DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a cabin of claim 1, the air nozzle of claim 2, the power management module of claim 4, and the controller of claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 1 is in gray-scale making it difficult to see the components in the figure as well as the steel wires seen in claim 3 and connecting bar seen in claims 3 and 6 need to have element numbers in the drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim 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: “an electric inflation module, a fixing module”, “a power supply module”, “sensing module”, and “data transmission module” in claim 1 as well as “a power management module” in claim 4.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Easley (US 20200062052 A1) in view of McNaught (US 20220371385 A1) in further view of Root (US 20150239309 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Easley discloses an automotive tire inflation device (10, Figure 1, the wheel0mounted air compression device is the tire inflation device), comprising:
an electric inflation module (12 and 20, Figure 6, the air compressor assembly and housing are the electric inflation module), a fixing module (30, Figure 1, the plurality of support legs are the fixing module), a power supply module (54, Figure 7, the battery is the power supply module), a sensing module (50, Figure 7, the pressure sensor is the sensing module), a control module (52, Figure 7), and a data transmission module (60, Figure 8, the transmitter is the data transmission module);
wherein the electric inflation module (20, Figure 6) is configured to inflate the tire (Paragraph [0024], the electric inflation module provides air to the tire);
the fixing module (30, Figure 3) is fixedly connected to an outer wall of the electric inflation module (12 and 20, Figure 6) for fixing the electric inflation module on a wheel hub (Paragraph [0021], the fixing module attached the electric inflation module to the wheel hub);
the control module (52, Figure 6) is fixedly connected to the electric inflation module (12 and 20, Figure 6), configured to receive inputs from the sensing module, continuously monitor changes in tire pressure, and control the start and stop of the electric inflation module (Paragraphs [0025-0026] and [0028], the control module controls the start and stop of the electric inflation module based on the continuous monitoring of the tire pressure by the sensing module);
the sensing module (50, Figure 6) is installed on the electric inflation module (Paragraph [0025]), configured to collect tire pressure and transmit the collected data to the control module (Paragraphs [0025] and [0028], the sensing module collects the tire pressure information and transmit the information to the control module);
the data transmission module (60, Figure 8) is set on the electric inflation module (12 and 20, Figure 6) configured to send start and stop data of inflation (Paragraph [0027], the compressor fills the tire when a low pressure is detected and stops filling when a predetermined tire pressure is reached) and to display the pressure on a display screen in a cabin of a vehicle (Paragraph [0029]); and
the power supply module (54, Figure 6) is arranged on the electric inflation module (12 and 20, Figure 6), configured to provide electricity for the electric inflation module, the sensing module, the control module, and the data transmission module (Paragraph [0026], the power supply module provides current to the electronic and electric components of the tire inflation device).
Easley does not disclose:
the data transmission module configured to send start and stop data of inflation and alarm signals to a cabin based on the inputs of the control module.
McNaught teaches a system for managing tire pressures of a vehicle, comprising:
the data transmission module configured to send start and stop data of inflation (Paragraphs [0101] and [0127], the control module has a data interface (data transmission module) that retrieves and shares the start and stop data of inflation) and alarm signals based on the inputs of the control module (Paragraph [0127-0128], the inputs of the control module (505) is checked to determine if the pressure is constant and issues an alarm if there is a deviation in pressure).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Easley to include the data transmission module configured to send start and stop data of inflation and alarm signals based on the inputs of the control module as taught by McNaught with the motivation to notify the user of the vehicle if a leak or error has occurred in order to prevent a potential accident due to the incorrect tire pressure in the tire.
Easley and McNaught do not expressly teach:
the data transmission module configured to send start and stop data of inflation.
Root teaches a tire inflation apparatus, comprising:
the inflation apparatus configured to send start and stop data of inflation (Paragraph [0046], the operational status information is provided to the cabin of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Easley and McNaught to include the inflation apparatus configured to send start and stop data of inflation as taught by Root with the motivation to allow the driver to adjust or monitor the tire pressure while driving to prevent pulling over and adjusting manually.
Through the combination of Easley, McNaught and Root, the data transmission module of McNaught and Easley can send the start and stop data and alarm signals of to the cabin of a vehicle from the tire inflator as seen in Root.
Regarding Claim 2:
Easley discloses:
wherein the electric inflation module (12 and 20, Figure 6) comprises an air pump (20, Figure 6, the compressor is the air pump), an inflation hose (40, Figure 3, the flexible hose is the inflation hose), and an air nozzle (46, Figure 3); one end of the inflation hose (Figures 3 and 6, the one end is the end of the hose connected to channel (43)) is connected to an outlet end (43 and 26, Figure 6) of the air pump (20, Figure 6), an other end of the inflation hose (Figure 3, the other end is the end connected to the air nozzle) is connected to the air nozzle (46, Figure 3), and the air nozzle is connected to a tire valve (Paragraph [0024], the inflation port is the tire valve that the air nozzle is connected).
Easley and Root do not expressly teach:
A tire valve.
McNaught teaches:
a tire valve (Paragraph [0084], the tire has a Schrader valve that is considered to be the tire valve).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Easley and Root to include a tire valve as taught by McNaguht with the motivation to prevent the tire from leaking when not being filled with air and to only open when connected to the hose for pressurizing the tire.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Easley in view of McNaught in further view of Root and Spindler (US 20190389435 A1).
Regarding Claim 5:
Easley discloses:
a control signal to manually control the start and stop of the electric inflation module (Paragraphs [0026-0028], the electric inflation module is controlled to start and stop based on a control signal of the control module).
Easley and McNaught do not teach:
wherein the data transmission module sends a control signal to manually control the start and stop of the electric inflation module to a controller according to a driver instruction.
Root teaches:
a control signal to manually control the electric inflation module to a controller according to a driver instruction (Paragraph [0046], the driver and adjust the operation of the tire inflation device (10)).
Easley, Root, and McNaught do not teach:
wherein the data transmission module sends a control signal to manually control the start and stop of the electric inflation module to a controller according to a driver instruction.
Spindler teaches a vehicle tire inflation compressor, comprising:
wherein the data transmission module (30, Figure 1, the module is the data transmission module) sends a control signal to manually control the start and stop of the electric inflation module to a controller (Paragraphs [0017-0018], the controller sends a control signal to start and stop the electric inflation module (20)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Easley, McNaught, and Root to include wherein the data transmission module sends a control signal to manually control the start and stop of the electric inflation module to a controller according to a driver instruction as taught by Spindler with the motivation to have communication between the vehicle and the inflator to control the tire inflation based on the tire information.
Through the combination, the automotive tire inflation device of Easley is modified controlled to receive driver instruction to control the start and stop of the electric inflation module as seen in Root and Spindler.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest pieces of prior art are Easley (US 20200062052 A1) in view of McNaught (US 20220371385 A1) in further view of Root (US 20150239309 A1).
Regarding Claim 3:
Claim 3 depends from claims 1-2 where Easley, McNaught, and Root teach all of the limitations for the automotive tire inflation device.
Easley further discloses:
wherein the fixing module (30, Figure 3) comprises a plurality of connecting bars (33 and 35, Figure 3) fixedly connected to the outer wall (12, Figure 6, the housing is the outer wall of the air pump) of the air pump (20, Figure 6), with one end of each of the connecting bars far from the air pump contacts with the tire, and each of the connecting bars is fixed to the wheel hub (Paragraph [0023]).
The prior art of record fails to teach or make obvious the adjustable length steel wires in view of all other limitations of claims 1-3. Additionally, the adjustable length steel wires for an automotive tire inflation device cannot be found in the prior art searched.
Claim 6 is objected to as the claim is dependent from claim 3.
The closest pieces of prior art are Easley (US 20200062052 A1) in view of McNaught (US 20220371385 A1) in further view of Root (US 20150239309 A1) and McIntyre (US 20190263363 A1).
Regarding Claim 4:
Easley discloses:
the power supply (54, Figure 6) is configured to provide electricity to the electric inflation module (12 and 20, Figure 6), the sensing module (50, Figure 6), the control module (52, Figure 6), and the data transmission module (Paragraph [0026], the battery provides electricity to the electronic and electric components of the inflation device).
McIntyre teaches an inflator with a dynamic pressure compensation, comprising:
wherein the power supply module comprises a power supply (66, Figure 1, the battery pack is the power supply) and a power management module (Paragraph [0039], the power supply module is the power supply and the power management module (300 and 302, the power input module and the battery pack interface)); and
the power management module (300 and 302, Figure 6) controls the power sent to the control module (Paragraph [0039], the power management module controls the power received from the battery and sends it to the control module).
The prior art of record fails to teach or make obvious the limitation “the power management module collects power consumption and remaining capacity of the power supply to send to the control module” in lines 4-5 of claim 4 in view of all other limitations of claim 1 and 4. If any additional reference were to be found, it would further modify the McIntyre reference for the power management module.
However, a full determination of allowability will be made when all other objections and rejections of the present application are overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen (US 9694633 B2) teaches a moveable tire inflation apparatus comprising a power supply, a compressor, a control module, and a fixing module with straps to attach the inflator to the vehicle.
Narloch (US 20120234447 A1) teaches an automatic tire inflation system comprising an air pump, a control module, a power supply, and a fixing module that attaches the inflator to the hub with retaining fingers.
Wise (US 7789112 B1) teaches a method for inflating an inflatable object comprising a control module, an air hose, an air nozzle, an electric inflation module, and a sensing module.
Corniot (US 7706930 B2) teaches a tire-inflation device comprising a control module, an air hose, a power supply module, an electric inflation module, a sensing module, and a data transmission module.
Ferber (US 20120224978 A1) teaches an apparatus for the adjustment of pressure in a vehicle tire comprising a control module, an air hose, an air nozzle, an electric inflation module, and a data transmission module.
Hinojosa (US 20110203710 A1) teaches an automatic tire pressure control system comprising a control module, an air nozzle, an electric inflation module, and a sensing module.
Grenie (US 4981162 A) teaches a portable inflator comprising a control module, an air hose, an air nozzle, an electric inflation module, and a fixing module comprising a bracket or a clamps and hooks.
Choizi (Us 11673433 B1) teaches a vehicle tire inflation system comprising a control module, an air hose, an air nozzle, an electric inflation module, a fixing module that attaches to the side of the wheel, and a sensing module.
Carroll (US 20220203761 A1) teaches a wheel hub assembly comprising a control module, an air hose, a fixing module connected to the hub cap, an electric inflation module, and a sensing module.
Detering (EP 3265300 B1) teaches a portable repair kit comprising a control module, an air hose, an air nozzle, and a magnet as the fixing module.
Paul (US 2579048 A) teaches an automatic pressure control system comprising a fixing device, an air hose, and an air nozzle.
Henning (US 11813898 B2) teaches a rotary union for tire inflation comprising a fixing module being a bracket, an air hose, an air nozzle, and a sensing module.
Schwone (US 0598748 A) teaches an automatic tire pump comprising an inflation module and the fixing module contains legs to hold the inflation module.
McCullough (US 0996870 A) an inflation module and the fixing module contains legs to hold the tire.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE A SHRIEVES whose telephone number is (571)272-5373. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday: 9:30AM to 5:30PM.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881. 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.
/STEPHANIE A SHRIEVES/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753