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 .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 13 November 2025.
This office action is made Final.
Claim 1 has been amended.
The objection to claim 1 and the art rejections of claims 1-5, 9, 12-17, 19-20 has been withdrawn as necessitated by the amendment.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim 1 is an independent claim.
Specification
The amendment to the abstract/specification filed on 11/13/25 has been accepted and entered. However, the abstract of the disclosure, filed 11/13/25, remains objected to because the abstract involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since it repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims. Correction is required. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
.Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Drawings
The replacement drawings filed on 11/13/25 have been accepted and entered. However, the drawings remain objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "10" and "14" have both been used to designate a vehicle; FIG 1, and 3 shows 10 and 14 both pointing to the vehicle, reference characters "10" and "12" have both been used to designate tires. FIGs 2, 3 shows 10 and 12 both pointing to a tire. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “10” has been used to designate both “modular tire pressure leak detection system and tire. FIGs 1-3 shows “10” pointing to a tire; reference character “100” has been used to designate both “GPS motion” and GPS annotator Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
pre-processing module (for) receiving, applying in claim 1
leak detection module (for) receiving, determining in claim 1
post-processing module (for) receiving, analyzing, issue, transmitted in claim 1
low pressure dropper that drops in claim 6
spike dropper that removes, removes in claim 7
inflation detector that compensates in claim 8
GPS annotator that extracts in claim 9
resampler that resamples in claim 10
peer-based pressure normalizer that provides in claim 11
derivator that computes in claim 12
changepoint detector that segments in claim 13
leak detection module extracts in claim 14
leak rate threshold sub-module which compares in claim 15
vehicle rate comparison sub-module which compares in claim 16
placard pressure comparison sub-module which compares in claim 17
robustness check sub-module which reviews in claim 18
vehicle motion context sub-module which checks in claim 19
postprocessor that compares in claim 20
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the added limitation “wherein the alert is transmitted to a display device for actuation of the vehicle in response to the alert”. Applicant indicated support can be found in Paragraph 0035-0041 and 0051. However, after review of Applicant's specification, the Examiner is unable to find support of the subject matter of an actuation of the vehicle in response to the (transmitted) alert. Only 0051 disclose the subject matter of an alert being generated/issue. However, neither 0051 or any other paragraph disclose the alert is transmitted to the vehicle or to a module/component of the vehicle that causes an actuation of the vehicle itself. 0051 only discloses the issued alert is transmitted to the displayed device of the user. Once the user receives the alert, the user then takes action. The vehicle itself or a module does not take action until a user provides instructions to the vehicle. In other words, Applicant’s specification does not disclose any module controlling/actuating the vehicle in response to the alert. The Examiner respectfully states providing an alert for a user so that they can take action is not the same as the module itself controlling the vehicle. Therefore, the Examiner is unable to find any support within the disclosure in regards of the limitation. Thus, Applicant’s specification has no support that the generation of the quality report workflow configuration data is done automatically in anyway. Therefore, since this language is not described in the specification for the instant application, the examiner is forced to make a broad interpretation for this language as explained. Furthermore, Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claims are supported within the specification. Thus, since support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported, a prima facie case has been established. See MPEP 2163.04.
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 remain 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.
As per claims 1-20, the claim limitations containing "pre-processing module (for); leak detection module (for) ; post-processing module (for) ; low pressure dropper that ; spike dropper that; inflation detector that ; GPS annotator that; resampler that; peer-based pressure normalizer that; derivator that; changepoint detector that; leak detection module; leak rate threshold sub-module which; vehicle rate comparison sub-module which; placard pressure comparison sub-module which; robustness check sub-module which; vehicle motion context sub-module which; or postprocessor that" are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function of the navigator limitation. Also, no clear algorithm is shown in the specification to correspond to each of the claimed “unit(s)”/modules/sub-modules. This is required as described in MPEP 2181 II.B.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a l imitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
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 1-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong 1
The limitation of “the sensor unit detecting real-time tire parameters inside the tire”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “sensor unit and tire”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step “detecting” from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “sensor unit and tire”, “detecting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually able to visually identify if the tire inflated properly or flat (has no air).
Similarly, the limitation of “the pre-processing module applying a set of four configurable operations to generate pressure time series data;”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “the pre-processing module”, “applying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually computing multiple formulas with the obtained data to generate new data using pen/pencil and paper.
Similarly, the limitation of “the leak detection module determining a leak rate of the tire;”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “leak detection module”, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user able to see and hear how fast the tire is deflating and identify if it’s a fast or slow leak.
Similarly, the limitation of “the post-processing module analyzing the leak rate of the tire with determinations from a plurality of conditions”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “post-processing module”, “analyzing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user evaluate/reviewing the leak to determine what type of action to take next, such as changing tire or able to drive it to a repair shop.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
the sensor unit transmitting the parameters to a processor;
the pre-processing module receiving the parameters
the leak detection module receiving the pressure time series data
post-processing module receiving the leak rate of the tire
a leak alert issued by the post-processing module based upon the analysis of the leak rate of the tire and the determinations from the plurality of conditions
wherein the alert is transmitted to a display device for actuation of the vehicle in response to the alert
The “transmitting”/”transmitted” limitations are merely post-solution steps of transmitting data recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. The “receiving” limitation(s) are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and/or transmitting data, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05. The sensor unit, processors, display device, vehicle, and the various modules in the limitations is claimed at a high level of generality such that the vehicle is used as tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “issue” limitation, a form of displaying, is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”) The post-processing module in the issue limitation(s) is claimed at a high level of generality such that the display device and vehicle device are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of displaying data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements – tire supporting a vehicle, sensor unit, processor, modules, pre-processing module, leak detection module, post-processing module, and display device. The tire supporting a vehicle, sensor unit, processor, modules, pre-processing module, leak detection module, post-processing module, and display device in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of detecting, receiving, applying, receiving, determining, receiving, analyzing, transmitted and/or issue(d) functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Each of the “transmitting”/“transmitted”, and “receiving” limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity(e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The recitation of the sensor unit and/or various modules in the sending and receiving steps and the use of a processor, display device, vehicle, and tire in these steps, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a sensor unit and/or various modules ( or use of a processor and tire) and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
The issue(d) (displaying) limitation is recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to presenting offers and gathering statistics, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The recitation of a post processing module to perform the displaying limitations and the use of a tire in these steps, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the tire supporting a vehicle, sensor unit, processor, modules, pre-processing module, leak detection module, display device, and/or post-processing module to perform the detecting, receiving, applying, receiving, determining, receiving, analyzing, transmitted and/or issue(d) steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-20
As per dependent claim(s) 2-5, the claim(s) do not appear to add additional elements beyond those described in claim 1. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 6, the limitation of “…a low pressure dropper that drops values of a measured pressure of the tire..…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the low pressure dropper”, “drops” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually removing data from a written list (e.g. crossing out or erasing).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 7, the limitation of “…set of operations includes a spike dropper that removes spikes in values…removes spikes in values” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “spike dropper”, “removes” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually removing data from a written list (e.g. crossing out or erasing).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 8, the limitation of “…inflation detector that compensates the filtered pressure values…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “inflation detector”, “compensates” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually combining written information on paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 9, the limitation of “…extracts values of a measured pressure…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As noted above, extract information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 10, the limitation of “…resampler that resamples the …parameters…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “resampler”, “resamples” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually rewriting the same information again on paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 11, the limitation of “…provides a reference baseline…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As noted above, providing data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 12, the limitation of “…a derivator that computes derivatives…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “derivator”, “compute” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually calculate derivatives on paper with a pen/pencil based with the available data.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 13, the limitation of “…changepoint detector that segments measured pressure values…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “changepoint detector”, “segments” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually grouping values together on paper with a pen/pencil.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 14, the limitation of “…extracts a slope of the of the pressure time series data…”encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As noted above, extract information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 15, the limitation of “…compares the leak rate to a predetermined low pressure threshold..…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “post-processing module and condition evaluator”, “compares” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually able to identify any differences between different sets of data to determine a result.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 16, the limitation of “…compares the leak rate to a median leak..…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “post-processing module and condition evaluator”, “compares” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually able to identify any differences between different sets of data.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In addition, the limitation of “…suppresses the leak alert …;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, suppressing information from being displayed has been found “known in the art” to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. NPL: Apple, “Stay focused while driving with iPhone”, 2021 which notifications are silenced or limited) see MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection I. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 17, the limitation of “…compares a measured pressure …to a placard pressure..…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “post-processing module and condition evaluator”, “compares” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually able to identify any differences between different sets of data.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In addition, the limitation of “…suppresses the leak alert …;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, suppressing information from being displayed has been found “known in the art” to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. NPL: Apple, “Stay focused while driving with iPhone”, 2021 which notifications are silenced or limited ) see MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection I. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 18, the limitation of “…reviews measured pressure data..…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “post-processing module and condition evaluator”, “reviews” encompasses the user manually able read over the data.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In addition, the limitation of “…suppresses the leak alert …;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, suppressing information from being displayed has been found “known in the art” to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. NPL: Apple, “Stay focused while driving with iPhone”, 2021 which notifications are silenced or limited ) see MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection I. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 19, the limitation of “…checks a motion history of the vehicle.…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “post-processing module and condition evaluator”, “checks” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually able looking over the data.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In addition, the limitation of “…suppresses the leak alert …;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, suppressing information from being displayed has been found “known in the art” to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. NPL: Apple, “Stay focused while driving with iPhone”, 2021 which notifications are silenced or limited ) see MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection I. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 20, the limitation of “…compares the determinations…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “post-processing module and processor”, “compares” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually able to identify any differences between different sets of data to determine a result.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Signh et al* (US20220063357, 3/3/2022) in further view of Suh et al* (US20140277910) (*Disclosed in IDS filed on 4/3/2024)
As per independent claim 1, Singh et al discloses a modular tire pressure leak detection system comprising:
a tire supporting a vehicle; (FIG 1)
a sensor unit mounted on the tire (FIG 1; 0042), the sensor unit detecting real-time tire parameters inside the tire, (0043) the sensor unit transmitting the parameters to a processor; (0045)
a plurality of modules in electronic communication with the processor, the plurality of modules including: (0047)
a pre-processing module, the pre-processing module receiving the parameters and applying a set of configurable operations to generate pressure time series data; (0048-0052; FIG 5-9: parameters/data received and used to generate a graph/model based on the following operations:
extracts heat effects from the tire data (to obtain cold pressure data); extracts cold pressure data from the raw pressure data (0049).
filters ambient temperature effects from the cold pressure data (0050)
filters sensor noise from the compensated cold tire pressure (0051))
a leak detection module, the leak detection module receiving the pressure time series data and determining a leak rate of the tire; (0054, 0058, 0061: data received and used to determine leak rate)
and a post-processing module, the post-processing module receiving the leak rate of the tire and analyzing the leak rate of the tire with determinations from a plurality of conditions; and (0058-0060, 0063: discloses receiving the leak rate into a rapid/slow leak model and analyzing the rate with the model.)
a leak alert is issued by the post-processing module based upon the analysis of the leak rate of the tire and the determinations from the plurality of conditions. (FIG 11, 13: 0061-0063: Based on the analyzing, a warning/alert/notification may be issued.)
wherein the alert is transmitted to a display device for actuation of the vehicle in response to the alert. (0055-0060, 0062: alert issued to a display device instructions that the vehicle be stopped. One of a skilled artisan would have realized the vehicle had to be actuated in order to be stopped, a form of “for actuation of the vehicle”.)
Note: Since the cited art discloses the functionality that are performed by the units/modules, then the cited art et al discloses the necessary code/modules/units in order to perform the functionality
As explain above, Singh discloses at set of at least three configurable operations to generate pressure time data (extracts heat effects from the tire data, the temperature filters ambient temperature effects, and filters sensor noise) However, Singh does not explicitly disclose a fourth operation to generate pressure time data. However, Suh et al discloses removing out-of-range outliers (a data point that contains a value that is out of the normal range) from the data (FIG 6, 7B; 0073, 0087-0088, 0095; Claim 12)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Suh et al of removing particular data points from data since it would have provided the benefit of processing information in a tire pressure monitoring system in an accurate and timely manner. (0007)
In conjunction with Singh, the combination of the cited art discloses apply a set of at least four configurable operations to generate pressure time series data.
As per dependent claim 2, Singh et al discloses wherein the real-time parameters include a measured pressure of the tire, a measured temperature of the tire, and a measurement time (0043, 0046: pressure, temperature, and time)
As per dependent claim 4, Singh et al discloses at least one of a location of the vehicle and a speed of the vehicle that are input into the pre-processing module. (0044: location of the vehicle is tracked)
As per dependent claim 5, Singh et al discloses at least one of a tire pressure threshold, a tire temperature threshold, a tire configuration for the vehicle, and an identification of a type of the sensor unit that are input into the pre-processing module (FIG 11; 0055: discloses a target air pressure. One of a skilled artisan would have realized that target air pressure had to be inputted before being used/compared with)
As per dependent claim 6, the cited art fails to specifically disclose the set of operations includes a low pressure dropper that drops values of a measured pressure of the tire when the sensor unit is not mounted on the tire. However, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation incorporated, Suh et al discloses that the collected data may include unexpected outliers not found in the normal range or do not match the context values. These outliers are out-of-range value, which may be considered a data point that contains a value that is out of the normal range. Thus, if the value is above a first pre-determined threshold or below a second pre-determined threshold, then the data point is removed (FIG 5, 7A-7B; 0073, 0087-0089, 0095)
Furthermore, Suh et al fails to disclose removing data when the sensor unit is not mounted on the tire. However, Suh discloses analyzing data without an appropriate data cleaning process could cause misleading results. (0087) For example, it would have obvious to one of or skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention that if the sensor on the tire is removed for particular amount of time, then the data during this time would no longer be collected, a form of imperfect data gathering . Therefore, the gap in data that is missing is reasonably interpretated as an outlier within Suh and would be removed from the overall analysis similarly performed in 0087-0089. This would have provided the intrinsic advantage of providing a more accurate overall reading of the tire pressure over time.
As per dependent claim 7, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and 6 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Suh et al discloses the set of operations includes a spike dropper that removes spikes in values of a measured pressure of the tire to generate filtered pressure values and removes spikes in values of a measured temperature of the tire to generate filtered temperature values. (FIG 5, 6; 0089-0095: spikes in pressure are removed (outliners) and spikes involving temperature are removed (impossible data combination outliers))
As per dependent claim 8, Singh et al disclose the set of operations includes an inflation detector that compensates the filtered pressure values with the filtered temperature values to generate temperature-compensated pressure measurements (0052-0053, 0063) See also Suh et al (0089-0095))
As per dependent claim 9, Singh et al discloses wherein the set of operations includes a GPS annotator that extracts values of a measured pressure related to at least one of a speed of the vehicle, an acceleration of the vehicle, an amount of time the vehicle is in motion, and a geographic region in which the vehicle travels. (0044: location tracked (form of geographic region) via GPS)
As per dependent claim 11, based on the rejection of Claim 6 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Suh discloses the set of operations includes a peer-based pressure normalizer that provides a reference baseline of the real-time tire parameters among a group of tires (0097, 0103: discloses creating a baseline for the tires)
As per dependent claim 12, Singh et al discloses wherein the set of operations includes a derivator that computes derivatives of measured pressure values to improve detection of pressure change points (0049: the cold tire pressures 60 are shifted lower than the distribution of all of the raw pressure data; 0050: cold pressure data 60 is adjusted to arrive at a compensated or adjusted cold tire pressure)(forms of computed derivatives)
As per dependent claim 13, Singh et al discloses the set of operations includes a changepoint detector that segments measured pressure values based on periods of time and detects change points (FIG 9-11; 0054-0058: detect change points over time)
As per dependent claim 14, Singh et al discloses the leak detection module extracts a slope of the of the pressure time series data as the leak rate. (0054; FIG. 10)
As per dependent claim 15, Singh et al discloses a condition evaluator that includes a leak rate threshold sub-module which compares the leak rate to a predetermined low pressure threshold to classify the leak rate as a fast leak or a slow leak (0058-0059, 0061: determines if its fast or slow leak)
As per dependent claim 16, Singh et al discloses a condition evaluator that includes a vehicle rate comparison sub-module which compares the leak rate to a median leak rate in a group of tires and suppresses the leak alert if the leak rate is similar to the median leak rate. (FIG 11; 0054-0055: discloses comparing the leak rate to a median leak rate and determining if a particular leak rate is needed. A skilled artisan would have realized an alert is not need if above the median leak rate )
As per dependent claim 18, Singh et al discloses suppressing the leak rate (FIG 11: discloses if the leak rate is above the slope 82, then no alert is needed); however, the cited art fails to discloses a robustness check sub-module which reviews measured pressure data and suppresses the leak alert when outliers in the measured pressure data exceed a predetermined threshold. However, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and 6 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Suh discloses issuing Suh et al discloses /or low pressure and/or temperature alerts (0057)0005, 0070, 0125, and 0137 discloses fluctuations and anomalies in the tire leakage monitoring reduce the accuracy of information communicated to the driver such as issuing false alarms. Detecting these fluctuations and anomalies provides a satisfactory accuracy providing a relatively low incidence/triggering of false alarms. 00189 discloses In order to detect leaking tires while not generating too many false alarms, thresholds below the lowest normal tire pressures were set. In particular, Suh et al discloses collected data may sometimes include unexpected outliers that are not in the normal range of the values, or do not match the context values. These outliers could potentially contaminate the later model accuracy if not removed. (0073) 0087 discloses removing out-of-range outliers, compensating the pressure data for temperature effects, and, removing impossible combination outliers. Therefore, one of a skilled artisan would have realized by removing this data, this would result in the data used for determining if a leak alert being removed. This would provide a more accuracy of information communicated to the driver. This is a form of suppressing a leak alert such as false alarms not being issued.
Thus, in conjunction with Singh et al, the combination of the art would teach a robustness check sub-module which reviews measured pressure data and suppresses the leak alert when outliers in the measured pressure data exceed a predetermined threshold.
As per dependent claim 20, Singh et al discloses wherein the post-processing module includes a postprocessor that compares the determinations as generated by sub-modules in the post-processing module to determine whether to issue the leak alert. (0054-61: the tire leak data is compared to a number of thresholds to determine which type of a leak alert is issued.)
Note: For claims 6-9, 11-16, 18, and 20, since the cited art et al discloses the functionality that are performed by the units/modules, then the cited art et al discloses the necessary code/modules/units in order to perform the functionality.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al in further view of Suh et al in further view of Kintscher et al (US20200189327)(Disclosed in IDS filed on 4/3/2020)
As per dependent claim 3, Singh et al fails to specifically disclose wherein the real-time parameters further comprise identification information for the tire, including a position of the tire on the vehicle. However, Kintscher et al discloses identification information for the tire, including a position of the tire on the vehicle (0049-0050: tire ID information indicates position of each tire on the vehicle)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Kintscher since it would have provided the benefit of monitors tire parameters, analyzes the monitored information and generates recommendations to a user of the vehicle based upon the analysis in a convenient and reliable manner. (0008)
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al in further view of Suh et al in further view of Siuta et al (US20240042812, EFD 12/21/2020)
As per dependent claim 10, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the set of operations includes a resampler that resamples the real-time tire parameters from the sensor unit. However, Suita et al discloses resamples the real-time tire parameters from the sensor unit (0027, 0029)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Suh et al since it would have provided the benefit of inform the driver early enough in the process of a slow leak that he or she has sufficient time to repair the tire at his or her convenience instead of being stranded on the road in the case of not knowing the tire is leaking before it is too late. (0022)
Note: Since the cited art et al discloses the functionality that are performed by the units/modules, then the cited art et al discloses the necessary code/modules/units in order to perform the functionality.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al in further view of Suh et al in further view of Arai (US 20210061029)
As per dependent claim 17, the cited art fails to specifically disclose a condition evaluator that includes a placard pressure comparison sub-module which compares a measured pressure for the tire to a placard pressure and suppresses the leak alert if the measured pressure is similar to the placard pressure. However, Arai discloses when the tire air pressure drops to or below a warning pressure, which is the reference placard pressure, a low-pressure warning process is executed to output low-pressure warning information (0019) One of a skilled artisan would have realized that within reasonable limits, if the tire pressure is not equal or below the placard recommendation , then no warning would be necessary. (a form of suppression)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Arai since it would have provided the benefit of a tire air pressure warning device that can avoid a deterioration in fuel economy due to a reduction in tire air pressure. (0005)
Note: Since the cited art et al discloses the functionality that are performed by the units/modules, then the cited art et al discloses the necessary code/modules/units in order to perform the functionality.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al in further view of Suh et al in further view of Abdossalami et al (US20190023089)
As per dependent claim 19, the cited art fails to specifically disclose a condition evaluator that includes a vehicle motion context sub-module which checks a motion history of the vehicle and suppresses the leak alert when the leak rate is inconsistent with the motion history of the vehicle. However, Abdossalami et al discloses estimated leak rate is computed based on the time history of the wheel speed sensor data and on comparing the ratio between the wheel speed data and the other wheel speed data for other tires of the vehicle. (Thus, Abdossalami discloses the leak rate is based on obtained motion history. Then it is determined whether the tire leak rate is a limp home rate or a limp aside rate, such as by comparing the tire leak rate to leak rate thresholds. (0006, 0039) If it is determined that the tire leak rate is not in the range of a limp home or limp aside at decision block 320, the method 300 repeats. (0040; FIG 3) Thus, if the rate is not in this particular range then this is viewed as being inconsistent and no warning is issued. The alert is not issued (not suppressed) only when the tire leak rate is in the range (consistent)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Abdossalami since it would have provided the benefit of generating a more accurate and noise-robust estimate of temperature normalized fused pressure of a tire than existing approaches (0017)
Note: Since the cited art et al discloses the functionality that are performed by the units/modules, then the cited art et al discloses the necessary code/modules/units in order to perform the functionality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-10, in regards to the objection to the Abstract/specification, Applicant states the Abstract is amended to address the objection the specification/abstract and request withdrawal of the objection. However, the Examiner disagrees. In response, the objection to the specification/abstract remains for the following reason(s): The Examiner respectfully states that the replacement/current abstract is not written in the narrative form since it similarly repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims. In other words, The Examiner respectfully states the current Abstract is merely a combination of a number of the limitations from the independent claims. The Examiner respectfully states that the Applicant did not provide any explanation how the replacement Abstract is considered in narrative form and not a slight rewording of the claim limitations from the independent claims. As stated, the Examiner respectfully states the abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims and/or written like a claim. Therefore, the objection to the Abstract remains.
On page 10, in regards to the objection of the drawings, Applicant states that replacement sheets 1-4 having amended FIGs 1-4 have been submitted and overcome the objection to the drawings. However, the Examiner disagrees overall.
In response, the Examiner respectfully states replacement FIG 4 has overcome one of the issues with the drawings. However, the replacement FIGs have not overcome all the previous issues and also introduced new issue(s). The following issues are still present: 1) reference characters "10" and "14" have both been used to designate a vehicle. FIG 1, and 3 shows 10 and 14 both pointing to the vehicle. While 10 no longer points to a tire in FIG 1 and 3, “10” is pointing to the vehicle. 2) reference characters "10" and "12" have both been used to designate tires. FIGs 2 clearly shows 10 and 12 both pointing to a tire. The Examiner adds it unclear what is considered a “modular tire pressure leak detection system” vs a “vehicle” or “tire” in FIGs 1-3. Applicant positioned pointer associated with “10” too close to the vehicle in FIGs 1 and 3 and too close to a tire of the vehicle in FIG 2. The Examiner recommends moving “10” away from the image of the truck and underlining “10” instead of using an arrow to designate the system in the FIGs.
On pages 11-14, in regards to the 112b rejection, in summary, Applicant argues that “When one skilled in the art would understand the terms used in a claim, the claim is definite under 35 U.S.C. Section 112(b). See M.P.E.P. Section 2173.02. Applicant respectfully submits the terms used in the claims would be understood by one skilled in the art and thus are definite. Applicant states 1) each of the configurable operations and the pre-processing module, which applies the configurable operations to the input data, 2) technique of the leak detection module, 3) each of the comparisons in the sub-modules of the post-processing module, and 4) the operation of the postprocessor are understood by one skilled in the art and thus are definite. Therefore, Applicant requests withdrawal of the 112b rejection. However, the Examiner disagrees.
The Examiner respectfully states that claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 USC 112(b) in regards to MPEP 2181 II, not 2173.02. MPEP 2181 II. states “For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).”; and “if there is no corresponding structure disclosed in the specification (i.e., the limitation is only supported by software and does not correspond to an algorithm and the computer or microprocessor programmed with the algorithm), the limitation should be deemed indefinite as discussed above, and the claim should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” In other words, a number of limitations within claims 1-20 invoke 112(f); however, the written description fails to disclose corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function of each the 112(f) invoked limitations as required as described in MPEP 2181. In addition, no clear algorithm is shown in the specification to correspond to each of the claimed “unit(s)”/modules/sub-modules as required as described in MPEP 2181.
After review of Applicant's specification, it was determined the written description failed to disclose the corresponding structure, material or acts of the claimed function. While Applicant states that Paragraph 0035-0051 disclose each of different “units” (e.g. low pressure dropper), modules and sub-modules, the Examiner is unable to find the corresponding structure, material or acts of each claimed limitation that invokes 112(f). If Applicant disagrees, the Examiner requests exactly where in the cited paragraphs that discloses the corresponding structure, material or acts of the claimed function for each limitation invoking 112(f). Furthermore, MPEP 2181 II clearly states "The specification must explicitly disclose the algorithm for performing the claimed function, and simply reciting the claimed function in the specification will not be a sufficient disclosure for an algorithm which, by definition, must contain a sequence of steps. Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384 (stating that language that simply describes the function to be performed describes an outcome, not a means for achieving that outcome); Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Microsoft Press, 5th edition, 2002; see also Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Elecs., Inc., 355 Fed. Appx. 389, 394-95, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis. 26358, 10-16 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that implicit or inherent disclosure of a class of algorithms for performing the claimed functions is not sufficient, and the purported "one-step" algorithm is not an algorithm at all) (unpublished)." Note that merely referencing a specialized computer (e.g., a "bank computer"), some undefined component of a computer system (e.g., "access control manager"), "logic," "code," or elements that are essentially a black box designed to perform the recited function, will not be sufficient because there must be some explanation of how the computer or the computer component performs the claimed function. Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1383-1385 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Rodriguez, 92 USPQ2d at 1405-06. Therefore, while Applicant states that 0035-0051 discloses functionality of each of the “units” (e.g. low pressure dropper), modules and sub-modules for each of the invoked claim limitations, paragraphs 0035-0051 of the specification do not show an algorithm for each of the claimed “units” (e.g. low pressure dropper), modules and sub-modules as specifically recited in the claims. The Examiner to unable find the exact locations in 0035-0051 showing an algorithm for each invoked claim limitation. The mere reference on stating paragraphs 0035-0051 showing algorithms for the invoked claims is inadequate.
Therefore, claims 1-20 remain rejected under 112(b) in regards to MPEP 2181 II.
On pages 14-17, in regards to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues that independent Claim 1 has been amended to recite patent-eligible subject matter under M.P.E.P. Section 2106.06 and the July 2015 Update to the 2014 Interim Guidance on Subject Matter Eligibility. Applicant argues that amended independent claim 1 is much the claim of example 25 and 26 that the claim, as a whole, clearly amounts to significant more than any recited exception. However, the Examiner disagrees.
The Examiner respectfully states that Applicant’s independent claim 1 is different from Example 25 and Example 26. The Examiner states that Example 26 recites a step of changing the position of the exhaust gas recirculation valve to the calculated position, which was found to make the claim as a whole amount to a practical application/significantly more. The Examiner states that Example 25 Claim 1 opens the press and Claim 2 similarly controls the press to open when the comparison indicates equivalence. Therefore, Example 25 and 26 involve claims that control a machine. However, Applicant’s independent claim 1 does not control a machine or a type of machine in any way. Amended claim 1 discloses an alert being issued for actuation of a vehicle. The claim does not explicitly state that any vehicle is being actuation in response to an issued alert. The claim is stating the issued alert is intended for an actuation. In other words, “for actuation” is merely viewed as intended use and not an actual actuation occurring. Thus, in light of the specification, issuing alert for actuation does not amount to the modular tire pressure leak detection system itself controlling the vehicle, at best it only amounts to a person taking action. Thus, similar to one of the examples in MPEP 2106.05(a) which was not sufficient to improve computer functionality: viii. Arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully adds that Applicant’s amended claim 1 does not result in integrating the claimed abstract into a practical application being performed, particularly Step 2A, Prong Two. In other words, the Examiner states that the claim recites judicial exception wherein Applicant’s invention recite additional elements that do not integrate claimed abstract into a practical application. In particular, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application:
wherein the alert is transmitted to a display device for actuation of the vehicle in response to the alert
The “transmitted” limitation is merely post-solution steps of transmitting data recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and/or transmitting data, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05. The display device, and vehicle in the added limitation is claimed at a high level of generality such that the vehicle is used as tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements –vehicle and display device. The vehicle and display device in the transmitted step are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of transmitted functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Furthermore, under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The transmitted limitation is recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity(e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The use of a display device and vehicle in this step, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a sensor unit and/or various modules ( or use of a processor and tire) and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a vehicle and display device to perform the transmitted step amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The Examiner adds that the claimed language does not positively recite any kind of actuation of the vehicle occurring in the transmission step. The language merely indicates that the alert is transmitted for actuation but the claim never explicitly states that the vehicle is actuated in any way.
Thus, Applicant’s argument(s) are not persuasive and the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
Arguments in regards of the new limitations of Claim 1, brought forth in the amendments and not addressed by Singh, are now in view of the new ground(s) of rejection of 35 USC 103 using the new reference(s) Suh et al.
All other arguments on pages 18-20 that were not addressed by the Examiner, are referring to the dependent claims which are in reference or depend to the topics above, thus the rationale above can be used to respond to the similar arguments and/or Examiner's explanation used in the rejection of those claims as described in the rejections above
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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. Please refer to MPEP 713.09 for scheduling interviews after the mailing of this office action.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2172