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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 4 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 4: On line 2, “signal comprise” is not grammatically correct, it should be “signal comprises”.
In claim 35, the amended claim language specifies that the sensor array includes functionality recited in claim 1 and that the control unit is “according to claim 21”. Because claim 21 recites that the control unit is arranged to communicate with a sensor array according to claim 1, the claim is indefinite because the language is redundant, and it is unclear whether applicant is reciting additional functionality.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11, 14, 16-19, 21-25, 27-31, 33 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 , as being unpatentable over Kosugi (JP 2012126341) in view of Fennell. (US 1,740,167)
With respect to claim 1, Kosugi teaches a sensor array (four receiving antennas 7) for locating tire sensors (tire valves 4) on a vehicle, the sensor array (antennas 7) being arranged to: detect tire sensors on the vehicle as the tires of the vehicle traverses the sensor array, and identify each of the detected tire sensors (tire valves 4) on the vehicle. (translation, pages 2-3, Fig. 1)
Kosugi does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor array is arranged in cylindrical rollers arranged to support the tires of the vehicle.
However, it is well-known to use cylindrical rollers to support the tires of a vehicle during a testing process. For example, Fennell teaches a vehicle test stand comprising cylindrical rollers (rollers 11, 12, 7, 23) arranged to support the tires (18, 20) of a vehicle during testing. (col. 1, line 44 – col. 2, line 75, Figs. 1-2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the sensor array of Kosugi to be located in cylindrical support rollers, as taught by Kosugi, in order to be able to test the vehicle performance and receive identification signals at the same time in a compact device.
With respect to claim 2, Kosugi, as modified by Fennell, teaches wherein the sensor array is further configured to send, to a control unit, a signal indicating that one or more tire sensors on the vehicle has been detected and identified. (Kosugi, page 3)
With respect to claim 3, Kosugi, as modified by Fennell, teaches wherein the signal comprises information indicating which sensor, or group of sensors, in the sensor array that has detected each of the tire sensors and the determined identities of each of the detected and identified tire sensors. (Kosugi, pages 3-4)
With respect to claim 4, Kosugi, as modified by Fennell, teaches wherein the signal comprises information indicating tire sensor readings from detected and identified tire sensors in terms of tire pressure and tire temperature. (Kosugi, pages 3-4)
With respect to claim 5, Kosugi, as modified by Fennell, teaches wherein the sensor array is configured to receive an activation signal from the control unit in response to which the sensor array activates the detection of the tire sensors on the vehicle. (Kosugi, pages 3-5)
With respect to claim 7, although Kosugi, as modified by Fennell, does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor array is further configured to retain in an idle mode in which only a determined subset of sensors in the sensor array is activated, and send a signal to the control unit as one or more sensors in the subset of sensors in the sensor array detects and identifies one or more tire sensors, this would be an obvious modification of the control in order to use a limited amount of power when the array is not in use.
With respect to claim 8, Kosugi, as modified by Fennell, teaches wherein the sensors in the sensor array are arranged into groups of sensors covering different surface areas, wherein the different surface areas are adapted to target different tires on the vehicle. (Kosugi, pages 3-4)
With respect to claim 9, although Kosugi, as modified by Fennell, does not explicitly teach wherein the different surface areas extends in the direction in which the vehicle traverses the sensor array for at least a distance equal to or exceeding an expected circumference of the different tires of the vehicle, this would have been an obvious design of the structure in order to optimize the detection of the sensors.
With respect to claim 10, Kosugi, as modified by Fennell, teaches wherein the sensors in the sensor array operates as Radio Frequency Identification, RFID, sensors and/or inductive charging sensors capable of interacting with the tire sensors on the vehicle. (Kosugi, page 2)
With respect to claim 11, although Kosugi, as modified by Fennell, does not explicitly teach wherein the sensors in the sensor array are planar loops antennas or coils having different sizes and arranged in one or more different layers, these are common types of sensors for such an array and therefore it would have been obvious to implement these sensors in a configuration which would optimize their function.
With respect to claim 14, although Kosugi, as modified by Fennell, does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor array comprise markers adapted to guide a driver, or autonomous driving system, of the vehicle when traversing the sensor array, such markers are well known and therefore it would have been an obvious modification to include these markers to improve the efficiency of the system.
With respect to claim 16, Kosugi, as modified by Fennell, teaches wherein the one or more tire sensors on the vehicle are Tire Pressure Monitor System/Tire Health System, TPMS/THS, sensors. (Kosugi, page 2)
With respect to claim 17, Kosugi teaches a method for locating tire sensors (tire valves 4) on a vehicle using a sensor array (four receiving antennas 7), wherein the method comprises: detecting tire sensors (tire valves 4) on the vehicle as the tires of the vehicle traverses the sensor array (antennas 7); and identifying each of the detected tire sensors on the vehicle. (translation, pages 2-3, Fig. 1)
Kosugi does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor array is arranged in cylindrical rollers arranged to support the tires of the vehicle.
However, it is well-known to use cylindrical rollers to support the tires of a vehicle during a testing process. For example, Fennell teaches a method of using a vehicle test stand comprising cylindrical rollers (rollers 11, 12, 7, 23) arranged to support the tires (18, 20) of a vehicle during testing. (col. 1, line 44 – col. 2, line 75, Figs. 1-2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Kosugi to have the sensors be located in cylindrical support rollers, as taught by Kosugi, in order to be able to test the vehicle performance and receive identification signals at the same time in a compact device.
With respect to claim 18, Kosugi, as modified by Fennell, teaches further comprising sending, to a control unit, a signal indicating that one or more tire sensors on the vehicle has been detected and identified. (Kosugi, page 3)
With respect to claim 19, Kosugi, as modified by Fennell, teaches receiving an activation signal from the control unit in response to which the sensor array activates the detection of the tire sensors on the vehicle. (Kosugi, pages 3-5)
With respect to claim 21, Kosugi, as modified by Fennell, teaches a control unit (registration device 5) for locating tire sensors on a vehicle, wherein the control unit is arranged to communicate with a sensor array according to claim 1 and an electronic control unit, ECU, (control device 10) on-board the vehicle, the control unit is arranged to: receive, from the sensor array, a signal indicating that tire sensors (tire valves 4) on the vehicle has been detected and identified, determine the tire position on the vehicle associated with each detected and identified tire sensor based on the obtained signal, and transmit, to the ECU, information indicating the determined tire position on the vehicle for each detected and identified tire sensor. (Kosugi, pages 2-5)
With respect to claim 22, Kosugi, as modified by Fennell, teaches wherein the signal comprises information indicating which sensor, or group of sensors, in the sensor array that has detected each of the tire sensors and the determined identities of each of the detected and identified tire sensors. (Kosugi, pages 3-4)
With respect to claim 23, Kosugi, as modified by Fennell, teaches wherein the control unit comprises a mapping associating each sensor, or group of sensors, in the sensor array with a tire position on the vehicle. (Kosugi, pages 3-4)
With respect to claim 24, Kosugi, as modified by Fennell, teaches wherein the signal comprises information indicating tire sensor readings from detected and identified tire sensors in terms of tire pressure and tire temperature. (Kosugi, pages 3-4)
With respect to claim 25, Kosugi, as modified by Fennell, teaches wherein the control unit is further arranged to send an activation signal to the sensor array to initiate the detection of the tire sensors on the vehicle. (Kosugi, pages 3-5)
With respect to claim 27, Kosugi, as modified by Fennell, teaches a method performed by a control unit (registration device 5) for locating tire sensors on a vehicle, wherein the control unit is arranged to communicate with a sensor array according to claim 1 and an electronic control unit, ECU, on-board the vehicle, the method comprising: receiving, from the sensor array, a signal indicating that tire sensors on the vehicle has been detected and identified; determining the tire position on the vehicle associated with each detected and identified tire sensor based on the received signal; and transmitting, to the ECU, information indicating the determined tire position on the vehicle for each detected and identified tire sensor. (Kosugi, pages 2-5)
With respect to claim 28, Kosugi, as modified by Fennell, teaches wherein the signal comprises information indicating which sensor, or group of sensors, in the sensor array that has detected each of the tire sensors and the determined identities of each of the detected and identified tire sensors. (Kosugi, pages 3-4)
With respect to claim 29, Kosugi, as modified by Fennell, teaches
wherein the determining comprises using a mapping comprised in the control unit associating each sensor, or group of sensors, in the sensor array with a tire position on the vehicle. (Kosugi, pages 3-4)
With respect to claim 30, Kosugi, as modified by Fennell, teaches wherein the signal comprises information indicating tire sensor readings from detected and identified tire sensors in terms of tire pressure and tire temperature. (Kosugi, pages 3-4)
With respect to claim 31, Kosugi, as modified by Fennell, teaches further comprising sending an activation signal to the sensor array to initiate the detection of the tire sensors on the vehicle. (Kosugi, pages 2-5)
With respect to claim 33, Kosugi, as modified by Fennell, teaches a non-transitory computer program medium comprising program code means for performing the steps of claim 27, when said program code is run on a computer or on processing circuitry of a control unit.
With respect to claim 35, Kosugi, as modified by Fennell, teaches an arrangement comprising a sensor array according to claim 1 and a control unit. (Kosugi, pages 1-2)
Claim(s) 6, 20, 26 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosugi in view of Fennell as applied above, and further in view of Toyofuku et al. (JP 2008100613, hereafter Toyofuku)
With respect to claim 6, 20, 26 and 32, Kosugi, as modified by Fennell, teaches all that is claimed, as in the above rejection, except wherein the sensor array comprises one or more vehicle detection sensor adapted to detect and send a signal to the control unit when a vehicle is about to traverse the sensor array.
Toyofuku teaches a sensor array including a detection sensor (detection device 12) adapted to detect and send a signal to a control unit when a vehicle is about to traverse the sensor array. (translation, page 6)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify the invention of Kosugi to include a vehicle detection sensor, as taught by Toyofuku, in order to operate the sensing process at the appropriate time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kosugi does not disclose a sensor array arrange to detect tire sensors on the vehicle as the tires traverse the sensor array but rather before being mounted.
The examiner disagrees with applicant’s interpretation of the reference. The description of Hosugi clearly indicates that the information is being registered as the vehicle traverses the sensor array, and that the sensors are located according to the position of the tires, as is clearly seen in Figure 1. The broadly recited claim does not explicitly state that the tires must be mounted on the vehicle as it traverses the array, although it is well known to perform testing on vehicles in this manner, as seen in the secondary reference to Fennell
In response to applicant's argument that there is no reason to combine the teachings of Kosugi and Fennell, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Kosugi teaches detecting tire information as claimed and Fennell teaches a different testing system arrangement. The combination of the references suggests all of the elements of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jill E Culler whose telephone number is (571)272-2159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/JILL E CULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights