1DETAILED 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 § 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) 1-3, 13, 15-18, 21, 22 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trost (U.S. 2018/0238760) in view of Kulka et al. (WO 9522467, hereafter referred to as Kulka).
Regarding claim 1, Trost teaches a tire gauge comprising an RFID device 16 (see para. 0062, ‘the transceiver 16 transmits and receives WI-FI, Bluetooth and RFID signals or any other wireless communication network and is compatible with multiple standards such as IEEE 802.11’); a sensor 14 arranged to: obtain a measurement from a tire (see para. 0053, ‘the tread depth meter 14 is an electronic tread depth meter gauge that outputs an electrical signal corresponding to the depth or length of the tread as measured; however, other known pressure gauges can be used’) and write the measurement to the RFID device (see para. 0059, ‘the depth meter 14 includes a wireless transmitter that communicates with the device's preexisting internal wireless communication transceivers or with wireless transceiver 16 that connects via port or plug 28 with the device’).
However, Trost does not explicitly teach writing the measurement to the RFID device.
Kulka teaches a similar device wherein the RFID device 18 has a memory 22; wherein a pressure sensor 50 generates a millivolt output signal proportional to the input pressure acting thereon; This output signal is amplified by an op-amp 52, as shown in Figs. 4 and 5, and input through the analog port 28 of the RFID 18, Fig. 1, to an analog/digital converter (ADC) 54 which digitizes the signal prior to input to the central processing unit 20. The central processing unit 20 stores the sensed pressure in the memory 22 (see page 12, lines 12-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Trost with the teaching of Kulka in order to optimize memory storage.
Regarding claim 2, Trost further teaches a wire and/or a cable connecting the sensor to the RFID device such that the sensor is able to write the measurement to the RFID device (see para. 0058, ‘the signal outputted by tread depth meter 14 is transferred via hard wire connections from the meter 14 through the port or plug 28 to the data port of the device’; see para. 0035, ‘the port 28 is electrically connected or wired to communicate with each of the sensors/gauges including the tire pressure gauge 12, tread depth meter 14 and wireless transceiver 16’).
However, Trost does not explicitly teach writing the measurement to the RFID device.
Kulka teaches a similar device wherein the RFID device 18 has a memory 22; wherein a pressure sensor 50 generates a millivolt output signal proportional to the input pressure acting thereon; This output signal is amplified by an op-amp 52, as shown in Figs. 4 and 5, and input through the analog port 28 of the RFID 18, Fig. 1, to an analog/digital converter (ADC) 54 which digitizes the signal prior to input to the central processing unit 20. The central processing unit 20 stores the sensed pressure in the memory 22 (see page 12, lines 12-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Trost with the teaching of Kulka in order to optimize memory storage.
Regarding claim 3, Trost further teaches wherein the gauge further comprises a transmitter that communicates with the device's preexisting internal wireless communication transceivers or with wireless transceiver 16 (see para. 0059); said transceiver transmits and receives RFID signals or electromagnetic waves (see para. 0062); and the transceiver 16 picks up signals transmitted within near proximity and originating from the tread depth meter 14 (see para. 0063).
However, Trost does not explicitly teach writing the measurement to the RFID device.
Kulka teaches a similar device wherein the RFID device 18 has a memory 22; wherein a pressure sensor 50 generates a millivolt output signal proportional to the input pressure acting thereon; This output signal is amplified by an op-amp 52, as shown in Figs. 4 and 5, and input through the analog port 28 of the RFID 18, Fig. 1, to an analog/digital converter (ADC) 54 which digitizes the signal prior to input to the central processing unit 20. The central processing unit 20 stores the sensed pressure in the memory 22 (see page 12, lines 12-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Trost with the teaching of Kulka in order to optimize memory storage.
Regarding claims 13 and 22, Trost does not explicitly teach interaction with a separate computer device.
Kulka wherein the RFID device is arranged to transmit the measurement to a separate computer device 90 (see page 6, lines 4-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Trost with the teaching of Kulka in order to optimize memory storage.
Additionally, regarding claim 13, the claim describes the invention in terms of a particular user. Therefore, whether a device falls within the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained until a particular user engages the device. Consequently, the claim is indefinite. Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (BdPatApp & Inter 1989).
Regarding claim 15, Trost further teaches wherein the user input is arranged to enable the user to select a tire with which to associate a measurement (see para. 0066, ‘Once the measurement is selected and relevant tire identification is entered into the application using the device allowing the user to identify the tire (e.g. front, rear, drive side, passenger side etc.) to be measured on the software. The software then awaits signal or data from the sensor/gauge. After the user collects the data using the gauges/sensors, the data is automatically transferred, stored and recorded to the device memory and inputted in a data management portion of the software without any additional action on the part of the user’; see para. 0068, ‘After entering any preliminary identifying information, the user can select the tire to take a pressure reading’).
Regarding claim 16, Trost does not explicitly teach wherein the user input is arranged to enable the user to select a mode of operation and/or a template; and/or the user input is arranged to enable the user to alter user preferences and/or to select a user profile.
Kulka further teaches wherein a specific user ID (profile) is included in a 10-byte Tag ID (see figure 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Trost with the teaching of Kulka since such modifications are well known in the art.
Additionally, the claim describes the invention in terms of a particular user. Therefore, whether a device falls within the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained until a particular user engages the device. Consequently, the claim is indefinite. Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (BdPatApp & Inter 1989).
Regarding claim 17, Trost further teaches that the case 10 communicates with an application or software built into the portable electronic device or the vehicle via the wireless transceiver 16 (see para. 0040); secondly, Trost teaches the depth meter 14 includes a wireless transmitter that communicates with the device's preexisting internal wireless communication transceivers or with wireless transceiver 16 (see para. 0059); lastly, Trost teaches after the user collects the data using the gauges/sensors, the data is automatically transferred, stored and recorded to the device memory (see para. 0066).
However, Trost does not explicitly teach writing the measurement to the RFID device.
Kulka teaches a similar device wherein the RFID device 18 has a memory 22; wherein a pressure sensor 50 generates a millivolt output signal proportional to the input pressure acting thereon; This output signal is amplified by an op-amp 52, as shown in Figs. 4 and 5, and input through the analog port 28 of the RFID 18, Fig. 1, to an analog/digital converter (ADC) 54 which digitizes the signal prior to input to the central processing unit 20. The central processing unit 20 stores the sensed pressure in the memory 22 (see page 12, lines 12-20).
Additionally, the claim describes the invention in terms of a particular user. Therefore, whether a device falls within the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained until a particular user engages the device. Consequently, the claim is indefinite. Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (BdPatApp & Inter 1989).
Regarding claim 18, Trost does not explicitly teach wherein the tire gauge is arranged to identify a tire and/or vehicle associated with the measurement.
Kulka teaches a similar technology wherein a RFID device 18 has stored information such as a unique tire identification code, the specific tire location on the vehicle, etc., (see page 9, lines 7-13; see page 10, line 34 - page 11, line 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Trost with the teaching of Kulka in order to prevent error.
Regarding claim 21, Trost further teaches the tire gauge being a tread depth gauge 14 (see para. 0032, ‘In some embodiments, include multiple sensors/gauges including, but not limited to, a tire pressure gauge 12, a tread depth meter 14 and a wireless transceiver or transceiver 16’).
Regarding claim 31, Trost teaches a tire gauge comprising an RFID device 16 (see para. 0062, ‘the transceiver 16 transmits and receives WI-FI, Bluetooth and RFID signals or any other wireless communication network and is compatible with multiple standards such as IEEE 802.11’); a sensor 14 arranged to: obtain a measurement from a tire (see para. 0053, ‘the tread depth meter 14 is an electronic tread depth meter gauge that outputs an electrical signal corresponding to the depth or length of the tread as measured; however, other known pressure gauges can be used’) and write the measurement to the RFID device (see para. 0059, ‘the depth meter 14 includes a wireless transmitter that communicates with the device's preexisting internal wireless communication transceivers or with wireless transceiver 16 that connects via port or plug 28 with the device’).
However, Trost does not explicitly teach writing the measurement to the RFID device; or interaction with a separate computer device.
Kulka wherein the RFID device 18 is arranged to transmit the measurement to a separate computer device 90 (see page 6, lines 4-8). Kulka additionally teaches a similar device wherein the RFID device 18 has a memory 22; wherein a pressure sensor 50 generates a millivolt output signal proportional to the input pressure acting thereon; This output signal is amplified by an op-amp 52, as shown in Figs. 4 and 5, and input through the analog port 28 of the RFID 18, Fig. 1, to an analog/digital converter (ADC) 54 which digitizes the signal prior to input to the central processing unit 20. The central processing unit 20 stores the sensed pressure in the memory 22 (see page 12, lines 12-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Trost with the teaching of Kulka in order to optimize memory storage.
Claim(s) 4, 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trost in view of Kulka, and further in view of Karstens (U.S. 2008/0117028).
Regarding claims 4, 5 and 9, Trost as modified by Kulka does not explicitly clearing data on the RFID device.
Karstens does teach a RFID system wherein information that is stored on the RFID tag 120 can be supplemented or deleted (see para. 0024, ‘read/write memory chips are dynamic data carriers, meaning that the information that is stored on the RFID tag can be supplemented or deleted. Existing information can be overwritten on a RFID tag, or information can be added to the tag’); additionally, Karstens teaches that sensor data can be updated (see para. 0020, ‘the system will interrogate the RFID tag 120 in order to determine if the tag has any additional information (e.g., updated sensor data) stored in its memory’; see para. 0019, ‘In aspects of the present invention, the component may update the write only or read/write memory of the RFID tag 120 with captured data in real-time’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Trost with the teachings of Kulka and Karstens in order to provide accurate information in real-time.
Additionally, regarding claim 4, the claim describes the invention in terms of a particular user. Therefore, whether a device falls within the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained until a particular user engages the device. Consequently, the claim is indefinite. Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (BdPatApp & Inter 1989).
Claim(s) 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trost in view of Kulka, and further in view of Skjermo et al. (CA 3067736, hereafter referred to as Skjermo).
Regarding claim 6, Trost as modified by Kulka does not explicitly teach a power supply.
Skjermo teaches a similar tire gauge wherein a sensor module 40 comprises a communication module 44 (‘RFID’, see page 10, lines 19-20)) and power supply 43.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Trost with the teachings of Kulka and Skjermo in order to provide continuous monitoring.
Claim(s) 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trost in view of Kulka and further in view of Hattori (JP 2007193566).
Regarding claim 7, Trost as modified by Kulka does not explicitly teach a passive or active RFID device.
Hattori teaches a RFID tag which is an active RFID tag (has a battery 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Trost with the teachings of Kulka and Hattori in order to facilitate long range communication application.
Claim(s) 5, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trost in view of Kulka, and further in view of Yones et al. (WO 9952724, hereafter referred to as Yones).
Trost as modified by Kulka does not explicitly teach the transmitter having a first or second “mode”.
Yones teaches a RFID device comprising a write mode and an erase mode wherein data can be cleared by clocking the chip (see page 34, lines 5-25). Yones additionally teaches that parameters (i.e., temperature and pressure) are continuously measured (see page 30, lines 12-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Trost with the teachings of Kulka and Yones in order to optimize memory storage.
Additionally, regarding claim 10, the claim describes the invention in terms of a particular user. Therefore, whether a device falls within the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained until a particular user engages the device. Consequently, the claim is indefinite. Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (BdPatApp & Inter 1989).
Claim(s) 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trost in view of Kulka, and further in view of Tedesco et al. (U.S. 2021/0125428, hereafter referred to as Tedesco).
Trost nor Kulka explicitly teach a computer and a remote server arrangement.
Tedesco teaches a similar concept wherein a fleet of vehicles 102 comprising wheel end units 108 may include a transceiver that may provide communications using any of a variety of technologies and formats, including any wireless communications link such as Bluetooth, WiFi, RFID, infrared, visible or radio-frequency. Each wheel end unit 108 may include a transceiver that allows the wheel end unit to communicate with each of the other wheel end units associated with the same vehicle it is associated with (see para. 0079); Each vehicle may include a hub 103 that may provide communications with all wheel end units associated with the vehicle and may provide communications, through cloud 104, for example, with one or more fleet servers 106 or one or more portable communications devices 110, which may be a laptop computer (see para. 0079; Additionally figure 1 shows a remote server 106 which communicates with several vehicles 102); wheel end units 108 may communicate directly with fleet server 106 through cloud 104 and may include an Internet interface, allowing fleet server 106 or portable communications device 110 to access raw data or analytics (e.g., diagnostics and prognostics) from each wheel end unit 108, either directly or through hub 103. Diagnostics and prognostics may employ, for example, a frequency domain analysis of nearest-neighbor tires (e.g., tires on the same end of an axle or those on opposing ends of the same axle) (see para. 0080).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Trost with the teachings of Kulka and Tedesco in order to provide an enhanced analysis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMEL E WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached at (571)272-4107. 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.
/JAMEL E WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855