DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the wear" inline 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims18-19 recite the term "and/ or". It is not clear whether this refers to combined or alternate option of claim limitation. It is considered ambiguous because it fails to clarify if the terms meant only X, only Y, or both. Therefore, claim is considered to be indefinite. Form examining purses the Examiner considered it to be alternate, see MPEP 2173.05(g).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims 1-19 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1-19 fall within category of process.
Regarding Claims 1-18
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of monitoring the wear of a motor vehicle tire.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. A method for monitoring the wear of a motor vehicle tire, implemented by a tire pressure monitoring module mounted in said tire to be monitored, said module comprising a pressure sensor and a radial accelerometer, said method comprising:
acquiring acceleration gradient measurements of the tire to be monitored,
performing processing of said gradient measurements acquired,
comparing said processed measurements to a predetermined threshold value, and
transmitting a warning when the predetermined threshold value is reached.
The italicized limitations above represent a combination of a mathematical concepts(i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships) and/or mental steps (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “performing processing of said gradient [..];comparing said processed measurements [..] ” are a combination of a mathematical concepts(i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships) and/or mental steps (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, first additional first element is “acquiring acceleration gradient measurements of the tire to be monitored; transmitting a warning when the predetermined threshold value is reached” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. ,field of use/ data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
The 2nd additional element is “implemented by a tire pressure monitoring module mounted in said tire to be monitored, said module comprising a pressure sensor and a radial accelerometer; ”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic tire monitoring system with computer component, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the above, the two “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic tire monitoring component with computer software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
.
Step 2B
Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For examples, “pressure monitoring module, a pressure sensor and a radial accelerometer” are generic structure of tire monitoring system , which is well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser, IDS and PTO892) and MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
.
Dependent Claims 2-18
Dependent claims 2-18 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-18 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, limitations of Claim 2-18 further details of abstract idea of claim 1 which is a combination of a mathematical concepts(i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships) and/or mental steps (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment))
Claim 19
Claim 19 contains language similar to claim 1 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claim 19 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea).
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, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocca et al. (US 20200353778) in view of Steiner et al. (US 2019/0375254).
Regarding Claims 1 and 19. Rocca teaches a method for monitoring the wear of a motor vehicle tire (abstract, [0075]), implemented by a tire pressure monitoring module mounted in said tire to be monitored(10: fig.2) a radial accelerometer(3: figs. 1& 2; [0062]), said method comprising:
acquiring acceleration gradient measurements of the tire to be monitored([0030]-[0031]), performing processing of said gradient measurements acquired([0030]-[0031]), comparing said processed measurements to a predetermined threshold value([0030]-[0031]), and
transmitting a warning when the predetermined threshold value is reached([0030]-[0031], [0078], [0082]-[0083]).
Rocca further teaches said module comprising sensors (sensors: [0009])
Rocca silent about said module comprising a pressure sensor .
However, Steine teaches a pressure sensor (260: fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Rocca, a pressure sensor, as taught by Steine, so as to generate and transmit a signal to the ECU and signal corresponds to one or more of the measured environmental conditions.
Regarding Claim 2. Rocca further teaches the acquisition stepcomprises a sub-step of learning initial conditions aiming to determine an initial reference acceleration gradient (Grad0)( second parameter P2: [0101]).
Regarding Claim3. Rocca further teaches the initial reference acceleration gradient (Grad0) is equal to the mean of the acceleration gradients measured over a predetermined number of kilometers traveled by the monitored tire(second parameter P2 can correspond to an average value) .
Regarding Claim 17. Rocca further teaches wherein the acceleration gradient value of the tire to be monitored is a compensated value(trend of the first derivative of the radial acceleration:[0084]).
Examiner Notes
Although there are no prior art rejections for Claims 4-10, 11-16 and 18, specifically limitations of claims 4, 11 and 18. the Examiner cannot comment on their allowability until all the rejections under 35 U.S.C 101 is reasonably addressed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) US 2024/0227972: The different tap actions can also be in the form of a single or double tap, whereby the single tap action is determined by calculating the gradient of the acceleration between two consecutive acceleration samples, such that if the gradient exceeds a predetermined threshold a single tap action is determined, and wherein a double tap action is determined when two consecutive single tap actions are determined within a predetermined time window.
b) US 20240253774 : estimated from an orthoradial acceleration γx,c and/or a radial acceleration γz,c measured by the accelerometer, and a speed of rotation
c) US 20220348045: These monitoring units are particularly suitable to directly monitor tire road interactions at the tire road contact area and in particular to estimate tires deformation, for example by a measurement (and a further processing) of the radial acceleration experienced by the monitoring unit over passages into a tire contact area.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights