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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 03/21/2024 and 06/07/2024 has been acknowledged
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE10 2021 125 121.4, filed on 09/28/2021.
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.
Claim 14 is 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.
Claim 14 recites “the air brake system”. The use of “the” implies prior introduction in previous claims from which claim 14 depends on, but no such antecedent basis is provided in the claims. The office suggests providing clear antecedent basis for all claim terms.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10, 13, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US-20180281533-A1 (“Saburi”).
Regarding claim 1, Saburi teaches a method of controlling a tire pressure monitoring system of a vehicle (Saburi Claim 9 and [0008]), the vehicle having an electronic control unit with a receiver unit, a main memory, a buffer memory, a tire sensor module with a transmitter/receiver unit, a battery (Saburi Fig. 2 & 4 and [0071] “detection device 2 includes a battery …”), and a pressure sensor for each vehicle wheel (Saburi ref 2 “Detection device” and Fig. 4), wherein the tire sensor modules each transmit a sensor data record by radio at certain time intervals (Saburi [0054] – [0055] and Fig. 10) and after a triggering, which contains at least an individual identification code, a tire pressure value, and trigger information (Saburi [0078] and Fig. 5), the method comprising:
after switching on an ignition or switching on an electrical system of the vehicle (Saburi [0078] “The monitoring device 1 executes the following processing at a predetermined timing. For example, the execution of the following processing by the monitoring device 1 is triggered by the case where the ignition switch 6 changes from the off state to the on state.”), executing a detection function followed by a conditional check function (Saburi Fig. 5 S13 – S14 and [0077] – [0079]), wherein during the execution of the detection function, all tire sensor modules are expected to be triggered in a sequence that identifies wheel positions (Saburi Fig. 5);
receiving the sensor data records of the triggered tire sensor modules by the control unit and storing the sensor data records of the triggered tire sensor modules in the buffer memory in an order in which they were received (Saburi Abstract “A storage unit of the monitoring device stores tire positions at which the tires are provided” and [0078] “The control unit 11 then temporarily stores the sensor IDs that correspond to the tire positions”);
wherein a plausibility of the sensor data records stored in the buffer memory is checked in the check function (Saburi Fig. 6 & 11); and,
wherein, in the event of a positive check result, the sensor data records stored in the buffer memory are stored in the main memory instead of older sensor data records (Saburi Fig. 6 S32 -> S33).
Regarding claim 2, Saburi teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Saburi further discloses that the check function is carried out after the detection function has been completed while the vehicle is in motion (Saburi Fig. 11 and [0102]).
Regarding claim 3, Saburi teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Saburi further discloses that the detection function is started when the ignition is switched on or when the electrical system of the vehicle is switched on and is terminated after a specified running time (Saburi Fig. 5 and [0078] “For example, the execution of the following processing by the monitoring device 1 is triggered by the case where the ignition switch 6 changes from the off state to the on state” & [0095]).
Regarding claim 4, Saburi teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 3. Saburi further discloses that the running time of the detection function is set to a period of time in which, depending on the vehicle, all tire sensor modules are configured to be conveniently triggered by a person in an intended order (Saburi [0064] & [0095]).
Regarding claim 5, Saburi teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Saburi further discloses that a running time of the detection function is extended by a fixed period of time if a number of the sensor data records of triggered tire sensor modules received by the control unit at the end of the running time has reached or exceeded a specified minimum number although the number of sensor data records received has not yet reached a number of vehicle wheels of the vehicle (Saburi Fig. 11 S54 - S59).
Regarding claim 6, Saburi teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 5. Saburi further discloses that the minimum number of the received sensor records of the triggered tire sensor modules is set to half the number of vehicle wheels rounded down to an integer (Saburi [0105]).
Regarding claim 8, Saburi teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Saburi further discloses that the received sensor data records of non-triggered tire sensor modules are ignored during a running time of the detection function (Saburi Fig 5 S11 – S13).
Regarding claim 9, Saburi teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Saburi further discloses that during a running time of the detection function, sensor data records of the same triggered tire sensor modules received multiple times are only taken into account once, and the sensor data records previously stored in the buffer memory are each overwritten with the sensor data records of the same tire sensor modules received thereafter (Saburi [0106]).
Regarding claim 10, Saburi teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Saburi further discloses that the reception of each sensor record of a triggered tire sensor module is confirmed by an output of at least one of an acoustic signal and a visual signal (Saburi [0065]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 13, Saburi teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Saburi further discloses that the reception of a number of received sensor data records of triggered tire sensor modules corresponding to a number of vehicle wheels is confirmed by an output of at least one of an acoustic and a visual signal (Saburi [0065] – [0066] and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Saburi teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Saburi further discloses that the detection function is terminated prematurely if, before an end of a running time, a number of the sensor data records of triggered tire sensor modules received by the control unit corresponds to a number of vehicle wheels of the vehicle (Saburi Fig. 11 S54 - S59 – “Return”).
Regarding claim 17, Saburi teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Saburi further discloses that the detection function is terminated prematurely if a drive motor of the vehicle is started or the vehicle starts moving before an end of a running time (Saburi [0096], [0098], and [0114]).
Regarding claim 18, Saburi teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Saburi further discloses that the check function is only performed if a number of the sensor data records of triggered tire sensor modules received in the detection function corresponds to a number of vehicle wheels (Saburi Fig. 5 S11-S14 S14 does not start until all tire data have been stored).
Regarding claim 19, Saburi teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Saburi further discloses that the plausibility of the received sensor data records of triggered tire sensor modules is determined in the check function, if the wheel positions of at least two tire sensor modules are interchanged compared to the wheel positions assigned to the two tire sensor modules prior to an interruption of a journey (Saburi Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 20, Saburi teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Saburi further discloses that the plausibility of the received sensor data records of triggered tire sensor modules is determined in the check function if at least one wheel position is assigned to a tire sensor module with a new Sensor-ID and the Sensor-ID to which this wheel position was assigned before an interruption of a journey has been omitted (Saburi Fig. 6).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saburi in view of US-6915229-B2 to Taguchi et. al. (“Taguchi”).
Regarding claim 7, Saburi teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Saburi does not teach that a running time of the detection function is extended until the start of a journey if at least one triggered sensor data record has been received by the control unit and the detection function is terminated without result if the triggered sensor data records of all tire sensor modules of the vehicle have not been received by the start of the journey. However, Taguchi teaches that a running time of the detection function is extended until the start of a journey if at least one triggered sensor data record has been received by the control unit and the detection function is terminated without result if the triggered sensor data records of all tire sensor modules of the vehicle have not been received by the start of the journey (Taguchi Fig. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the apparatus of Saburi to incorporate the teachings of Taguchi such that a running time of the detection function is extended until the start of a journey if at least one triggered sensor data record has been received by the control unit and the detection function is terminated without result if the triggered sensor data records of all tire sensor modules of the vehicle have not been received by the start of the journey. Doing so would prevent the cost of the air pressure monitoring system to be low and maintain accurate registration of IDs (Taguchi col 1 line 59 – col 2 line 14).
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saburi in view of NO-344477-B1 (“Skjermo”).
Regarding claim 11, Saburi teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10. Saburi does not teach that a controllable bleeder solenoid valve of an air brake system of the vehicle is opened once for a short time as an acoustic reception confirmation signal. However, Skjermo teaches that a controllable bleeder solenoid valve of an air brake system of the vehicle is opened once for a short time as an acoustic reception confirmation signal (Skjermo Description “Another example is by integration of an acoustic signal generator 500 in a valve adapted tool 510, as shown in Figure 4b, which upon connection to a valve 110 of the pressurized tire 100 is arranged to send an acoustic signal into the pressurized tire 100 via the valve 110 or is arranged to provide a specific acoustic signal by functioning as a whistle by utilizing outgoing air”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the apparatus of Saburi to incorporate the teachings of Skjermo such that a controllable bleeder solenoid valve of an air brake system of the vehicle is opened once for a short time as an acoustic reception confirmation signal. Doing so would allow for easy allocation of the tire health sensor assembly to correct tire position (Skjermo Description).
Regarding claim 14, Saburi teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 13. Saburi does not teach that a controllable bleeder solenoid valve of the air brake system of the vehicle is briefly opened twice in succession as an acoustic reception acknowledgment signal. However, Skjeromo at least suggests the idea that a controllable bleeder solenoid valve of the air brake system of the vehicle is briefly opened once in succession as an acoustic reception acknowledgment signal (Skjermo Description “Another example is by integration of an acoustic signal generator 500 in a valve adapted tool 510, as shown in Figure 4b, which upon connection to a valve 110 of the pressurized tire 100 is arranged to send an acoustic signal into the pressurized tire 100 via the valve 110 or is arranged to provide a specific acoustic signal by functioning as a whistle by utilizing outgoing air”). Further, the “mere scaling up” or “limitations relating to parameters” or “recitation of relative dimensions” is generally not patentably distinguishable from a prior art device with both functioning in the same manner. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve such amounts of the opening of the solenoid valve in order to allow for easy allocation of the tire health sensor assembly to correct tire position (Skjermo Description).
Claim(s) 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saburi in view of US-10424204-B1 (“Han”).
Regarding claim 12, Saburi teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10. Saburi does not teach that brake lights or direction indicator lights of the vehicle are switched on once for a short time as a visual reception confirmation signal. However, Han teaches that brake lights or direction indicator lights of the vehicle are switched on once for a short time as a visual reception confirmation signal (Han col 4 lines 10-14 “vehicle lights for common vehicle operations (e.g., brake lights, turn signals, emergency lights, cabin lights, etc.) which may be turned on or flashed to provide a visual warning signal.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the apparatus of Saburi to incorporate the teachings of Han such that brake lights or direction indicator lights of the vehicle are switched on once for a short time as a visual reception confirmation signal. Doing so would allow for alerts to be created through visuals (Han col 4 lines 9-27).
Regarding claim 15, Saburi teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 13. Saburi does not teach that brake lights or direction indicator lights of the vehicle are switched on briefly twice in succession as a visual reception confirmation signal. However, Han at least suggests the idea that brake lights or direction indicator lights of the vehicle are switched on once for a short time as a visual reception confirmation signal (Han col 4 lines 10-14 “vehicle lights for common vehicle operations (e.g., brake lights, turn signals, emergency lights, cabin lights, etc.) which may be turned on or flashed to provide a visual warning signal.”). Further, the “mere scaling up” or “limitations relating to parameters” or “recitation of relative dimensions” is generally not patentably distinguishable from a prior art device with both functioning in the same manner. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve such amounts of brake light or direction indicators light flashes in order to allow for alerts to be created through visuals (Han col 4 lines 9-27).
Claim(s) 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saburi in view of US-20110175715-A1 to Schondorf et. al. (“Schondorf”).
Regarding claim 21, Saburi teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Saburi does not teach that at least one of an acoustic and a visual warning signal is issued if the check result of the check function is negative. However, Schondorf teaches that at least one of an acoustic and a visual warning signal is issued if the check result of the check function is negative (Schondorf Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the apparatus of Saburi to incorporate the teachings of Schondorf such that at least one of an acoustic and a visual warning signal is issued if the check result of the check function is negative. Doing so would allow for operators to be notified (Schondorf [0022]).
Regarding claim 23, Saburi as modified by Schondorf teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 21. Schondorf further discloses that brake lights or direction indicator lights of the vehicle are switched on for a short time three times in succession as a visual warning signal if the check result of the check function is negative (Schondorf Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Schondorf to Saburi as modified by Schondorf such that brake lights or direction indicator lights of the vehicle are switched on for a short time three times in succession as a visual warning signal if the check result of the check function is negative. Doing so would allow for operators to be notified (Schondorf [0022]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: Off.
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, Scott Browne can be reached on 5712700151. 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.
/J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666