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 .
Election/Restrictions
The requirement for restriction is withdrawn. Groups I, claims 1-10, has been reinstated.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a sensor information acquisition unit and an estimation processing unit in claim 11. These units have been disclosed as a computer programmed to perform the claimed functions (par. 27)..
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 3255043 to Ohashi et al. (Ohashi).
Claim 1
With regard to a tire body; Ohashi teaches a tire (Fig. 1).
With regard to a wheel mounted on the tire body and connected to an axle on a vehicle side; Ohashi teaches a wheel attached to the tire connected to a vehicle axle (Fig. 1, wheel 20; pars. 18, 19).
With regard to a sensor that is arranged on an outer surface of the wheel and measures a physical quantity produced as the vehicle travels; Ohashi teaches sensors on a wheel (Figs. 1, 2, sensors 32, 36; par. 19).
Claim 5
Ohashi teaches that the sensor is arranged on a spoke of the wheel (Fig. 2, sensors 32, 36; par. 19).
Claim 6
Ohashi teaches the sensor is arranged outward, in a tire radial direction, of a position of 50% of a radius of a rim of the wheel defined from a tire rotational axis (Fig. 2, sensors 32, 36; par. 19).
Claim 7
Ohashi teaches the sensor is arranged outward, in a tire radial direction, of a position of 65% of a radius of a rim of the wheel defined from a tire rotational axis (Fig. 2, sensors 32, 36; par. 19).
Claim 9
Ohashi teaches the sensor is arranged on a surface of the spoke facing a vehicle side housing (Fig. 1, sensors 32, 36).
Claim 11
With regard to a sensor information acquisition unit that acquires a physical quantity measured by the sensor; Ohashi teaches a telemeter amplifier that receives signals from sensors (Fig. 1, telemeter amplifier 49).
With regard to an estimation processing unit that includes an arithmetic operation model adapted to calculate the tire force based on the physical quantity of the tire and estimates the tire force by inputting the physical quantity acquired by the sensor information acquisition unit to the arithmetic operation model; Ohashi teaches an arithmetic force unit that calculates the force using signals from the sensors (pars. 18, 22).
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) 2, 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi in view of JP 2010-181319 to Masago (Masago).
Claim 2
Ohashi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 2 depends. Ohashi does not teach that the sensor is arranged on a rim of the wheel. Masago teaches attaching an acceleration sensor to the rim (Fig. 9; par. 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the force detection, as taught by Ohashi, to include attaching a sensor to the rim, because then vibration measurements would have been more easily measured in location where vibrations are easily propagated (Masago, par. 32).
Claim 3
Ohashi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 upon which claims 2 and 3 depend. Ohashi does not teach that the sensor is arranged at a position where mechanical interference with a mechanical component provided on the axle is avoided. Masago teaches attaching an acceleration sensor to the rim (Fig. 9; par. 32). The location on the rim would avoid interference with other moving components. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the force detection, as taught by Ohashi, to include attaching a sensor to the rim, because then vibration measurements would have been more easily measured in location where vibrations are easily propagated (Masago, par. 32).
Claim 10
Ohashi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 upon which claims 2 and 10 depend. Ohashi does not teach that the sensor is arranged on an outer surface of an end of the rim. Masago teaches attaching an acceleration sensor to the rim (Fig. 9; par. 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the force detection, as taught by Ohashi, to include attaching a sensor to the rim, because then vibration measurements would have been more easily measured in location where vibrations are easily propagated (Masago, par. 32).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi in in view of WO 2009/069272 to Hiroshi et al. (Hiroshi).
Claim 4
Ohashi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 4 depends. Ohashi does not teach that the sensor is arranged on a hub of the wheel. Hiroshi teaches attaching sensor to a hub (Fig. 1, hub wheel 9, sensor unit pairs 19, sensor units 20; pars. 27-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the force detection, as taught by Ohashi, to include attaching a sensor to the hub, as taught by Ohashi, because then errors in detecting load would have been avoided (Hiroshi, pars. 5-8).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi in view of US Patent Application Publication 2008/0013873 to Ishii et al. (Ishii).
Claim 8
Ohashi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 8 depends. Ohashi does not teach a cover that covers the sensor. Ishii teaches a sensor on a wheel with sensor housing (Fig. 1, sensor housing 16, sensor apparatus 14; par. 68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the force detection, as taught by Ohashi, to include a sensor housing, as taught by Ishii, because then the sensor would have been protected from the environment.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi in view of US Patent Application Publication 2022/0274452 to Hasegawa (Hasegawa).
Claim 12
Ohashi teaches all the limitations of claim 11 upon which claim 12 depends. Ohashi does not teach that the arithmetic operation model includes a feature extraction unit that executes a convolutional operation in an operation halfway between an input layer and an output layer to extract a feature amount, wherein the physical quantity of the tire measured by the sensor includes input data extracted in a time segment and arranged in a time sequence, and wherein the convolutional operation executes an operation by moving a filter relative to the input data arranged in the time sequence.
Hasegawa teaches a feature extraction unit that executes a convolutional operation in an operation halfway between and input layer and an output later and that uses time series data (Fig. 3, feature extraction unit 51; pars. 30, 38, 45, 46). Hasegawa taches the convolutional operation uses a moving filter (par. 37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the force detection, as taught by Ohashi, to include a convolutional network along with a moving filter, as taught by Hasegawa, because then physical information would have been estimated in real time (Hasegawa, pars. 5, 6).
Claim 13
Ohashi teaches all the limitations of claim 11 upon which claims 12 and 13 depend. Ohashi does not teach that the feature extraction unit executes a pooling operation in addition to the convolutional operation. Hasegawa teaches executing a pooling operation (par. 30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the force detection, as taught by Ohashi, to include pooling operation, as taught by Hasegawa, because then physical information would have been estimated in real time (Hasegawa, pars. 5, 6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights