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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, applicant recites “information for identifying the tire” and subsequently refers to “the information”. Although it is inferred that applicant is referring to the “information for identifying the tire”, the word information has a common usage and therefore it renders the claim limitations indefinite. The claim language would be distinct if applicant repeated the entire phrase “information for identifying the tire”.
In claim 5, again, the word “information” is substituted for “information for identifying the tire”.
Similarly, claims 9 and 16 should refer to “the information for identifying the tire” instead of just “the information”.
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) 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes in view of Ledoux et al. (US 2017/0350781, hereafter Ledoux)
With respect to claim 1, Barnes teaches tire internal pressure measuring apparatus (tire pressure measurement system 200) comprising: a first measuring section (sensors 204, 208) configured to measure a tire width directional ground contact width of a tire (tire 100) in a state of being located on the first measuring section; a second measuring section (sensors 206, 210) configured to measure a load applied from the tire in a state of being located on the second measuring section, a reading section configured to read, from an electronic tag, information for identifying a vehicle, and a controller configured to calculate an internal pressure of the tire from the tire width directional ground contact width and the load. (col. 3, lines 35-64, col. 4, lines 35-46, Figs. 2-5)
Barnes does not explicitly teach the reading section is configured to read, from an electronic tag installed in the tire, information for identifying the tire, wherein the controller is configured to correct the internal pressure using the information.
Ledoux teaches a tire internal pressure measuring apparatus comprising a measuring section configured to measure tire parameters, a reading section configured to read, from an electronic tag installed in the tire, information for identifying the tire, and a controller configured to calculate an internal pressure of the tire from the measured tire parameters and to correct the internal pressure using the information. (par. 37, 53, 66-70)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Barnes to include correction based on tire information, as taught by Ledoux, in order to output a more accurate measure of the tire pressure to the user.
With respect to claim 2, Barnes, as modified by Ledoux, teaches the second measuring section is configured such that the tire can pass over the second measuring section. (Barnes, col. 3, lines 35-64, Figs. 2-5)
Although Barnes, as modified by Ledoux, does not explicitly teach wherein a length of the second measuring section in a tire passing direction is 20 mm to 100 mm, the optimum length of the measuring section would be a direct result of the other parameters of the measuring environment and would therefore be a design choice which could be readily determined through routine experimentation.
With respect to claim 3, Barnes, as modified by Ledoux, teaches the second measuring section is configured to repeatedly measure the load while the tire passes over the second measuring section. (Barnes, col. 3, lines 35-64, Figs. 2-5)
With respect to claims 5, Barnes, as modified by Ledoux, teaches wherein an amount of correction of the internal pressure varies depending on the information. (Ledoux, par. 37, 53)
With respect to claim 7, Barnes, as modified by Ledoux, teaches a main body (mat 202) in which the second measuring section is disposed, wherein the second measuring section is disposed in the main body in such a manner that a measurement surface of the second measuring section and a surface of the main body are flat. (Barnes, col. 3, lines 35-64, Figs. 2-5)
With respect to claim 8, Barnes, as modified by Ledoux, teaches an output interface (display 212) configured to output the internal pressure of the tire. (Barnes, col. 3, line 65 – col. 4, line 20, Fig. 2)
With respect to claim 9, Barnes teaches a tire internal pressure measuring method performed by a computer, the tire internal pressure measuring method comprising: measuring, by a first measuring section (sensors 204, 208), a tire width directional ground contact width of a tire (tire 100) in a state of being located on the first measuring section; measuring, by a second measuring section (sensors 206, 210), a load applied from the tire in a state of being located on the second measuring section; and calculating an internal pressure of the tire from the tire width directional ground contact width and the load. (col. 3, lines 35-64, Figs. 2-5)
Barnes does not explicitly teach reading, by a reading section from an electronic tag installed in the tire, information for identifying the tire, wherein the calculating comprises correcting the internal pressure using the information.
Ledoux teaches a tire internal pressure measuring method comprising measuring, by a measuring section, tire parameters, reading, by a reading section from an electronic tag installed in the tire, information for identifying the tire, and calculating an internal pressure of the tire from the measured tire parameters and correcting the internal pressure using the information. (par. 37, 53, 66-70)
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 Barnes to include correction based on tire information, as taught by Ledoux, in order to output a more accurate measure of the tire pressure to the user.
With respect to claims 11 and 14, Barnes, as modified by Ledoux, teaches a main body (mat 202) in which the second measuring section is disposed, wherein the second measuring section is disposed in the main body in such a manner that a measurement surface of the second measuring section and a surface of the main body are flat. (Barnes, col. 3, lines 35-64, Figs. 2-5)
With respect to claim 12 and 15, Barnes, as modified by Ledoux, teaches an output interface (display 212) configured to output the internal pressure of the tire. (Barnes, col. 3, lines 35-64, Figs. 2-5)
With respect to claim 16, Barnes, as modified by Ledoux, teaches wherein an amount of correction of the internal pressure varies depending on the information. (Ledoux par. 37, 53)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 5, 2026 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.
Conclusion
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 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