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
Amendment to the claims were received on December 12, 2025. These amendments overcome the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Chen fails to disclose that the RFID reader supplies power to the RFID tag, the examiner disagrees. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the amended claim language and the prior art of Chen, paragraphs 18-20 and 25 of Chen teach that the LF transmitter, which is now interpreted as part of the RFID reader based on paragraph 17 which states that they are electrically connected to each other, send a signal to the LF receiver, which then “wakes up” the RFID tag via the other elements of sensor 100. Therefore, by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, Chen does teach that the RFID reader supplies power to the RFID tag.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., RFID reader in that the supplied power is controlled by the subject that provides the received information; the presently claimed invention may effectively reduce power consumption of a sensor of a tire pressure monitoring system and may immediately recognize identification (ID) information of the sensor) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (PG Pub 2014/002258) in view of Steer et al. (PG Pub 2017/0291591).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches an apparatus for receiving a tire pressure monitoring signal (figure 3, element that contains elements 3-5; paragraph 17), the apparatus comprising:
a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag configured to transmit tire condition information (figure 3, element 16; paragraph 18);
a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader configured to receive the tire condition information (figure 3, elements 3 and 5; paragraph 17) and supply power to the radio frequency identification (RFID) tag (paragraphs 18-20 and 25); and
a first controller (figure 3, element 4; paragraph 17) configured to communicate with the radio frequency identification (RFID) reader (paragraph 21) and to control power supplied to the radio frequency identification (RFID) reader (paragraph 17).
Chen is silent as to wherein the first controller is configured to control an electro-mechanical brake (EMB) of an electronic braking apparatus.
Steer teaches wherein a first controller is configured to control an electro-mechanical brake (EMB) of an electronic braking apparatus (paragraphs 115-118).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the braking system on the wheels of Steer with the tire pressure monitoring system of Chen since doing so would be an example of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. In this case, electro mechanical brake are common in the art and are required on each wheel of a vehicle. Integrating the tire pressure monitoring system with the structure of the brake system on a wheel would be obvious since they are going to be in the same general location of the vehicle on each wheel.
Regarding claim 2, Chen teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the radio frequency identification (RFID) tag is provided in a sensor configured to detect the tire condition information (figures 2 and 3, elements 100, 10, 12, and 16; paragraphs 17-19).
Regarding claim 3, Chen teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the sensor further includes a storage portion configured to store the tire condition information (figure 4, elements 182, 18, 181, and 11; paragraphs 19 and 23).
Regarding claim 7, Chen teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a distance between the radio frequency identification (RFID) tag and the radio frequency identification (RFID) reader changes when a vehicle travels (paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 11, Chen teaches The apparatus of claim 1,
wherein a pair of radio frequency identification (RFID) tags and the radio frequency identification (RFID) reader are provided for each tire included in the vehicle (paragraphs 4, 7, 17, 18, and 23; figures 3 and 4, elements 5 and 16) and
wherein the radio frequency identification (RFID) reader receives only the tire condition information transmitted from an adjacent radio frequency identification (RFID) tag (paragraphs 23-27).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (PG Pub 2014/002258) in view of Steer et al. (PG Pub 2017/0291591) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi (PG Pub 2018/0231076).
Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the radio frequency identification (RFID) reader receives the tire condition information transmitted by the radio frequency identification (RFID) tag (paragraph 25) using the styling cover (A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.)
Chen is silent as to the apparatus further including a styling cover provided on an external side of the electronic braking apparatus.
Choi teaches the apparatus further including a styling cover provided on an external side of the electronic braking apparatus (figures 1-3, element 20; paragraph 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the braking system and styling cover on the wheels of Choi with the tire pressure monitoring system of Chen since doing so would be an example of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. In this case, brakes are common in the art, are required on each wheel of a vehicle, and are most often required to be kept relatively clean and therefore outfitted with styling covers to keep dirt out. Integrating the tire pressure monitoring system with the structure of the brake system on a wheel would be obvious since they are going to be in the same general location of the vehicle on each wheel.
Regarding claim 5, Chen teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the radio frequency identification (RFID) reader is provided on the first controller (paragraph 17; figure 3, elements 4 and 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-20 are allowed.
Claims 6, 8-10, and 12 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6 (and claim 15), the prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious wherein the radio frequency identification (RFID) reader is provided on the styling cover.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious all of a method comprising measuring a distance between a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag and a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader; processing tire condition information in response that a distance between a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag and a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader decreases and is smaller than a predetermined first distance; and processing the tire condition information in response that the distance between the radio frequency identification (RFID) tag and the radio frequency identification (RFID) reader increases and is greater than a predetermined second distance. Claims 8 and 12 are allowable for similar limitations.
Claims 14-20 are allowable based on their dependence on an allowed claim. Claims 9-10 contain allowable subject matter based on their dependence on an allowable claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 SUSAN E SCHARPF whose telephone number is (571)270-5304. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-4:30pm.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at 571-270-1196. 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.
/Susan E Scharpf/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LINDSAY M LOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747