Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/538,645

SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TIRE INFLATOR MANAGEMENT

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 13, 2023
Examiner
MERCADO, RAMON A
Art Unit
3658
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
aperia technologies Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
332 granted / 409 resolved
+29.2% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
13 currently pending
Career history
422
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.3%
-32.7% vs TC avg
§103
55.7%
+15.7% vs TC avg
§102
12.5%
-27.5% vs TC avg
§112
15.8%
-24.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 409 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is taken in response to Applicant’s Amendment and Remarks filed on January 6, 2026 regarding Application No. 18/538645 originally filed on December 13, 2023. Claims 11-20 pending for consideration. Response to Remarks and Amendments Applicants’ amendments and remarks have been fully and carefully considered, with the Examiner’s response set forth below. 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) 1-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stopczynski (US2020/0207162A1) in view of Connell (US2018/0022187A1). Regarding claim 11, Stopczynski teaches a system, comprising: a local system configured to mount to a vehicle (“The system 10 includes a controller 12 in communication with a compressor pump 14 and multiple valves 20 in a valve block 18.” [0028]), comprising: a plurality of tire inflation systems, each configured to statically mount to a respective wheel of the vehicle (“The system 10 may also release air pressure from the tires 22 in a controlled manner via the valves 20… the inflation/deflation system 10 is in fluid communication with four tires 22…” [0028])), wherein each of the plurality of tire inflation systems comprises: a pump configured to fluidly connect to a tire of the respective wheel (“The pump 14 supplies pressurized air to an accumulator 16, which selectively provides compressed air to tires 22.” [0028]); a set of sensors configured to sample tire measurements (“At least one sensor is in communication with the controller 12 and is configured to receive at least one of vehicle location data, vehicle environmental data and other sensor information.” [0029]); and a processing system comprising a first set of processors configured to control operation of the pump based on a tire pressure setpoint (“The controller is configured to select at least one of the four tires to adjust the tire pressure… The controller is configured to control at least one of the valve and compressor to achieve at least one of desired fuel economy and desired road control…” [0028]); and a set of vehicle sensors configured to sample a set of vehicle parameters comprising a real-time location of the vehicle (“Vehicle location data 28, which may include GPS vehicle location and maps, may be used to determine road conditions…” [0034]); and the pump is dynamically controlled to satisfy the new tire pressure setpoint during operation of the vehicle (“The controller is configured to control at least one of the valve and compressor to achieve at least one of desired fuel economy and desired road control of the selected at least one of the four tires.” [0028]). Stopczynski however, does not explicitly teach a remote computing system comprising a second set of processors, remote from the vehicle and configured to: determine a set of environmental parameters based on the real-time location of the vehicle: during operation of the vehicle. determine a new tire pressure setpoint based on the set of environmental parameters; and transmit the new tire pressure setpoint to the plurality of tire inflation systems during operation of the vehicle. Connell, in analogous art, teaches a remote computing system comprising a second set of processors, remote from the vehicle (“The fleet server 104 includes at least one processor 105, and is any of: a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a server computer (or server system)…” [0027]) and configured to: determine a set of environmental parameters based on the real-time location of the vehicle (“The fleet server 104 may receive at least one parameter from the at least one vehicle 102-1 of the fleet of vehicles 102-1 … The at least one parameter relays information about a performance of a climate control system…” [0074]; “The fleet server 104 may receive external parameters from the navigation server 107 and the climate conditions server 108. The external parameters may include traffic conditions and/or weather condition parameters along a route of the vehicle(s).” [0081]): during operation of the vehicle determine a new vehicle system setpoint based on the set of environmental parameters (“The fleet server 104 may receive external parameters from the navigation server 107 and the climate conditions server 108. The external parameters may include traffic conditions and/or weather condition parameters along a route of the vehicle(s). The processor 105 of the fleet server 104 determines the desirable operational settings of the at least one vehicle based on the external parameters along with the parameters received from the at least one vehicle.” [0081]; “At step 459, the fleet server processes the current HVAC conditions, energy use rate of auxiliary power source for the HVAC system, and/or the current location and route, and determines an efficient performance operational setting based on the determined current HVAC conditions in conjunction with the energy use rate, and/or the current location, and current route.” [0114]); and transmit the new tire pressure setpoint to the plurality of tire inflation systems during operation of the vehicle (“The fleet server 104 transmits instructions of the desirable operational setting(s) (e.g., temperature settings) to the one or more vehicles to inform the user of the vehicle(s) of the desirable operational setting(s) (e.g., efficient operation settings), as shown by step 460.” [0079]). It is well established that Connell teaches a technique in which a remote or cloud-based fleet server receives vehicle context and environmental data (such as location, weather, and route) and determines optimal operational setpoints for the vehicle’s HVAC system, which are then transmitted to the vehicle for implementation. Applying this known technique of remote, context-driven setpoint computation and transmission to the field of vehicle tire inflation systems represents a straightforward adaptation of an existing method to a related automotive subsystem. Tire inflation controllers, such as those described in Stopczynski, already dynamically adjust tire pressure based on local vehicle and environmental conditions. Substituting the local setpoint computation in Stopczynski with Connell’s remote/cloud-based approach would have been an obvious improvement to one of ordinary skill in the art, as it enables centralized, fleet-wide optimization of tire pressures based on real-time environmental and contextual data—just as Connell does for HVAC. The predictable result of this combination is a system in which tire pressure setpoints are remotely and dynamically optimized for safety, efficiency, or performance, and transmitted to vehicles for implementation, yielding benefits analogous to those realized in Connell’s remote HVAC management system. Regarding claim 12, Stopczynski/Connell teach the system of claim 11, wherein the new tire pressure setpoint is not determined based on real-time tire pressure measurements (“The fleet server 104 may receive external parameters from the navigation server 107 and the climate conditions server 108. The external parameters may include traffic conditions and/or weather condition parameters along a route of the vehicle(s). The processor 105 of the fleet server 104 determines the desirable operational settings of the at least one vehicle based on the external parameters along with the parameters received from the at least one vehicle.” [0081 on Connell]). Regarding claim 13, Stopczynski/Connell teach the system of claim 11, wherein the remote computing system is further configured to determine a set of user notifications based on analyses of the tire measurements, wherein the analyses comprise at least one of: tire tread depth, tire health, predictive maintenance, tire specification, leak detection, or tire performance assessment (“The fleet server 104, at step 431, also stores the faulty information and/or corresponding parameters indicating the fault in the database 106 for future inefficiency/failure prediction. Further, procedures are initiated by the fleet server to facilitate replacement or repair of the faulty part, as described in FIG. 5C.” [0104 on Connell]). Regarding claim 14, Stopczynski/Connell teach the system of claim 11, wherein the set of vehicle parameters comprises at least one of: vehicle location, vehicle load, environmental parameter values, tire age, tire model, or vehicle speed (“The global positioning system 316 includes devices and/or components for determining the location of the vehicle 102-1…” [0056 on Connell]; “The fleet server 104 may receive external parameters from the navigation server 107 and the climate conditions server 108. The external parameters may include traffic conditions and/or weather condition parameters along a route of the vehicle(s).” [0081 on Connell]). Regarding claim 15, Stopczynski/Connell teach the system of claim 11, wherein the new tire pressure setpoint is determined using a model specific to a fleet of vehicles comprising the vehicle, wherein the model is learned based on historic vehicle performance associated with historic vehicle data from the fleet (“Some implementations provide a method for simultaneously managing climate control systems of a fleet of vehicles… determining an efficient operational setting that reduces the performance inefficiency of the climate control system of the at least one vehicle of the fleet of vehicles… The stored parameters and corresponding operational settings may be used as reference values for determining efficient operational settings for other vehicles having an inefficiently operating climate control system.” [0080 on Connell]). Regarding claim 16, Stopczynski/Connell teach the system of claim 15, wherein learning the model comprises: determining a set of target tire pressure setpoints associated with the historic vehicle performance; and training the model to predict the set of target tire pressure setpoints based on the historic vehicle data associated with the historic vehicle performance (“The stored parameters and corresponding operational settings may be used as reference values for determining efficient operational settings for other vehicles having an inefficiently operating climate control system.” [0080 on Connell]). Regarding claim 17, Stopczynski/Connell teach the system of claim 11, wherein the local system further comprises a gateway communicatively connected to the remote computing system and each of the plurality of tire inflation systems, wherein the gateway comprises the set of vehicle sensors (“The vehicle 102-1 typically includes a computing device including one or more controllers, processors or CPUs 304, a user interface 306, at least one network communications interface 312 (wired and/or wireless), one or more sensors 314…” [0053 on Connell]). Regarding claim 20, Stopczynski/Connell teach the system of claim 17, wherein the gateway comprises a first set of communication credentials used for communicating with the remote computing system and a second set of communication credentials used for communicating with the plurality of tire inflation systems (The selection of the potential service centers is based on the preferred service center information, location of the home base, and certified service center credentials including ability to fix issues pertaining to the identified faulty part, which could be determined from a network system 110 supported by a network server, such as the internet. [0110 on Connell]). Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stopczynski (US2020/0207162A1) in view of Connell (US2018/0022187A1); and further in view of Kim (US 2014/0379171). Regarding claim 18, Stopczynski/Connell explicitly teach all the claim limitations except for the system of claim 17, wherein the gateway connects to each of the plurality of tire inflation systems by detecting the respective tire inflation system during a vehicle drive session. Kim, in analogous art, teaches wherein the gateway connects to each of the plurality of tire inflation systems by detecting the respective tire inflation system during a vehicle drive session (Moreover, the server controller 210 may be configured to determine whether the control event for the corresponding vehicle occurs while the collected data is received via the communication unit 220 in real time. As an example, the server controller 210 may be configured to compare the driving pattern determined for the corresponding vehicle with the driving pattern determined by the data collected in real time and determine whether the driving pattern of a current vehicle is deviated from a pre-registered driving pattern by the reference value or greater, thereby making it possible to determine whether the control event occurs. [0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the tire inflation systems during a drive session (i.e., the driving patterns identified in real time) as disclosed in Kim. The combination would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would know to apply the known technique of identifying driving patterns (i.e., drive sessions) to the known device of Stopczynski/Connell ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stopczynski (US2020/0207162A1) in view of Connell (US2018/0022187A1); and further in view of Wellman (US 2008/0154691). Regarding claim 19, Stopczynski/Connell explicitly teach all the claim limitations except for the system of claim 17, wherein the gateway connects to each of the plurality of tire inflation systems based on a strength of signals broadcast by the respective tire inflation system. Wellman, in analogous art, teaches wherein the gateway connects to each of the plurality of tire inflation systems based on a strength of signals broadcast by the respective tire inflation system (Thus, triangulation techniques may be used to identify asset position based upon a measure of the relative signal strength of a signal transmitted by a select mobile asset 12 received at the various access points 20. [0166]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to manage the vehicle using information such as signal strength to determine vehicle/fleet parameters as disclosed in Wellman. The combination would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would know to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Conclusion Claims 11-20 are rejected as explained above. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMON A MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-5744. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th: 5:30AM-4PM. 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. 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. /Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 13, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 30, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 04, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 06, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 01, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 15, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594952
CONTROL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12569993
DETERMINATION DEVICE AND POSTURE CONTROL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12547347
CONTROL CHIP AND EVALUATION BOARD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12541455
Data Storage Device and Method for Defining Caching Layers Based on Cache Attributes
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12469343
VEHICULAR DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 11, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

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

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+18.8%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 409 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month