claim 20, the claims are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above. See also paragraphs 0178 and 0182. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of the cited references discloses tire monitoring and/or inflation systems and methods of use that were known at the time of filing the instant application. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M BLOUNT whose telephone number is (571)272-2973. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a - 5:30p. 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, Quan Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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. ERIC M. BLOUNT Primary Examiner Art Unit 2685 /Eric Blount/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 20, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600256
CHARGING CUE SYSTEM FOR A VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595822
BEARING WITH DISTANCE SENSOR AND CONTROL UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588650
FAILURE INDICATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12579551
POS DEVICES AS BEACONS FOR CUSTOMER LOCATION IDENTIFICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565065
DRIVER VEHICLE CONTROL ASSISTANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+2.7%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 991 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month