DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 8-14 and 16-20 are pending.
Claims 1-7 and 15 have been cancelled.
Claims 8-9 and 14 have been amended.
Response to Amendment
Objections to the Specification: Applicant’s amendments to the specification overcomes the objections of record. The objections to the specification are withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §112(b): Applicant’s amended and cancelled claims overcome the rejection of record. The 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. §101: Applicant’s amendment to the claims raises 101 issues that will be outlined in this action below.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103: Claim 8 has been amended to change the scope of the claimed invention. Specifically, limitations pertaining to “identify a state of hydroplaning by detecting negative radial acceleration data in a footprint of the tire; and detection of negative radial acceleration data in the footprint of the tire” which changes the scope of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 8-14 and 16-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments pertaining to claims 19 and 20 filed 09/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Dependent Claims 19 and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. Section 103 as obvious over Brusarosco in view of Spetler. A dependent claim is not obvious if the independent claim from which it depends is not obvious. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Claims 19 and 20 depend from independent Claim 8. Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 8 is not obvious over the combination of Brusarosco in view of Spetler for the reasons that are presented above. Therefore, Dependent Claims 19 and 20 also are not obvious over the combination of Brusarosco in view of Spetler, and are allowable.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees as Claim 19 is drafted as an independent claim and Claim 20 is drafted as a dependent claim of claim 19 and therefore would not be not obvious and/or allowable based on their dependence of claim 8 as they are not dependent claims of claim 8.
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 8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a computer implemented method for detecting hydroplaning of a tire supporting a vehicle.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “identify a state of hydroplaning by detecting negative radial acceleration data in a footprint of the tire”, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is other than reciting a processor nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed in the mind or by a human with the aid of pen and paper. For example, but for the recitation of a processor, these claims encompass a person observing radial acceleration data and making a determination whether hydroplaning is present or not. If a claim limitation, under 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.
Claim 8 recites additional element “a sensor unit being mounted on the tire, the sensor unit including a radial acceleration sensor to measure radial acceleration data while the tire is rolling on a ground surface”, “ a memory element storing at least part of the acceleration data”, and “obtain radial acceleration data from the memory element” which are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 8 also recites additional element “generate a hydroplaning detection signal based on the detection of negative radial acceleration data in the footprint of the tire” which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to post solution outputting/displaying which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 8 as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of detecting hydroplaning. The claimed computer component is recited at a high generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform an existing process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such the claims are ineligible.
Claims 9-18 are also rejected as they do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the 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.
Claims 8-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brusarosco et al. (US2011/0199201A1) in view of Sekizawa et al. (US2019/0143987A1) in view of Spetler (US2008/0245456A1) in further view of Moringa (US2010/0186492A1), hereinafter Brusarosco, Sekizawa, Spetler, and Moringa respectively.
Regarding claim 8, (Currently amended) Brusarosco teaches a hydroplaning detection system comprising: a vehicle (see at least [0050] “a vehicle”); a tire supporting the vehicle (see at least [0050] “Tyre 1 (FIG. 1) is fitted on a rim 2, in turn fitted on a hub 3; through the hub 3, tyre 1 is mounted on a vehicle”); a sensor unit being mounted on the tire, the sensor unit including a radial acceleration sensor to measure radial acceleration data while the tire is rolling on a ground surface (see at least [0082]-[0083] “The detection device 110 is preferably associated with the inner surface 8 of tyre 1; in particular the detection device 110 can be fastened to the liner of tyre 1, typically by an anchoring device. Preferably, fastening of this detection device 110 can substantially take place at the equatorial plane of tyre 1.The detection device 110 can for example comprise an accelerometer adapted to detect the radial and/or longitudinal and/or lateral acceleration to which the inner surface 8 of tyre 1 is submitted.”).
Brusarosco does not explicitly teach but suggests a processor in electronic communication with the sensor unit and with the memory element, the processor being configured to; obtain radial acceleration data from the memory element[[,]] (see at least [0152]-[0153] “Note that the processing unit 120 has been described as divided into a plurality of modules only for the purpose of clarifying the different functionalities thereof; this division does not necessarily reflect the hardware structure of the processing unit 120. In particular, many of the modules shown in the processing unit 120 in FIG. 2 can actually correspond to a routine software. Practically, the processing unit 120 can be made as a single programmable electronic device, suitably arranged for performing the different operations described above.”); identify a state of hydroplaning by detecting negative radial acceleration data in a footprint of the tire (see at least [0118]-[0119] “FIG. 3 diagrammatically shows the variation as a function of time of the acceleration corresponding to the deformation in a radial direction, detected on the inner surface 8 of tyre 1 after passage on a layer of water, in which the significant points A1-A4 can be identified. These points A1-A4 appear to be particularly representative of the deformation suffered by the tyre in the footprint area on passing on the layer of water. Referring again to FIGS. 6a-6b, in which the difference between radial acceleration on a dry surface and radial acceleration on a wet surface is highlighted, it is possible to see that the position and/or amplitude of points A1-A4 is modified by effect of the presence of the layer of water. This makes it possible to correlate the position and/or amplitude of these points with the possible arising of the aquaplaning phenomenon.” also see at least [0012]); and detection of negative radial acceleration data in the footprint of the tire (see at least [0021]-[0023] “detecting at least one first signal representative of a deformation of said tyre due to rolling of said tyre on said rolling surface, said first signal comprising at least one portion representative of the interaction between the tyre and said layer of water; processing said first signal so as to determine at least one parameter representative of an aquaplaning condition of said tyre; generating a notification signal as a function of said at least one parameter.”).
Examiner interprets that hydroplaning detection signal is encompassed at least by notification signal.
Brusarosco does not explicitly teach a memory element storing at least part of the acceleration data.
Sekizawa more explicitly teaches a hydroplaning detection system comprising: a vehicle (see at least [0022] “a vehicle body system 2 including various devices mounted in a vehicle body.” also see at least Fig.2); a memory element storing at least part of the acceleration data (see at least [0034] “The controller 13 is provided by a microcomputer including a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, an I/O and the like and executes the processing for detecting the road surface condition based on a program stored in the ROM or the like.”); and detecting negative radial acceleration data (see at least [0037] “For example, the detection signal of the second acceleration sensor 11b indicates a positive value when the acceleration acts outwardly in the radial direction of the tire 3 with respect to the second acceleration sensor 11b, and indicates a negative value when the acceleration acts inwardly in the radial direction of the tire 3 with respect to the second acceleration sensor 11b.”).
Spetler more explicitly teaches a memory element storing at least part of the acceleration data (see at least [0160] “Returning to FIG. 2 showing the device according to an embodiment of the invention, a subprogram 23 of the program memory 12 of the processing unit 8 is used to extract a part of the signal received from the sensor(s) corresponding to a substantially non-zero stress signal, for example typically above a threshold.”); and a processor in electronic communication with the sensor unit and with the memory element, the processor being configured to obtain radial acceleration data from the memory element (see at least [0089]-[0090] “In FIG. 2, a signal corresponding to stress measurements made by the sensor 5 is transmitted via the transmitter 7 to the processing unit 8 after having been picked up by an antenna 9...The antenna 9 is connected to a microprocessor 11 of the processing unit 8 via an internal connection bus 10.” and [0091] “The processing unit 8 includes a program memory 12. A program stored in the memory 12 makes it possible, according to various program sections, to process the signal until information for the detection of hydroplaning and for evaluating an intensity of the hydroplaning is obtained.”).
Moringa teaches detecting negative radial acceleration data (see at least [0100] “First the acceleration in the radial direction of the inner surface of the inner liner region 2 which deforms along with the deformation of the tire tread 3 is detected by the acceleration sensor 11. The acceleration waveform extracting means 13 extracts a time-series waveform of the radial acceleration (hereinafter referred to as acceleration waveform) from the output signals of the acceleration sensor. FIG. 3 is a diagram showing an example of an acceleration waveform...When the acceleration is of a positive value, the acceleration is occurring in the direction of the outside of the tire, and when it is of a negative value, it is occurring in the direction of the tire center.”) in a footprint of the tire (see at least [0009] “FIG. 18 is a schematic illustration showing a profile of a tire distorted by the application of a load thereon. As a load is applied to the tire, the part of tire in contact with the road surface (contact patch or footprint) is pushed in toward the tire center, and the regions of the tire near it are so deformed as to bulge out from the initial profile shown by a dashed-dotted line in the figure.”) and that the acceleration in the radial direction is a value substitute for the amount of radial deformation (see at least [0100] “The acceleration, which occurs in response to the forces the tire tread receives in the radial direction, is a value substituting for the amount of radial deformation”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Brusarosco of a hydroplaning detection system comprising: a vehicle; a tire supporting the vehicle; a sensor unit being mounted on the tire, the sensor unit including a radial acceleration sensor to measure radial acceleration data while the tire is rolling on a ground surface and the suggested teaching of a processor in electronic communication with the sensor unit and with the memory element, the processor being configured to; obtain radial acceleration data from the memory element; identify a state of hydroplaning by detecting negative radial acceleration data in a footprint of the tire; and Sekizawa, the teaching of a memory element storing at least part of the acceleration data; and a processor in electronic communication with the sensor unit and with the memory element, the processor being configured to obtain radial acceleration data from the memory element found in Spetler, and the teaching of detecting negative radial acceleration data in a footprint of the tire, and that the acceleration in the radial direction is a value substitute for the amount of radial deformation found in Moringa. One could combine the teachings in order to have a hydroplaning detection system comprising: a vehicle; a tire supporting the vehicle; a sensor unit being mounted on the tire, the sensor unit including a radial acceleration sensor to measure radial acceleration data while the tire is rolling on a ground surface; a memory element storing at least part of the acceleration data; and a processor in electronic communication with the sensor unit and with the memory element, the processor being configured to; obtain radial acceleration data from the memory element; identify a state of hydroplaning by detecting negative radial acceleration data in a footprint of the tire; and to generate a hydroplaning detection signal based on the detection of negative radial acceleration data in the footprint of the tire with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to accurately and reliably determine an aquaplaning condition (see at least Brusarosco [0031] and [0157] also see at least Spetler [0157]-[0159]) and further improve driving safety.
Regarding claim 9, (Currently amended) the combination of Brusarosco, Sekizawa, Spetler, and Moringa teaches the hydroplaning detection system of claim 8 as detailed above.
Brusarosco does not explicitly teach but suggests wherein the sensor unit is attached to an innerliner of the tire proximate a centerline of [[the]] a tread (see at least [0157] “In this way reliability and accuracy of the method and system according to the invention can be improved, since the aquaplaning phenomenon typically starts in the central region of the tyre (i.e. substantially at the equatorial plane), and then extends to the sides,”).
However, Moringa more explicitly teaches wherein the sensor unit is attached to an innerliner of the tire proximate a centerline of [[the]] a tread (see at least [0095] “Also, in the present embodiment, as shown in FIG. 2, an acceleration sensor 11 is placed at the axial (tire width) center in the inner liner region 2 of a tire 1 such that the detection can be made in the radial direction of the tire, and the radial acceleration working from the road surface on the inner surface of the tire tread 3 is detected.” also see at least [0141]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suggested teaching of Brusarosco of wherein the sensor unit is attached to an innerliner of the tire proximate a centerline of the tread with the more explicit teaching of the same found in Moringa with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to accurately and reliably determine an aquaplaning condition (see at least Brusarosco [0031] and [0157]) and further improve driving safety.
Regarding claim 10, (Original) the combination of Brusarosco, Sekizawa, Spetler, and Moringa teaches the hydroplaning detection system of claim 8 as detailed above.
Brusarosco does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor unit includes a transmitter including an antenna for wireless data transmission to said processor.
However, Spetler more explicitly teaches wherein the sensor unit includes a transmitter including an antenna for wireless data transmission to said processor (see at least [0089] “In FIG. 2, a signal corresponding to stress measurements made by the sensor 5 is transmitted via the transmitter 7 to the processing unit 8 after having been picked up by an antenna 9.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brusarosco with the teaching of wherein the sensor unit includes a transmitter including an antenna for wireless data transmission to said processor found in Spetler with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to accurately and reliably determine an aquaplaning condition (see at least Brusarosco [0031] and [0157] also see at least Spetler [0157]-[0159]) and further improve driving safety.
Regarding claim 11, (Original) the combination of Brusarosco, Sekizawa, Spetler, and Moringa teaches the hydroplaning detection system of claim 8 as detailed above.
Brusarosco does not explicitly teach but suggests wherein the processor includes a transmitter to transmit the hydroplaning detection signal to at least one of a display device or to a vehicle control system (see at least [0087] “This notification signal SN can be addressed to the driver of the vehicle on which tyre 1 is fitted so as to provide a warning about possible danger conditions that the vehicle may encounter due to arising of the aquaplaning phenomenon.”).
However, Spetler more explicitly teaches wherein the processor includes a transmitter to transmit the hydroplaning detection signal to at least one of a display device (see at least [0091] “The processing unit 8 includes a program memory 12. A program stored in the memory 12 makes it possible, according to various program sections, to process the signal until information for the detection of hydroplaning and for evaluating an intensity of the hydroplaning is obtained. Once the information has been obtained, via the connection bus 10, the information may be displayed on a display unit 13 placed inside the actual vehicle.” also see at least [0164]) or to a vehicle control system.
Examiner interprets that the claim is written in the alternative and therefore only one of the limitations need to be addressed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suggested teaching of Brusarosco of wherein the processor includes a transmitter to transmit the hydroplaning detection signal to at least one of a display device or to a vehicle control system with the more explicit teaching of the same found in Spetler with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to notify a driver of a possible dangerous conditions (see at least Brusarosco [0087]) and further improve driving safety.
Regarding claim 12, (Original) the combination of Brusarosco, Sekizawa, Spetler, and Moringa teaches the hydroplaning detection system of claim 8 as detailed above.
Brusarosco teaches wherein the sensor unit comprises an accelerometer that is arranged so that an acceleration measuring direction of the accelerometer corresponds to a radial axis of the tire (see at least [0083] “The detection device 110 can for example comprise an accelerometer adapted to detect the radial and/or longitudinal and/or lateral acceleration to which the inner surface 8 of tyre 1 is submitted.”).
However, Sekizawa more explicitly teaches wherein the sensor unit comprises an accelerometer that is arranged so that an acceleration measuring direction of the accelerometer corresponds to a radial axis of the tire (see at least [0027] “The second acceleration sensor 11b is used for detecting the rotational angle of the tire 3. For example, the second acceleration sensor 11b outputs a detection signal based on acceleration in the centrifugal direction of the tire 3. In other words, the second acceleration sensor 11b outputs a detection signal based on acceleration in the tire's radial direction indicated by an arrow Z in FIG. 3. For more details, the second acceleration sensor 11b generates as the detection signal an output voltage, which is positive in one direction and negative in the opposite direction, between two directions indicated with the arrow Z.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Brusarosco of wherein the sensor unit comprises an accelerometer that is arranged so that an acceleration measuring direction of the accelerometer corresponds to a radial axis of the tire with the more explicit teaching of the same found in Sekizawa with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to accurately and reliably determine an aquaplaning condition (see at least Brusarosco [0031] and [0157]) and further improve driving safety.
Regarding claim 13, (Original) the combination of Brusarosco, Sekizawa, Spetler, and Moringa teaches the hydroplaning detection system of claim 8 as detailed above.
Brusarosco teaches wherein the sensor unit is configured to measure samples of the tire's radial acceleration at a rate of at least 1 kHz (see at least [0068] “A radial accelerometric signal is detected which corresponds to the radial deformation of the inner surface of tyre 1. This signal is typically sampled to a frequency included between 4000 Hz and 20000 Hz, a frequency of 10000 Hz, for example.”).
Examiner interprets that a rate of at least 1 kHz is encompassed at least by a frequency included between 4000 Hz and 20000 Hz, a frequency of 10000 Hz, for example.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Brusarosco, Sekizawa, Spetler, and Moringa teaches the hydroplaning detection system of claim 8 as detailed above.
Brusarosco does not explicitly teach but suggests wherein the processor is configured to indicate the presence of hydroplaning in the hydroplaning detection signal if the negative radial acceleration data indicates a plurality of values that are lower than a predetermined threshold value within a predetermined amount of time (see at least [0147] “Once the parameter or parameters representative of the aquaplaning condition of the tyre have been calculated according to one or more of the above reproduced formulae, a comparison can be carried out between each calculated parameter and a respective preset threshold value Tr.” also see at least [0089] “Advantageously, calculation of parameter P1, P2, P3, P4 and related processing are performed for each revolution of tyre 1…It may be also convenient to execute an average of the value of said at least one parameter detected in a given number of revolutions of the tyre.”).
Examiner interprets that a predetermined amount of time is encompassed at least by a given number of revolutions.
Brusarosco also teaches that the position and/or amplitude of radial acceleration is modified by the effect of a presence of a layer of water and therefore it is possible to correlate the position and/or amplitude of radial acceleration at corresponding points with the possibility of aquaplaning (see at least [0119] “Referring again to FIGS. 6a-6b, in which the difference between radial acceleration on a dry surface and radial acceleration on a wet surface is highlighted, it is possible to see that the position and/or amplitude of points A1-A4 is modified by effect of the presence of the layer of water. This makes it possible to correlate the position and/or amplitude of these points with the possible arising of the aquaplaning phenomenon.”).
Sekizawa more explicitly teaches negative radial acceleration data (see at least [0037] “For example, the detection signal of the second acceleration sensor 11b indicates a positive value when the acceleration acts outwardly in the radial direction of the tire 3 with respect to the second acceleration sensor 11b, and indicates a negative value when the acceleration acts inwardly in the radial direction of the tire 3 with respect to the second acceleration sensor 11b.”).
Moringa more explicitly teaches negative radial acceleration data (see at least [0100] “First the acceleration in the radial direction of the inner surface of the inner liner region 2 which deforms along with the deformation of the tire tread 3 is detected by the acceleration sensor 11. The acceleration waveform extracting means 13 extracts a time-series waveform of the radial acceleration (hereinafter referred to as acceleration waveform) from the output signals of the acceleration sensor. FIG. 3 is a diagram showing an example of an acceleration waveform...When the acceleration is of a positive value, the acceleration is occurring in the direction of the outside of the tire, and when it is of a negative value, it is occurring in the direction of the tire center.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suggested teaching of Brusarosco of wherein the processor is configured to indicate the presence of hydroplaning in the hydroplaning detection signal if the negative radial acceleration data indicates a plurality of values that are lower than a predetermined threshold value within a predetermined amount of time with the more explicit teaching of negative radial acceleration data found in Sekizawa and Moringa to more explicitly teach a hydroplaning detection system wherein the processor is configured to indicate the presence of hydroplaning in the hydroplaning detection signal if the negative radial acceleration data indicates a plurality of values that are lower than a predetermined threshold value within a predetermined amount of time with a reasonable expectation of success as Brusarosco also teaches that the position and/or amplitude of radial acceleration is modified by the effect of a presence of a layer of water and therefore it is possible to correlate the position and/or amplitude of radial acceleration at corresponding points with the possibility of aquaplaning. One would have been motivated to do so in order to accurately and reliably determine an aquaplaning condition (see at least Brusarosco [0031] and [0157]) and further improve driving safety.
Regarding claim 16, (Original) the combination of Brusarosco, Sekizawa, Spetler, and Moringa teaches the hydroplaning detection system of claim 14 as detailed above.
Brusarosco does not explicitly teach but suggests wherein the predetermined amount of time corresponds to at least four full revolution periods of the tire (see at least [0089] “Advantageously, calculation of parameter P1, P2, P3, P4 and related processing are performed for each revolution of tyre 1, so that the information relating to the grip conditions is maintained updated in a sufficiently frequent and reliable manner. It may be also convenient to execute an average of the value of said at least one parameter detected in a given number of revolutions of the tyre.”).
However, Spetler more explicitly teaches wherein the predetermined amount of time corresponds to at least four full revolution periods of the tire (see at least [0157] “Because the curves are not one-to-one, it is desirable to record the history of the calculated values, at least the measurements relating to the last 4 or 5 revolutions, in order to be able to correctly interpret the values obtained and give a reliable estimate of the degree of hydroplaning.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suggested teaching of Brusarosco of wherein the predetermined amount of time corresponds to at least four full revolution periods of the tire with the more explicit teaching of the same found in Spetler with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to accurately and reliably determine an aquaplaning condition (see at least Brusarosco [0031] and [0157] also see at least Spetler [0157] and [0159]) and further improve driving safety.
Regarding claim 17, (Original) the combination of Brusarosco, Sekizawa, Spetler, and Moringa teaches the hydroplaning detection system of claim 8 as detailed above.
Brusarosco does not explicitly teach wherein the memory element is structured to store a history of consecutively obtained sample values of the radial acceleration data.
However, Spetler more explicitly teaches wherein the memory element is structured to store a history of consecutively obtained sample values of the radial acceleration data (see at least [0160] “Returning to FIG. 2 showing the device according to an embodiment of the invention, a subprogram 23 of the program memory 12 of the processing unit 8 is used to extract a part of the signal received from the sensor(s) corresponding to a substantially non-zero stress signal, for example typically above a threshold.” also see at least [0157] “FIG. 15 shows 1-S/S0 as a function of ΔE. The shape of the curves of the chart is close to a succession of inclined "Z"s for each water height. Because the curves are not one-to-one, it is desirable to record the history of the calculated values, at least the measurements relating to the last 4 or 5 revolutions, in order to be able to correctly interpret the values obtained and give a reliable estimate of the degree of hydroplaning.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brusarosco with the teaching of wherein the memory element is structured to store a history of consecutively obtained sample values of the radial acceleration data found in Spetler with a reasonable expectation of success as Brusarosco teaches a processing unit that may be a programmable electronic device (see at least Brusarosco [0152]-[0153]). One would have been motivated to do so in order to accurately and reliably determine an aquaplaning condition (see at least Brusarosco [0031] and [0157] also see at least Spetler [0157]-[0159]) and further improve driving safety.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brusarosco et al. (US2011/0199201A1) in view of Sekizawa et al. (US2019/0143987A1) in view of Spetler (US2008/0245456A1) in view of Moringa (US2010/0186492A1) in further view of Nagaosa et al. (US2017/0169898A1), hereinafter Brusarosco, Sekizawa, Spetler, Moringa, and Nagaosa respectively.
Regarding claim 18, (Original) the combination of Brusarosco, Sekizawa, Spetler, and Moringa teaches the hydroplaning detections system of claim 17 as detailed above.
Brusarosco does not explicitly teach wherein the memory element operates as a shift register.
However, Nagaosa more explicitly teaches wherein the memory element operates as a shift register (see at least [0274] “the skyrmion memory circuit has a feature of serving as a magnetic shift register that sequentially transfers skyrmions serving as information.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Brusarosco with the teaching of wherein the memory element operates as a shift register found in Nagaosa with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve data retention performance (see at least Nagaosa [0257]) and high-speed power of large-scale information (see at least Nagaosa [0265]-[0267]).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brusarosco et al. (US2011/0199201A1) in view of Spetler (US2008/0245456A1), hereinafter Brusarosco and Spetler respectively.
Regarding claim 19, (Original) Brusarosco teaches a tire comprising a sensor unit attached to an innerliner of the tire (see at least [0082] “The detection device 110 is preferably associated with the inner surface 8 of tyre 1; in particular the detection device 110 can be fastened to the liner of tyre 1, typically by an anchoring device. Preferably, fastening of this detection device 110 can substantially take place at the equatorial plane of tyre 1.”), the sensor unit including a radial acceleration sensor to measure radial acceleration data while the tire is rolling on a ground surface (see at least [0083] “The detection device 110 can for example comprise an accelerometer adapted to detect the radial and/or longitudinal and/or lateral acceleration to which the inner surface 8 of tyre 1 is submitted.”).
Examiner interprets that sensor unit being mounted on the tire is encompassed at least by detection device 110.
Brusarosco does not explicitly teach a memory element in electronic communication with the sensor unit, to store at least part of the acceleration data.
However, Spetler more explicitly teaches a memory element in electronic communication with the sensor unit, to store at least part of the acceleration data (see at least [0160] “Returning to FIG. 2 showing the device according to an embodiment of the invention, a subprogram 23 of the program memory 12 of the processing unit 8 is used to extract a part of the signal received from the sensor(s) corresponding to a substantially non-zero stress signal, for example typically above a threshold.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brusarosco with the teaching of a memory element in electronic communication with the sensor unit, to store at least part of the acceleration data found in Spetler with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to accurately and reliably determine an aquaplaning condition (see at least Brusarosco [0031] and [0157] also see at least Spetler [0157]-[0159]) and further improve driving safety.
Regarding claim 20, (Original) the combination of Brusarosco and Spetler teaches tire of claim 19 as detailed above.
Brusarosco does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor unit comprises a transmitter including an antenna for wireless data transmission to a processor.
However, Spetler more explicitly teaches wherein the sensor unit comprises a transmitter including an antenna for wireless data transmission to a processor (see at least [0089] “In FIG. 2, a signal corresponding to stress measurements made by the sensor 5 is transmitted via the transmitter 7 to the processing unit 8 after having been picked up by an antenna 9.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brusarosco with the teaching of wherein the sensor unit comprises a transmitter including an antenna for wireless data transmission to a processor found in Spetler with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to accurately and reliably determine an aquaplaning condition (see at least Brusarosco [0031] and [0157] also see at least Spetler [0157]-[0159]) and further improve driving safety.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chabloz (US2022/0260610A1) Discloses a method or system configured for assessing the integrity of a sensor module mounted in a tire of a wheel or on an inner surface of the tire of the wheel.
Eregen et al. (US2011/0087396A1) Discloses wireless transmission from sensor devices included in tyres coordinated by a receiving unit associated with the tyre, or transmission coordinator. In more detail, every sensor device is made aware of an overall time window available for transmission, and based on at least this information, it calculates a dedicated timeslot for the transmission of its data within such time window. This coordinated transmission makes possible a strong reduction of the probability of collisions and transmission errors, and reduces the number of transmissions, so as to comply with the limited power resources available at each sensor device.
Soini et al. (US2022/0088978A1) Discloses a pneumatic tire including a first tread area portion, an electric power source, a transmission device, an accelerometer, and a control unit configured to operate in a power saving mode and a normal mode. A contact of the first tread area portion with a surface is detected by sensing acceleration of the first tread area portion by the accelerometer. The control unit is configured to switch from the normal mode to the power saving mode after a detection that the first tread area portion is on a contact patch of the tire. The control unit is configured to switch from the power saving mode to the normal mode when a first specified time depending on the rotation speed of the tire has elapsed since the detection that the first tread area portion is on the contact patch. A monitoring method and a system are used with the pneumatic tire.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA N RORIE whose telephone number is (571)272-6962. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (out of office every other Friday) 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662