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 .
This communication is in response to amendments filed on 04/06/2026.
In the application claims 1-6, 21-24 are pending. Claims 7-20 have been canceled.
Applicant arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 21-24 have been fully considered; however, the arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections.
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:
“sensor coupling element configured to power…” in claim 3 is interpreted to be “an antenna or a coil”.
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 § 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, 2, 5, 6, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 2019/0184773 A1), in view of Fenkanyn (US 20170174013 A1), and further in view of Dixon (US 2009/0058667 A1).
Consider claim 1, Saito teaches, an apparatus, Saito teaches, “a tire-mounted sensor to be attached to an inner wall surface of a tire to detect vibration applied to the tire.” See ¶ 0004 comprising:
a tire (71), See Figs. 2 and 3 ¶ 0023;
a sensor (22) configured to measure one or more tire parameters of the tire, Saito teaches, “shown in FIGS. 3 to 5, the sensor device 22 includes a sensor chip 22a, a circuit board 22b on which peripheral elements (not shown) and the like are mounted, a battery 22c corresponding to a power supply, an antenna 22d, vibration transmission members 22e, and an accommodation structure 22f.” See ¶ 0029, Saito teaches, “tire-mounted sensor 2 acquires various information such as vibration data indicative of vibration applied to corresponding one of the tires 71” See ¶ 0023, Saito teaches, “acceleration sensor 22aa corresponds to a vibration detection element for detecting the vibration applied to the corresponding tire 71a to 71d, and outputs a detection signal corresponding to an acceleration caused by the vibration applied to the corresponding tire 71” See ¶ 0031;
a sensor mount (21) integrated within the tire (71) and being configured to support the sensor (22), Saito teaches, “tire-mounted sensor 2 is a tire side device provided on a tire. As shown in FIGS. 1 to 3, the tire-mounted sensor 2 is attached to each of tires 71a to 71d of respective wheels 7a to 7d of the vehicle 1.” See ¶ 0022, Saito teaches, “the tire-mounted sensor 2 has a rubber bracket 21, which configures a sensor holding member, and a sensor device 22.” See ¶ 0024,
the sensor (22) being detachably attached to the sensor mount (21), Saito teaches, “the sensor device 22 can be removed from the rubber bracket 21 because the sensor device 22 is only held by the rubber bracket 21.” See ¶ 0051; and
With respect to, an identification tag (ROM or the like stores individual ID information) affixed to the sensor mount (21) and in data communication with the sensor (22) to transmit tire identification data associated with the tire to the sensor (22), Saito teaches, “microcomputer 22ab is a well-known one including a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, an I/O, and the like… The ROM or the like stores individual ID information including identification information unique to each of the tire-mounted sensors 2 for identifying to which of the tires 71a to 71d the tire-mounted sensor 2 is attached, and identification information unique to the vehicle for identifying a host vehicle.” See ¶ 0034; Since ROM is part of the tire-mounted sensor 2, specifically microcomputer 22ab, it is affixed to the rubber bracket 21 along with the sensor device 22, and communication with the sensor device 22. Nonetheless, in an analogous art, Fenkanyn teaches, an identification tag (10) affixed to the sensor mount (14), Fenkanyn teaches, “a conventional RFID tag 10 is shown affixed to a sidewall 14 of tire 12.” See ¶ 0009, and
Fenkanyn teaches, a discrete identification tag affixed to the same tire, See Fig 1, the identification tag (10) being in data communication with the sensor (20) to transmit tire identification data associated with the tire, Fenkanyn teaches “tag 10 provides a unique tire ID code by which the tire is specifically identified throughout the useful life of the tire. The tire ID code assists in tracking what tires are on vehicles such as the truck 22 and identifying when the tire carrying the tag has been replaced.” See ¶ 0010, Fenkanyn teaches “a standalone TPMS sensor module 20 mounted to the tire and having one or more sensors for measuring one or more tire parameters and transmitting the measured tire parameter data from the sensor(s); and a data sharing I2C or SPI interface in the identification tag and in the sensor module whereby the unique and correct tire identification code is accessed and stored by the sensor module from data communication with the identification tag.” See ¶ 0017.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention (effective filing date for AIA application) to modify the invention of Saito and have an RFID tag attached to the sensor mount and transmit tire identification data to the sensor, as suggested by, Fenkanyn See ¶ 0009, 0010, and 0017, in an effort to properly identifying the tire transmitting the parameter(s) associated with the tire.
With respect to, identification tag (ROM or the like stores individual ID information) affixed to the sensor mount and, wherein the sensor mount (21) houses the identification tag (ROM or the like stores individual ID information) and the detachably attached sensor, (22), Saito teaches, “microcomputer 22ab is a well-known one including a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, an I/O, and the like… The ROM or the like stores individual ID information including identification information unique to each of the tire-mounted sensors 2 for identifying to which of the tires 71a to 71d the tire-mounted sensor 2 is attached, and identification information unique to the vehicle for identifying a host vehicle.” See ¶ 0034; Since ROM is part of the tire-mounted sensor 2, specifically microcomputer 22ab, it is affixed to the rubber bracket 21 along with the sensor device 22, and communication with the sensor device 22, both sensor device 22 and the ROM or the like stores individual ID, are housed in the same rubber bracket 21, i.e. claimed sensor mount. Nonetheless, Saito does not show a discrete identification tag, in an analogous art, Dixon teaches, “a sensor mounting assembly for securing a sensor within a pressurized chamber defined between a wheel and a tire, comprising a patch having a fastening surface by means of which it is securable, in use, to an inner surface of a tire or wheel” See ¶ 0005; “The housing 1 houses conventional pressure and temperature sensors such as SAW based sensors which are well known in the art and which not be described further here.” See ¶ 0028, Fig. 1b. Dixon teaches, “the embedded RFID tag may be utilized in any of the described embodiment, and equally, the RFID tag may be located within the sensor housing as an alternative. In that instance, the antenna extending from the sensor housing may provide communication for both the sensors housed within the housing as well as for the RFID tag.” See ¶ 0031. Fig. 2b shows both SAW sensor 1 and RFID tag 18 on the same mounting patch 12.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention (effective filing date for AIA application) to modify the combination of Saito-Fenkanyn and have a sensor mount 12 for “housing 1 houses conventional pressure and temperature sensors” as well as “an RFID tag 18” as suggested by Dixon ¶ 0031, in an effort simultaneously attached both an RFID tag 18 and SAW sensor to the tire.
Consider claim 2, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the identification tag comprises a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag, Fenkanyn teaches, “a conventional RFID tag 10 is shown affixed to a sidewall 14 of tire 12.” See ¶ 0009.
Consider claim 5, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the tire identification data comprises at least one of a tire identifier (ID), manufacturing information for the tire, size information of the tire, manufacturing location, manufacturing date, a treadcap code that correlates to a compound identification, or a mold code that correlates to a tread structure identification, Saito teaches, “The ROM or the like stores individual ID information including identification information unique to each of the tire-mounted sensors 2 for identifying to which of the tires 71a to 71d the tire-mounted sensor 2 is attached, and identification information unique to the vehicle for identifying a host vehicle.” See ¶ 0034; Fenkanyn teaches “tag 10 provides a unique tire ID code by which the tire is specifically identified throughout the useful life of the tire. The tire ID code assists in tracking what tires are on vehicles such as the truck 22 and identifying when the tire carrying the tag has been replaced.” See ¶ 0010.
Consider claim 6, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sensor mount (21) is integrated within an inner liner of the tire (71), Saito teaches, “One surface of the bottom portion 21a is a surface to be adhered to the inner wall surface of the corresponding tire 71a to 71d” See ¶ 0027 and Figs. 3 and 4.
Consider claim 21, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sensor is a tire pressure monitoring system sensor, Saito teaches, “the tire-mounted sensor 2 can be employed in order to detect the tire condition, more specifically, to detect a groove depth of the tire, since the vibration applied to the tire changes in accordance with the groove depth of the tire. The acceleration detected by the acceleration sensor 22aa can also be used for detecting a tire pressure. In addition to the acceleration sensor 22aa, another physical quantity sensor, for example, a temperature sensor or a pressure sensor, may be mounted on the circuit board 22b, and another physical quantity sensor may be accommodated in the accommodation structure 22f.” See ¶ 0091; Fenkanyn teaches, “A tire pressure monitoring sensor (TPMS) module 20 is secured to the tire 12” See ¶ 0011.
Consider claim 22, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the tire parameters include at least one of pressure and temperature, Saito ¶ 0091. Fenkanyn teaches, “[t]he TPMS module 20 generally is a module package in which one or more sensors are packaged for measuring one or more significant tire parameters such as tire cavity air pressure and tire temperature.” See ¶ 0011
Consider claim 23, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the identification tag transmits the tire identification data associated with the tire to the sensor, See Saito ¶ 0034. Fenkanyn teaches “tag 10 provides a unique tire ID code by which the tire is specifically identified throughout the useful life of the tire. The tire ID code assists in tracking what tires are on vehicles such as the truck 22 and identifying when the tire carrying the tag has been replaced.” See ¶ 0010.
Consider claim 24, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the identification tag is affixed to an inner wall of the sensor mount, Since ROM is part of the tire-mounted sensor 2, specifically microcomputer 22ab, it is affixed to an inner wall of the rubber bracket 21 along with the sensor device 22, and communication with the sensor device 22. Nonetheless, in an analogous art, Fenkanyn teaches, an identification tag (10) affixed to an inner wall of the sensor mount (14), Fenkanyn teaches, “a conventional RFID tag 10 is shown affixed to a sidewall 14 of tire 12.” See ¶ 0009, nonetheless, Dixon Fig 2b shows that a discrete RFID tag 18 is affixed to an inner wall of the patch 12, i.e. claimed sensor mount.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 2019/0184773 A1), Fenkanyn (US 2017/0174013 A1), in view of Dixon (US 2009/0058667 A1), and further in view of Darrer (US 2014/0368327 A1).
Consider claim 3, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sensor comprises a sensor coupling element, Saito teaches, “the sensor device 22 includes … an antenna 22d”
With respect to, configured to power the identification tag when the sensor is attached to the sensor mount, Saito teaches, “power supply may be provided by a generator” nonetheless, in an analogous art, Darrer teaches, “the TPMS device may comprise a dedicated output to provide RF power to the RFID-tag or it may comprise the above described coupling element, e.g. a coil or an antenna, which may be dedicated to provide RF power to the RFID-tag. In other words, the power is provided by the TPMS device using the coupling element, which may also be used to communicate with the receiver device, or a dedicated coupling element, e.g. a dedicated coil or antenna, may be present just for power provision to the RFID-tag.” See ¶ 0015.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention (effective filing date for AIA application) to modify the invention of Saito-Fenkanyn-Dixon and power the tag form the sensor coupling element, as suggested by, Darrer See ¶ 0015, in an effort to utilize a passive RFID tag that can utilize RF energy to communicate with the sensor.
Consider claim 4, the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the sensor coupling element comprises an antenna or a coil, Saito teaches, “the sensor device 22 includes a sensor chip 22a, a circuit board 22b on which peripheral elements (not shown) and the like are mounted, a battery 22c corresponding to a power supply, an antenna 22d,” See ¶ 0029. Fenkanyn teaches, “the TPMS module 20 is equipped with an antenna” See ¶ 0011.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Omer S. Khan whose telephone number is (571)270-5146. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am to 8:00 pm EST.
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, Brian A. Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/Omer S Khan/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights