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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Application filed on December 21, 2023. Claims 121-140 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 21, 2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 121-136 and 140 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 1
Claims 121-133 and 140 recite a system/apparatus, therefore claims 121-133 and 140 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claims 134-136 recite a method/process, therefore claims 134-136 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 121 includes limitations that recites mathematical concepts and/or mental processes (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 121 recites:
A system comprising a tire pressure control apparatus; a monitoring module; a tire pressure module; a processor storing instructions in non-transitory memory that, when executed, cause the processor to:
receive a route;
determine a tire pressure for a tire of a vehicle based on at least one of a terrain and a weather condition prior to a trip along the route;
determine a tire pressure scheme prior to the trip based on the route, wherein the tire pressure scheme comprises a first tire pressure configuration for a first segment of the trip and a second tire pressure configuration for a second segment of the trip;
identify a location along the route for adjusting a current tire pressure based on the tire pressure scheme; and
communicate a command to the tire pressure control apparatus for adjusting the current tire pressure to the first tire pressure configuration for the first segment of the trip and the second tire pressure configuration for the second segment of the trip.
These limitations, as drafted, is a system that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental process. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as mental process. For example, " determine a tire pressure…", “determine a tire pressure scheme…” and " identify a location along the route..." encompass mental processes as a human can perform these limitations using observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. " determine a tire pressure…", “determine a tire pressure scheme…”involves a human judging and/or evaluating what a tire pressure should be based on terrain and weather conditions and based on segments of the trip and " identify a location along the route..." involves a human making a judgment and/or evaluation to determine a location the pressure should be adjusted. Thus, the claim recites at least a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a "practical application."
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the "additional limitations" while the bolded portions continue to represent the "abstract idea"):
A system comprising a tire pressure control apparatus; a monitoring module; a tire pressure module; a processor storing instructions in non-transitory memory that, when executed, cause the processor to:
receive a route;
determine a tire pressure for a tire of a vehicle based on at least one of a terrain and a weather condition prior to a trip along the route;
determine a tire pressure scheme prior to the trip based on the route, wherein the tire pressure scheme comprises a first tire pressure configuration for a first segment of the trip and a second tire pressure configuration for a second segment of the trip;
identify a location along the route for adjusting a current tire pressure based on the tire pressure scheme; and
communicate a command to the tire pressure control apparatus for adjusting the current tire pressure to the first tire pressure configuration for the first segment of the trip and the second tire pressure configuration for the second segment of the trip.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of " A system comprising…” the examiner submits that this limitation characterizes the method as being associated with a tire pressure control apparatus, a tire pressure module, and a processor, which merely amounts to indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Additionally, the claim limitation “receive a route” and “communicate a command …“ does not amount to an inventive concept since it is insignificant extra-solution activity as it is merely a form of data collection and outputting (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). It is noted that the “communicate a command to the tire pressure control apparatus…” can be reasonably interpreted as merely outputting the desired pressure result to a display for the user to then adjust the pressure accordingly, as there is no requirement within the claim that the apparatus performs this pressure change itself. With respect to the displaying function, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. The examiner submits that these limitations are mere data collection and outputting components to apply the above-noted abstract idea within an indicated field of use (MPEP §2106.05).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular process for safety performance evaluation, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Analysis - Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B in the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “receive a route” and “communicate a command …“ amounts to extra-solution data gathering and outputting. Additionally, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a). With respect to the displaying function, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. With respect to “receive a route” and “communicate a command …“ it was ruled within Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015), which are recited within MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that mere data collection or receiving/obtaining and transmitting of data over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic matter, as it is here. Additionally, “a tire pressure control apparatus”, “a tire pressure module”, and “a processor” are each generic computing components that merely apply the judicial exception (See 2106.05(f)). Additionally, " A system comprising…” is merely a technological environment or field of use as the limitations merely link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claims 134 and 140 recites analogous limitations to that of claim 121, and are therefore rejected by the same premise.
Dependent claims 123-124, 128, 130-133 and 135-136 specify limitations that elaborate on the abstract idea of claims 121 and 134, and thus are directed to an abstract idea nor do the claims recite additional limitations that integrate the claims into a practical application or amount to "significantly more" for similar reasons.
Dependent claims 122, 125-127, and 129, specify limitations that elaborate on the abstract idea of claims 121 and 134, and recite a field of use of abstract idea, rather than reciting additional limitations that integrate the claims into a practical application or amount to "significantly more”.
It is noted that Claims 137-139 include further limitations that do integrate the claim into a practical application and the claims are not rejected under U.S.C. 35 101.
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) 121-126, 130-136 and 140 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weston et al. (US 11433719; hereinafter Weston; already of record from IDS).
In regards to claim 121, Weston discloses of a system comprising a tire pressure control apparatus; a monitoring module; a tire pressure module; a processor storing instructions in non-transitory memory (“A vehicle determines that it is within a predefined proximity of a location for which an alternative tire pressure different from a current vehicle tire pressure has been defined. The vehicle changes a tire pressure monitoring system setting to utilize the alternative tire pressure as an alert threshold, responsive to determining that the vehicle is within the predefined proximity. Also, the vehicle determines that the vehicle has traveled more than a predefined distance from the location and, responsive to the vehicle having traveled more than a predefined distance, reverts the tire pressure monitoring system to use base settings for alert thresholds.” (Abstract), “The vehicle systems 103 may also include a plurality of hardware, software or firmware devices that provide for various aspects of in-vehicle information provision and systems control. This can include, for example, without limitation, a display 113, vehicle control logic 115 (achievable through use of software, firmware and electronic control units (ECUs), for example), and alert handling process 117. In illustration only, these are examples of some of the onboard devices and logical systems that allow for implementation of aspects of the illustrative embodiments and the like.” (Column 5 lies 6-16), “Execution of processes may be facilitated through use of one or more processors working alone or in conjunction with each other and executing instructions stored on various non-transitory storage media, such as, but not limited to, flash memory, programmable memory, hard disk drives, etc. Communication between systems and processes may include use of, for example, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, cellular communication and other suitable wireless and wired communication.” (Column 2 line 66 - column 3 line 7) that, when executed, cause the processor to:
receive a route (“In this example, the process evaluates a planned route at 501 to determine if there are any TPMS variation locations along a route at 503. This can include destinations that are at known tracks, or planned travel across a locality sufficient in size to result in a TPMS change recommendation. For example, 45 miles of planned travel on a rough, unpaved road may result in a TPMS change recommendation, even if the driver is not technically using the vehicle 101 in an “enhanced performance” manner.” (Column 10 lines 56-64), see also Column 11 line 59 - Column 12 line 2);
determine a tire pressure for a tire of a vehicle based on at least one of a terrain and a weather condition prior to a trip along the route (“In this example, the process evaluates a planned route at 501 to determine if there are any TPMS variation locations along a route at 503. This can include destinations that are at known tracks, or planned travel across a locality sufficient in size to result in a TPMS change recommendation. For example, 45 miles of planned travel on a rough, unpaved road may result in a TPMS change recommendation, even if the driver is not technically using the vehicle 101 in an “enhanced performance” manner.” (Column 10 lines 56-64), “The process may also be able to crowdsource tire running temperatures for on-course vehicles, if those vehicles are communicating with an object vehicle and/or local infrastructure. For example, vehicles running on a track can report inflation levels and temperatures, and then the object vehicle (requiring adjustment) can determine what the likely temperature of the tires will be, based on the active vehicles, when determining the recommended adjustment. This can also be displayed as alternative information, alongside historic information for that vehicle (if available) and general recommendations based on a track-type and present weather conditions, etc.” (Column 8 lines 11-22));
determine a tire pressure scheme prior to the trip based on the route, wherein the tire pressure scheme comprises a first tire pressure configuration for a first segment of the trip and a second tire pressure configuration for a second segment of the trip (“In this example, the process evaluates a planned route at 501 to determine if there are any TPMS variation locations along a route at 503. This can include destinations that are at known tracks, or planned travel across a locality sufficient in size to result in a TPMS change recommendation. For example, 45 miles of planned travel on a rough, unpaved road may result in a TPMS change recommendation, even if the driver is not technically using the vehicle 101 in an “enhanced performance” manner.” (Column 10 lines 56-64), “If there are reasons where TPMS changes may be instituted along the route, the process notifies the driver of the possible locations at 507, providing an opportunity for the driver to confirm whether or not the driver will be changing tire pressure as recommended at 509. Otherwise, the process will simply present the route 505, as it has no tire pressure changes.” (Column 10 line 65 - Column 11 line 4), “If the driver indicates an intent to adjust tire pressure at an adjusted TPMS location identified by the process (or the driver could select a location where a change is intended, even if the process did not identify any such locations), the process determines if the driver will be inflating the tires at 511. Since the only two options are inflation and deflation, and the driver has indicated an intent to change from a current state, there is not a second check for deflation, but such a check, or both checks, are within the scope of contemplation.” (Column 11 lines 5-14));
identify a location along the route for adjusting a current tire pressure based on the tire pressure scheme (“Since a driver may be traveling to a location where inflation is recommended, and since the location may not have on-site inflation capability, the driver may benefit from a knowledge of where inflation can be obtained prior to reaching the course. Alternatively, if the driver deflated their tires, and on-site inflation is not possible, the driver may benefit from a knowledge of where inflation can be quickly obtained after leaving the track. The former can avoid the driver driving too long on overinflated tires, after inflation, and the latter can avoid the driver driving too long on underinflated tires, after track usage.” (Column 10 lines 45-55), “In this example, the process evaluates a planned route at 501 to determine if there are any TPMS variation locations along a route at 503. This can include destinations that are at known tracks, or planned travel across a locality sufficient in size to result in a TPMS change recommendation. For example, 45 miles of planned travel on a rough, unpaved road may result in a TPMS change recommendation, even if the driver is not technically using the vehicle 101 in an “enhanced performance” manner.” (Column 10 lines 56-64), and “If the driver indicates an intent to adjust tire pressure at an adjusted TPMS location identified by the process (or the driver could select a location where a change is intended, even if the process did not identify any such locations), the process determines if the driver will be inflating the tires at 511. Since the only two options are inflation and deflation, and the driver has indicated an intent to change from a current state, there is not a second check for deflation, but such a check, or both checks, are within the scope of contemplation.” (Column 11 lines 5-14)); and
communicate a command to the tire pressure control apparatus for adjusting the current tire pressure to the first tire pressure configuration for the first segment of the trip and the second tire pressure configuration for the second segment of the trip (“In this example, the process evaluates a planned route at 501 to determine if there are any TPMS variation locations along a route at 503. This can include destinations that are at known tracks, or planned travel across a locality sufficient in size to result in a TPMS change recommendation. For example, 45 miles of planned travel on a rough, unpaved road may result in a TPMS change recommendation, even if the driver is not technically using the vehicle 101 in an “enhanced performance” manner.” (Column 10 lines 56-64), “If there are reasons where TPMS changes may be instituted along the route, the process notifies the driver of the possible locations at 507, providing an opportunity for the driver to confirm whether or not the driver will be changing tire pressure as recommended at 509. Otherwise, the process will simply present the route 505, as it has no tire pressure changes.” (Column 10 line 65 - Column 11 line 4), “If the vehicle has an active connection with the driver device, the driver can begin to inflate or deflate the tires and request a refresh of the values and alerts, or the process can be an active monitoring and reporting process. If there is a compressor on-site, over or underinflation is not an issue that cannot be corrected, but if the driver is letting air out, for example, and intends to re-inflate the tires later, then the driver may want to use such a feedback process to ensure that the driver does not let out too much air and then has to leave to re-inflate the tires prior to driving the course. Accordingly, it is possible to push alerts at various stages of pressure change, such as alerting a driver when the tires are closing in on a desired value, or, as noted above, by providing an active monitoring and reporting process that pushes alerts and current states to a driver mobile device as the driver goes from tire to tire.” (Column 8 lines 31-46)).
In regards to claim 122, Weston discloses of the system of claim 121, wherein the location is identified via one of a Global Positioning System (GPS) and a navigation system (“In this example, the display, which may be viewed by a vehicle 101 operator using display 113, for example, or may be viewed by on-site or off-site personnel or authorities, includes two tracks defined as 151 and 153. These tracks may have defined boundaries or may have been defined using a mapping creation process such as that shown in illustrative FIG. 6, whereby a series of GPS coordinates loosely defines the general route for a track. The tracks may be marked physically or virtually (using digital infrastructure and coordinates) and may further include a number of DSRC transceivers 155, the locations of which are shown on the display. The display of DSRC locations may be useful as guidelines to a track and/or provide location points to which a distressed vehicle 101 may attempt to reach or become proximate too, in order to ensure signal transmission. While it would be useful to have overlapping DSRC coverage covering the entire locations of both tracks 151, 153, due to outages, signal loss, and unavailability of mounts, for example, it may not always be possible to achieve this. Active vs. inactive DSRC may also be indicated by the display, using colors or other suitable designators” (Column 5 lines 39-59), “The example process shown in FIG. 2B has similar responses to triggers, but the initial condition for TPMS change is based on determining that a vehicle is being used in a manner typical of off-street driving and/or racing (whether on-street or not) at 221. Here, feedback from sensors, suspension feedback, speed feedback, GPS location off known roads, etc. can be used as indicators that the vehicle 101 is on a course or track, or is engaged in atypical behavior. While a predefined track may not exist in this instance, the vehicle 101 can still provide a recommended TPMS level or range based on what the behavior appears to indicate the driver is doing.” (Column 8 lines 47-68)).
In regards to claim 123, Weston discloses of the system of claim 121, wherein the tire pressure is an optimal tire pressure calculated by assigning different weights to one or more of tread life, traction, driver comfort, noise, fuel economy, blowout prevention, or an environment condition factor (“Tire pressure monitoring systems report tire pressure for vehicle tires and alert a driver if the tire pressure is too low or too high. When significantly outside of a preferred range, these alerts can persist because expensive damage to a vehicle can result when the vehicle is driven on tires that are inflated to a level well above or below a preferred range.” (Column 1 lines 25-30), “Since a driver may be traveling to a location where inflation is recommended, and since the location may not have on-site inflation capability, the driver may benefit from a knowledge of where inflation can be obtained prior to reaching the course. Alternatively, if the driver deflated their tires, and on-site inflation is not possible, the driver may benefit from a knowledge of where inflation can be quickly obtained after leaving the track. The former can avoid the driver driving too long on overinflated tires, after inflation, and the latter can avoid the driver driving too long on underinflated tires, after track usage.” (Column 10 lines 45-55), “This reversion can trigger an alert state and may result in the same feedback process as described with respect to FIG. 2A, for the purpose of getting the tires back to the recommended pressure. In instances where there is not on-site air available, the alert may inform the driver to drive no faster than certain speeds, in order to avoid vehicle damage while traveling to an air-refill site.” (Column 10 lines 22-28), “Recommendations may also change during a user experience on a single instance. For example, a vehicle with cold tires that is running on a race-track may have a recommended tire pressure of 28 PSI. Once the tires have been heated up through driving, the tire pressure recommendation may be 38 PSI. Because the vehicle can determine how much driving has been done on the track, and can even determine current environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, sunlight, etc.), the vehicle can make a reasonable guess as to when the tires are heated and can recommend a change to tire pressure accordingly.” (Column 4 lines 32-43)).
In regards to claim 124, Weston discloses of the system of claim 121, wherein a recommended air pressure level for each tire of the vehicle is based on the optimal tire pressure (“In this example, the process evaluates a planned route at 501 to determine if there are any TPMS variation locations along a route at 503. This can include destinations that are at known tracks, or planned travel across a locality sufficient in size to result in a TPMS change recommendation. For example, 45 miles of planned travel on a rough, unpaved road may result in a TPMS change recommendation, even if the driver is not technically using the vehicle 101 in an “enhanced performance” manner.” (Column 10 lines 56-64), “FIG. 6 shows illustrative views of TPMS before and after adaptation to an environment. In this example, the first display 601 is a conventional TPMS recommended display that may be shown for a vehicle 603 traveling on streets in conventional manners. Each tire may have a recommended pressure 609 and a current pressure 607. If the driver of this vehicle were to deflate tires for off-road driving, without an adaptive TPMS system, the alerts 605 would persist and may become aggravating if the driver had the tires intentionally low.” (Column 12 lines 3-12)).
In regards to claim 125, Weston discloses of the system of claim 121, wherein the monitoring module is in communication with a measuring device, wherein the measuring device comprises one or more sensors (“FIGS. 2A and 2B show illustrative examples of processes for automatic TPMS adjustment. In these examples, the processes can react to the presence of a geo-fence or GPS trigger, such as in FIG. 2A, or based on condition monitoring, such as in FIG. 2B, which can be determined through observed vehicle behavior, usage and sensor values.” (Column 7 lines 44-49), “ The illustrative embodiments improve the functioning of the tire pressure management system (TPMS) by adapting the recommended levels to current conditions. For example, by geo-fencing a course, or by detecting driving and vehicle sensor data matching a profile of a person not on “normal” roads, the vehicle may recognize that performance driving is engaged, and change the recommended tire pressure to match the type of driving estimated or observed. This allows all users to avoid unnecessary alerts, and in fact will actually generate correct alerts when the tires are inflated to “standard” pressure (prior non-alert state) which may be not best suited for the current conditions. While a variant of the concept that simply disables alerts in race track or off road conditions is certainly possible and within the scope of present contemplation (the same system automatically reactivating alerts when the driver leaves the course/track), another option is to calibrate the alerts to match the type of driving, and thus provide additional information to drivers who do not know how to accurately tune their tire pressure to the current conditions.” (Column 3 line 60 - Column 4 line 12)).
In regards to claim 126, Weston discloses of the system of claim 125, wherein the one or more sensors comprises a position sensor, an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, a pressure sensor, a temperature sensor, an occupancy sensor, a mass airflow sensor, an engine speed sensor, a spark knock sensor, a coolant sensor, a fuel temperature sensor, a voltage sensor, a camshaft position sensor, a throttle position sensor, a camera, and a microphone (“The example process shown in FIG. 2B has similar responses to triggers, but the initial condition for TPMS change is based on determining that a vehicle is being used in a manner typical of off-street driving and/or racing (whether on-street or not) at 221. Here, feedback from sensors, suspension feedback, speed feedback, GPS location off known roads, etc. can be used as indicators that the vehicle 101 is on a course or track, or is engaged in atypical behavior. While a predefined track may not exist in this instance, the vehicle 101 can still provide a recommended TPMS level or range based on what the behavior appears to indicate the driver is doing.” (Column 8 lines 47-68), “FIG. 6 shows illustrative views of TPMS before and after adaptation to an environment. In this example, the first display 601 is a conventional TPMS recommended display that may be shown for a vehicle 603 traveling on streets in conventional manners. Each tire may have a recommended pressure 609 and a current pressure 607. If the driver of this vehicle were to deflate tires for off-road driving, without an adaptive TPMS system, the alerts 605 would persist and may become aggravating if the driver had the tires intentionally low.” (Column 12 lines 3-12, “Recommendations may also change during a user experience on a single instance. For example, a vehicle with cold tires that is running on a race-track may have a recommended tire pressure of 28 PSI. Once the tires have been heated up through driving, the tire pressure recommendation may be 38 PSI. Because the vehicle can determine how much driving has been done on the track, and can even determine current environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, sunlight, etc.), the vehicle can make a reasonable guess as to when the tires are heated and can recommend a change to tire pressure accordingly.” (Column 4 lines 32-43), “If the tire pressure is within a tolerance of the recommended value at 205, or if the driver prefers, for example, if the tire pressure is exactly the recommended value, the process may notify the driver at 209 that the tire pressure is correct. If the value is off by more than the threshold, the process may push an alert to the vehicle and/or a driver device (e.g., phone) to alert the driver to change the tire pressure at 207.” (Column 8 lines 23-30), see also Column 5 lines 39-59).
In regards to claim 130, Weston discloses of the system of claim 121, wherein the processor is further operable to send the command to the tire pressure control apparatus to adjust the current tire pressure of the tire before reaching to a specific location along the route where adjustments are needed (“Since a driver may be traveling to a location where inflation is recommended, and since the location may not have on-site inflation capability, the driver may benefit from a knowledge of where inflation can be obtained prior to reaching the course. Alternatively, if the driver deflated their tires, and on-site inflation is not possible, the driver may benefit from a knowledge of where inflation can be quickly obtained after leaving the track. The former can avoid the driver driving too long on overinflated tires, after inflation, and the latter can avoid the driver driving too long on underinflated tires, after track usage.” (Column 10 lines 45-55), “In this example, the process evaluates a planned route at 501 to determine if there are any TPMS variation locations along a route at 503. This can include destinations that are at known tracks, or planned travel across a locality sufficient in size to result in a TPMS change recommendation. For example, 45 miles of planned travel on a rough, unpaved road may result in a TPMS change recommendation, even if the driver is not technically using the vehicle 101 in an “enhanced performance” manner.” (Column 10 lines 56-64), and “If the driver indicates an intent to adjust tire pressure at an adjusted TPMS location identified by the process (or the driver could select a location where a change is intended, even if the process did not identify any such locations), the process determines if the driver will be inflating the tires at 511. Since the only two options are inflation and deflation, and the driver has indicated an intent to change from a current state, there is not a second check for deflation, but such a check, or both checks, are within the scope of contemplation.” (Column 11 lines 5-14)).
In regards to claim 131, Weston discloses of the system of claim 130, wherein the processor is operable to adjust the current tire pressure by inflating the tire (“Since a driver may be traveling to a location where inflation is recommended, and since the location may not have on-site inflation capability, the driver may benefit from a knowledge of where inflation can be obtained prior to reaching the course. Alternatively, if the driver deflated their tires, and on-site inflation is not possible, the driver may benefit from a knowledge of where inflation can be quickly obtained after leaving the track. The former can avoid the driver driving too long on overinflated tires, after inflation, and the latter can avoid the driver driving too long on underinflated tires, after track usage.” (Column 10 lines 45-55), and “If the driver indicates an intent to adjust tire pressure at an adjusted TPMS location identified by the process (or the driver could select a location where a change is intended, even if the process did not identify any such locations), the process determines if the driver will be inflating the tires at 511. Since the only two options are inflation and deflation, and the driver has indicated an intent to change from a current state, there is not a second check for deflation, but such a check, or both checks, are within the scope of contemplation.” (Column 11 lines 5-14)).
In regards to claim 132, Weston discloses of the system of claim 130, wherein the processor is operable to adjust the current tire pressure by deflating the tire (“If the driver indicates an intent to adjust tire pressure at an adjusted TPMS location identified by the process (or the driver could select a location where a change is intended, even if the process did not identify any such locations), the process determines if the driver will be inflating the tires at 511. Since the only two options are inflation and deflation, and the driver has indicated an intent to change from a current state, there is not a second check for deflation, but such a check, or both checks, are within the scope of contemplation.” (Column 11 lines 5-14), “In a similar manner, if the driver is going to deflate the tires at the location at 511 (no to inflate), then the search may be performed for post-track locations at 513. The search itself may occur prior to the vehicle ever reaching the track, because a driver may want to know that there are sufficient options for refill prior to deflating tires. Again, the search can be performed within a reasonable initial boundary or along a return route or route continuing after the track, and expanded as reasonable. Also, again, if there are no suitable options, the driver can be presented with an option to schedule a refill meeting with a service vehicle or drone at 521. The process will then add any selected, or noted, or agreed-upon locations to the route at 517, to remind the driver to travel to the location at the appropriate time. A reversion to TPMS could trigger a route-reminder, or passing an intended refill location could trigger a route-reminder, so that the driver was reasonably likely to obtain the reminder in a useful timeframe.” (Column 11 lines 41-58)).
In regards to claim 133, Weston discloses of the system of claim 130, wherein the processor is operable to adjust the first tire pressure for anyone, any combination, or all of a specific wheel, an axle, and overall tire pressure via the tire pressure control apparatus (“FIG. 6 shows illustrative views of TPMS before and after adaptation to an environment. In this example, the first display 601 is a conventional TPMS recommended display that may be shown for a vehicle 603 traveling on streets in conventional manners. Each tire may have a recommended pressure 609 and a current pressure 607. If the driver of this vehicle were to deflate tires for off-road driving, without an adaptive TPMS system, the alerts 605 would persist and may become aggravating if the driver had the tires intentionally low“ (Column 12 lines 3-12), “In other instances, such as off-road courses, the tire pressure recommendations may be 15 PSI or below, and may vary from vehicle to vehicle and between front and rear tires. Accordingly, it is more useful to a user if a vehicle can tell the user the correct or estimated correct situational tire pressure recommendation than for the user to potentially have to know the correct pressure for a near infinite number of vehicle+track combinations. And even then, a course may include dirt, sand and mud tracks, which all may have varied recommendations. Or a track may be some of each type, and a user may not know which condition to use as the controlling condition for tire pressure tuning. Aspects of the illustrative embodiments, and the like, can solve such issues and also avoid false-positives on warning users about current tire pressure states.” (Column 4 lines 43-57)).
In regards to claim 134, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 121, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
In regards to claim 135, Weston discloses of the method of claim 134, further comprising:
adjusting the current tire pressure of the tire based on the tire pressure scheme (“In this example, the process evaluates a planned route at 501 to determine if there are any TPMS variation locations along a route at 503. This can include destinations that are at known tracks, or planned travel across a locality sufficient in size to result in a TPMS change recommendation. For example, 45 miles of planned travel on a rough, unpaved road may result in a TPMS change recommendation, even if the driver is not technically using the vehicle 101 in an “enhanced performance” manner.” (Column 10 lines 56-64), “If there are reasons where TPMS changes may be instituted along the route, the process notifies the driver of the possible locations at 507, providing an opportunity for the driver to confirm whether or not the driver will be changing tire pressure as recommended at 509. Otherwise, the process will simply present the route 505, as it has no tire pressure changes.” (Column 10 line 65 - Column 11 line 4), “If the driver indicates an intent to adjust tire pressure at an adjusted TPMS location identified by the process (or the driver could select a location where a change is intended, even if the process did not identify any such locations), the process determines if the driver will be inflating the tires at 511. Since the only two options are inflation and deflation, and the driver has indicated an intent to change from a current state, there is not a second check for deflation, but such a check, or both checks, are within the scope of contemplation.” (Column 11 lines 5-14)); and
wherein the current tire pressure is adjusted in real-time as the vehicle travels along the route via the tire pressure control apparatus (“In a similar manner, if the driver is going to deflate the tires at the location at 511 (no to inflate), then the search may be performed for post-track locations at 513. The search itself may occur prior to the vehicle ever reaching the track, because a driver may want to know that there are sufficient options for refill prior to deflating tires. Again, the search can be performed within a reasonable initial boundary or along a return route or route continuing after the track, and expanded as reasonable. Also, again, if there are no suitable options, the driver can be presented with an option to schedule a refill meeting with a service vehicle or drone at 521. The process will then add any selected, or noted, or agreed-upon locations to the route at 517, to remind the driver to travel to the location at the appropriate time. A reversion to TPMS could trigger a route-reminder, or passing an intended refill location could trigger a route-reminder, so that the driver was reasonably likely to obtain the reminder in a useful timeframe.” (Column 11 lines 41-58), “In FIG. 4A, the process determines that the vehicle 101 has left the track based on GPS coordinates compared to a fence or bounded region at 401. Since the driver may have simply temporarily driven out of bounds, the process may confirm that the vehicle 101 is, in fact, leaving at 403. If the vehicle is not leaving at 405, the process maintains the TPMS settings until another exit event occurs. If the vehicle is leaving, the process will revert to the TPMS settings for standard driving (or for whatever new course the vehicle has entered) at 407.” Column 10 lines 12-21), “This reversion can trigger an alert state and may result in the same feedback process as described with respect to FIG. 2A, for the purpose of getting the tires back to the recommended pressure. In instances where there is not on-site air available, the alert may inform the driver to drive no faster than certain speeds, in order to avoid vehicle damage while traveling to an air-refill site.” (Column 10 lines 22-28), “FIG. 6 shows illustrative views of TPMS before and after adaptation to an environment. In this example, the first display 601 is a conventional TPMS recommended display that may be shown for a vehicle 603 traveling on streets in conventional manners. Each tire may have a recommended pressure 609 and a current pressure 607. If the driver of this vehicle were to deflate tires for off-road driving, without an adaptive TPMS system, the alerts 605 would persist and may become aggravating if the driver had the tires intentionally low.” (Column 12 lines 3-12)).
In regards to claim 136, Weston discloses of the method of claim 134, wherein adjusting the current tire pressure comprises one of a inflating the tire and deflating the tire based on the tire pressure scheme and the optimal tire pressure of the tire (“In this example, the process evaluates a planned route at 501 to determine if there are any TPMS variation locations along a route at 503. This can include destinations that are at known tracks, or planned travel across a locality sufficient in size to result in a TPMS change recommendation. For example, 45 miles of planned travel on a rough, unpaved road may result in a TPMS change recommendation, even if the driver is not technically using the vehicle 101 in an “enhanced performance” manner.” (Column 10 lines 56-64), “If there are reasons where TPMS changes may be instituted along the route, the process notifies the driver of the possible locations at 507, providing an opportunity for the driver to confirm whether or not the driver will be changing tire pressure as recommended at 509. Otherwise, the process will simply present the route 505, as it has no tire pressure changes.” (Column 10 line 65 - Column 11 line 4), “If the driver indicates an intent to adjust tire pressure at an adjusted TPMS location identified by the process (or the driver could select a location where a change is intended, even if the process did not identify any such locations), the process determines if the driver will be inflating the tires at 511. Since the only two options are inflation and deflation, and the driver has indicated an intent to change from a current state, there is not a second check for deflation, but such a check, or both checks, are within the scope of contemplation.” (Column 11 lines 5-14)).
In regards to claim 140, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 121, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
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:
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 127-129 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weston in view of Schofield et al. (US 6731205; hereinafter Schofield).
In regards to claim 127, Weston discloses of the system of claim 125.
However, Weston does not specifically disclose of wherein the pressure sensor is located on a wheel and is configured for wirelessly transmitting tire pressure data when interrogated by the processor.
Schofield, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein the pressure sensor is located on a wheel and is configured for wirelessly transmitting tire pressure data when interrogated by the processor (“Sensors 100, 102, 104, 106 may be installed by strapping or otherwise attaching the sensors to the hub rim within the tire, by replacing the tire valve stem with a combined tire valve and sensing module, or by attachment of the sensors to the exterior of the existing tire valve, or by any other means which mounts or positions the sensors at least partially within or in communication with the pressurized chambers of the tires, without affecting the scope of the present invention. Sensors 100, 102, 104, 106 may be battery powered, may use wheel motion to generate power, or may rely on induction from a source mounted on a fixed portion of the vehicle, without affecting the scope of the present invention. Each of the sensors 100, 102, 104, 106 preferably incorporates a pressure transducer, a temperature sensing means, a processor to encode data in a format unique to the module, and a transmitter, such as an RF transmitter or the like.” (Column 6 lines 35-51), see also Column 6 lines 52-65 and Column 5 line 66 - Column 6 line 24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure sensor, as taught by Weston, to include being located on a vehicle wheel and wirelessly transmit pressure data, as taught by Schofield, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow the pressure data to be wirelessly communicated to a controller located within the vehicle (Schofield Column 5 line 66 - Column 6 line 24).
In regards to claim 128, Weston in view of Schofield teaches of the system of claim 127, wherein the monitoring module is configured to receive vehicle related information from an external computing system, wherein the vehicle information comprises one or more of GPS coordinates, map data, route information, real-time traffic data, vehicle speed, distance to other vehicles, radar or sensor data, vehicle diagnostics, location data, driver behavior information, battery status, voltage, current, temperature, state of charge (SoC), state of health (SoH), and transmission control data (“In addition to having exemplary processes executed by a vehicle computing system located in a vehicle, in certain embodiments, the exemplary processes may be executed by a computing system in communication with a vehicle computing system. Such a system may include, but is not limited to, a wireless device (e.g., and without limitation, a mobile phone) or a remote computing system (e.g., and without limitation, a server) connected through the wireless device. Collectively, such systems may be referred to as vehicle associated computing systems (VACS). In certain embodiments, particular components of the VACS may perform particular portions of a process depending on the particular implementation of the system. By way of example and not limitation, if a process has a step of sending or receiving information with a paired wireless device, then it is likely that the wireless device is not performing that portion of the process, since the wireless device would not “send and receive” information with itself. One of ordinary skill in the art will understand when it is inappropriate to apply a particular computing system to a given solution.” (Weston Column 2 lines 46-65), “This process also includes an opportunity to add the current location (off-road, track, or street-course) as a location where altered TPMS values may apply at 223. The database can be private (onboard) and/or shared. If the driver wants to add the current course to a personal database at 223, the process saves the location, any fence established, any track established, etc. to a local database along with the observed or analysis-driven TPMS recommendations. A very skilled driver may elect to set their own preferred TPMS settings for a given instance such as this, and that can also serve as a baseline recommendation in the database. The process also sends the data to the cloud 225, either automatically or at the driver's option. The data sent to the cloud can include not only the course information, but also performance information for the vehicle 101 so that other models can also be improved through analysis of such data.” (Weston Column 8 line 59 - Column 9 line 7), “TPMS recommendations may be stored at an onsite server, in the cloud or even in vehicle 101 memory. Alternative settings made by a driver (e.g., recommendation is 22, driver prefers 24) may be saved with respect to all courses or a given course, and may also be contemplated as a preferred deviance (e.g. ˜10% above recommended or 2 PSI above recommended) as appropriate. TPMS warnings could also adjust to maximum track speeds or other variable conditions, since a max speed could be lower on a crowded track. Tire pressure recommendations may also be transmitted by a transmitter on-site at a location, the transmitter identifying the location as an alternative TPMS location, wherein a recommended tire pressure (or a plurality of recommended tire pressures, correlated to vehicles or vehicle types) can be included with the signal and also used as a basis to reconfigure the TPMS. “ (Weston Column 7 lines 28-43), see also Weston Column 11 line 59 - Column 12 line 2).
In regards to claim 129, Weston discloses of the system of claim 126.
However, Weston does not specifically disclose of wherein the pressure sensor is located on a wheel rim and is configured for wirelessly transmitting tire pressure data using a radio frequency identification system when interrogated by the processor.
Schofield, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein the pressure sensor is located on a wheel rim and is configured for wirelessly transmitting tire pressure data using a radio frequency identification system when interrogated by the processor (“Sensors 100, 102, 104, 106 may be installed by strapping or otherwise attaching the sensors to the hub rim within the tire, by replacing the tire valve stem with a combined tire valve and sensing module, or by attachment of the sensors to the exterior of the existing tire valve, or by any other means which mounts or positions the sensors at least partially within or in communication with the pressurized chambers of the tires, without affecting the scope of the present invention. Sensors 100, 102, 104, 106 may be battery powered, may use wheel motion to generate power, or may rely on induction from a source mounted on a fixed portion of the vehicle, without affecting the scope of the present invention. Each of the sensors 100, 102, 104, 106 preferably incorporates a pressure transducer, a temperature sensing means, a processor to encode data in a format unique to the module, and a transmitter, such as an RF transmitter or the like.” (Column 6 lines 35-51), “Referring now specifically to the drawings and the illustrative embodiments depicted therein, a self training tire pressure monitoring system 700 of the present invention includes a tire pressure sensor 100, 102, 104, 106 at each tire 110, 112, 114, 116 mounted at each wheel 120, 122, 124, 126 of a vehicle 500 (FIGS. 1-3). For example, tire pressure sensors 100, 102, 104, 106 may be respectively located in a tire 110 mounted at the driver-side front wheel 120, a tire 112 mounted at the driver-side rear wheel 122, a tire 114 mounted at the passenger-side front wheel 124, and a tire 116 mounted at the passenger-side rear wheel 126 on vehicle 500. Such sensors include a pressure transducer capable of measuring tire inflation pressure, and preferably include a transmitter (such as a radio frequency (RF) transmitter or the like) for wireless communication of this data to a control 200 located in the interior of the vehicle. Tire pressure sensors 100, 102, 104, 106 provide an actual measured pressure output for the actual measured tire pressure in the respective tires to the control 200. The sensors are moved with their respective tires when the tires are changed or rotated, while the wheel locations remain fixed on the vehicle. Tire pressure monitoring system 700 is a self training tire pressure monitoring system which is operable to determine the pressure of each tire of the vehicle and the particular location or wheel of the vehicle at which each of the tires is mounted or located.” (Column 5 line 66 - Column 6 line 24)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure sensor, as taught by Weston, to include being located on a vehicle wheel rim and wirelessly transmit pressure data using a radio frequency identification system, as taught by Schofield, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow the pressure data to be wirelessly communicated to a controller located within the vehicle and determined where each of the wheels are located (Schofield Column 5 line 66 - Column 6 line 24).
Claim(s) 137-139 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weston in view of Mays et al. (US 10144253; hereinafter Mays; already of record from IDS).
In regards to claim 137, Weston discloses of the method of claim 134.
However, Weston does not specifically disclose of further comprising measuring a rate of air flow that the tire pressure control apparatus is inserting into the tire during a predetermined time period.
Mays, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of measuring a rate of air flow that the tire pressure control apparatus is inserting into the tire during a predetermined time period (“Additionally or alternatively, the tire inflation device may also measure the rate of air flow that the automatic tire inflation system is inserting into the tire in order to determine whether there is a structural flaw with the tire itself. For example, if the rate of flow that the automatic tire inflation system is high, aspects of the present disclosure may deduce that the tire may be punctured. Conversely, if the rate of flow from the automatic tire inflation system is low or sporadic, aspects of the present disclosure may deduce that the automatic tire inflation system is only adjusting the tire pressure for normal loss of pressure. Accordingly, in some examples, aspects of the present disclosure may provide a system that may warn the user (e.g., by providing in-cabin warning) of any flaws with the tire based on the rate of air flow provided by the automatic tire inflation system.” (Column 4 lines 40-54), “Additionally or alternatively, the inflation component 121 may measure the rate of air flow that the tire inflation device 116 is inserting into the tire during a predetermined time period in order to determine whether there is a structural flaw with the tire itself. For example, if the rate of flow is high (e.g., the tire inflation device 116 is continuously inflating the tire), the inflation component 121 may issue an alert or warning to the driver indicating that the tire may be punctured. Conversely, if the rate of flow from the automatic tire inflation system is low or sporadic, the inflation component 121 may forego warning.” (Column 6 lines 44-54), “In some examples, the communication device 106 associated with vehicle 104 may periodically (e.g., every 5 mins) transmit or receive data from a tire inflation device 116 attached (or mounted) on one or more of tire(s), wheel(s), rim(s), or axle(s) of the vehicle. In some aspects, the tire inflation device 116 may include a processor 117 for processing information received from the communication device 106 and for controlling one or more features of the tire measurement component 120 for measuring tire-related parameters, inflation component 121 for controlling inflation or deflation of the tire, and/or transceiver 123 for wirelessly communicating with other devices. The tire inflation device 116 may additionally include memory 118 for storing information such as tire serial number, tire position on the vehicle (e.g., back right), tire size, data of manufacture, etc. In some aspects, the memory 118 may store information measured by the tire measurement component 120. For example, the tire measurement component 120 may periodically measure one or any combination of the tire pressure, the tire temperature, the tire tread depth, the air temperature in the tire, the rate of change of air volume, the status of the air inflation system, the rate of movement of the tire, and/or one or more environment conditions associated with the tire (e.g., external air temperature).” (Column 5 lines 19-42)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tire pressure control apparatus, as taught by Weston, to include measuring a rate of air flow being inserted into the tire, as taught by Mays, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine whether there is a structural flaw with the tire itself (Mays Column 6 lines 44-54).
In regards to claim 138, Weston in view of Mays teaches of the method of claim 137, further comprising determining whether there is a structural flaw with the tire based on the rate of the air flow (“Additionally or alternatively, the tire inflation device may also measure the rate of air flow that the automatic tire inflation system is inserting into the tire in order to determine whether there is a structural flaw with the tire itself. For example, if the rate of flow that the automatic tire inflation system is high, aspects of the present disclosure may deduce that the tire may be punctured. Conversely, if the rate of flow from the automatic tire inflation system is low or sporadic, aspects of the present disclosure may deduce that the automatic tire inflation system is only adjusting the tire pressure for normal loss of pressure. Accordingly, in some examples, aspects of the present disclosure may provide a system that may warn the user (e.g., by providing in-cabin warning) of any flaws with the tire based on the rate of air flow provided by the automatic tire inflation system.” (Mays Column 4 lines 40-54), “Additionally or alternatively, the inflation component 121 may measure the rate of air flow that the tire inflation device 116 is inserting into the tire during a predetermined time period in order to determine whether there is a structural flaw with the tire itself. For example, if the rate of flow is high (e.g., the tire inflation device 116 is continuously inflating the tire), the inflation component 121 may issue an alert or warning to the driver indicating that the tire may be punctured. Conversely, if the rate of flow from the automatic tire inflation system is low or sporadic, the inflation component 121 may forego warning.” (Mays Column 6 lines 44-54).
The motivation of combining Weston and Mays is the same as that recited for claim 1 above.
In regards to claim 139, Weston in view of Mays teaches of the method of claim 137, wherein the tire pressure scheme is determined based on based on a road condition (“In this example, the process evaluates a planned route at 501 to determine if there are any TPMS variation locations along a route at 503. This can include destinations that are at known tracks, or planned travel across a locality sufficient in size to result in a TPMS change recommendation. For example, 45 miles of planned travel on a rough, unpaved road may result in a TPMS change recommendation, even if the driver is not technically using the vehicle 101 in an “enhanced performance” manner.” (Weston Column 10 lines 56-64), the weather condition (“The process may also be able to crowdsource tire running temperatures for on-course vehicles, if those vehicles are communicating with an object vehicle and/or local infrastructure. For example, vehicles running on a track can report inflation levels and temperatures, and then the object vehicle (requiring adjustment) can determine what the likely temperature of the tires will be, based on the active vehicles, when determining the recommended adjustment. This can also be displayed as alternative information, alongside historic information for that vehicle (if available) and general recommendations based on a track-type and present weather conditions, etc.” (Weston Column 8 lines 11-22)), driver's habit (“There are 4 similar vehicles on the track, all running at 22 PSI. The recommended pressure is 21 PSI. The experience level of the drivers is high, high, medium, low.” Then the user could elect to match TPMS settings to the recommendation or to the settings of the experience drivers or an experienced driver, for example. Alternatively, the system could immediately tune the TPMS to 22 instead of 21 based on the preceding information, even if 22 had not been verified by sufficient data, because the instantaneous data indicates that 22 is the current preference of skilled drivers in similar vehicles. The information conveyed can be much more detailed than the preceding as well. This is just an example of the concept presented at a high level.” (Weston Column 7 lines 15-28)), a wear condition of the tire (“Tire pressure monitoring systems report tire pressure for vehicle tires and alert a driver if the tire pressure is too low or too high. When significantly outside of a preferred range, these alerts can persist because expensive damage to a vehicle can result when the vehicle is driven on tires that are inflated to a level well above or below a preferred range.” (Weston Column 1 lines 25-30), “This reversion can trigger an alert state and may result in the same feedback process as described with respect to FIG. 2A, for the purpose of getting the tires back to the recommended pressure. In instances where there is not on-site air available, the alert may inform the driver to drive no faster than certain speeds, in order to avoid vehicle damage while traveling to an air-refill site.” (Weston Column 10 lines 22-28), “Aspects of the present disclosure address the above-identified problem by implementing a tire inflation device that is attached to each tire of the vehicle, and offers increased operating efficiency and lower operating costs over the conventional systems by dynamically adjusting a tire pressure (e.g., an air and/or other gas pressure within the tire) to a target tire pressure value based on maximizing fuel economy, tread life, or vehicle load capacity. The tire inflation device may be powered by an energy generator that produces mechanical energy based on a relative motion within the tire inflation device. Additionally or alternatively, in some aspects, the transceiver is powered by an electromagnetic energy generator that produces electrical energy based on a relative motion within the tire inflation device.” (Mays Column 4 lines 4-17)), a safety consideration (“Tire pressure monitoring systems report tire pressure for vehicle tires and alert a driver if the tire pressure is too low or too high. When significantly outside of a preferred range, these alerts can persist because expensive damage to a vehicle can result when the vehicle is driven on tires that are inflated to a level well above or below a preferred range.” (Weston Column 1 lines 25-30), “This reversion can trigger an alert state and may result in the same feedback process as described with respect to FIG. 2A, for the purpose of getting the tires back to the recommended pressure. In instances where there is not on-site air available, the alert may inform the driver to drive no faster than certain speeds, in order to avoid vehicle damage while traveling to an air-refill site.” (Weston Column 10 lines 22-28)), and a fuel efficiency consideration (“Aspects of the present disclosure address the above-identified problem by implementing a tire inflation device that is attached to each tire of the vehicle, and offers increased operating efficiency and lower operating costs over the conventional systems by dynamically adjusting a tire pressure (e.g., an air and/or other gas pressure within the tire) to a target tire pressure value based on maximizing fuel economy, tread life, or vehicle load capacity. The tire inflation device may be powered by an energy generator that produces mechanical energy based on a relative motion within the tire inflation device. Additionally or alternatively, in some aspects, the transceiver is powered by an electromagnetic energy generator that produces electrical energy based on a relative motion within the tire inflation device.” (Mays Column 4 lines 4-17)).
The motivation of combining Weston and Mays is the same as that recited for claim 1 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Da Deppo et al. (US 20210061027) discloses of adjusting a tire inflation based on the desired pressure and the current pressure.
Zhang et al. (US 20240125665) discloses of updating a tire pressure amount based on sensor data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle J Kingsland whose telephone number is (571)272-3268. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-4:30.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-9855. 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.
/KYLE J KINGSLAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663