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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/04/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: incorrect grammar. The claim ends in a comma, rather than a period. It is unclear if the claim is meant to continue, however for the purposes of examining, the examiner will interpret the comma as a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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) 13, 14, 17, 19, 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin (U.S. Patent No. 6,340,930).
In regards to claim 13, Lin teaches a method for detecting a position of a plurality of sensors, wherein each sensor is associated with a respective wheel of a vehicle (See FIG. 1 in view of col. 2, li. 36-64), the method comprising:
during a determined time window by each sensor (See col. 4, li. 29-40), wirelessly transmitting a respective time sequence of packets, wherein each packet comprises a respective identification code of the sensor (See col. 3, li. 2-30 in view of col. 4, li. 29-40);
receiving by at least one receiver from each sensor, during the determined time window, at least one respective sub-group of the packets of the respective time sequence (See col. 4, li. 29-40), wherein the at least one receiver comprises a respective antenna installed on the vehicle in a determined position (See col. 3, li. 21-30 and FIG. 1 with respect to the receiver comprising an antenna, also see col. 2, li. 65 – col. 3, li. 7 in view of FIG. 1 and 2 with regards to the transmitters comprising their respective antennae);
determining a respective first number representative of an overall number of packets of the respective sub-group for each sensor (See col. 4, li. 29-40 with regards to an expected number of data packets and/or data bits expected to be received within a given time frame);
determining a respective second number representative of an overall number of packets of the respective time sequence of packets for each sensor (See col. 4, li. 41-50 with regards to an actual number or data packets successfully received during the sampling period);
calculating a respective parameter as a function of the respective first number and the respective second number for each sensor (See col. 4, li. 29-67 with regards to the reception success rate); and
determining the position of the sensors as a function of the determined position of the respective antenna and as a function of a comparison between the respective parameters (See col. 4, li. 60 – col. 5, li. 31 in view of FIG. 1; also see col. 5, li. 32-46 for more information).
In regards to claim 14, Lin teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the respective parameter is a ratio between the respective first number and the respective second number, and wherein the respective first number is equal to the overall number of packets of the respective sub-group and the respective second number is equal to the overall number of packets of the respective time sequence of packets (See col. 4, li. 29-67),
In regards to claim 17, Lin teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein calculating the respective parameter comprises determining a respective confidence interval around the respective parameter, and wherein determining the position of the sensors comprises a comparison between the respective confidence intervals (See col. 5, li. 47-63 and col. 4, li. 29-40).
In regards to claim 19, Lin teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein each packet of the respective time sequence of packets contains an identification counter of the packet in the respective time sequence of packets (See col. 2, li. 65 – col. 3, li. 30 and col. 4, li. 1-12), and wherein, for each sensor, the respective second number is determined as a function of the counters of the packets of the respective sub-group of packets received by the at least one receiver (See col. 4, li. 1-59).
In regards to claim 22, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 1 by Lin.
In regards to claim 23, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 2 by Lin.
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (U.S. Patent No. 6,340,930) in view of Sakai (U.S. PG Publication No. 2019/0007172).
In regards to claim 15, Lin fails to teach the method according to claim 13, further comprising, for each sensor:
determining a respective index representative of a signal strength value of each packet of the respective sub-group; and
calculating the respective parameter as a function of the respective indices of the packets of the respective sub-group, and as a function of one or more further indices having a predetermined value which is representative of a signal strength value below a reception threshold of the at least one receiver, and the one or more further indices being equal in number to a difference between the number of packets of the respective time sequence and the number of packets of the respective sub-group.
That is, although Lin does indeed teach in col. 7, li. 43-52 that the signal strength/power relates to the batter level which in strength affects the amount of energy sent and thus the signal weakens, and as such the reception level decreases, Lin fails to provide an index with respect to the signal strength/power or an index with respect to the power of the battery.
In a similar endeavor Sakai teaches determining a respective index representative of a signal strength value of each packet of the respective sub-group (See ¶0098); and
calculating the respective parameter as a function of the respective indices of the packets of the respective sub-group, and as a function of one or more further indices having a predetermined value which is representative of a signal strength value below a reception threshold of the at least one receiver (See ¶0098-0100), and the one or more further indices being equal in number to a difference between the number of packets of the respective time sequence and the number of packets of the respective sub-group (See ¶0098-0100 wherein it may be in the form of a ratio).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Sakai into Lin because it allows for calculation of a success rate, such as a ratio of signal power to noise power as described in ¶0098 as a measure of reception characteristic information, thus allowing for the system to adapt accordingly.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (U.S. Patent No. 6,340,930) in view of Stewart et al. (“Stewart”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2006/0017554).
In regards to claim 16, Lin teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the respective time sequence comprises a number of packets greater than or equal to 5 and less than or equal to 120 (See col. 4, li. 1-40 wherein it is understood to one of ordinary skill in the art that a number of packets transmitted and received may be within a given range, especially in view of the claim language not specifying, for example, an amount of gigabyte[s] or specific).
Lin, however, fails to teach wherein determining the position of the sensors comprises ordering the respective parameters in an ordered list, wherein the position of the sensors is determined as a function of an order of the ordered list, wherein the method is carried out immediately after a vehicle off-state lasting a time interval greater than or equal to 5 minutes.
In a similar endeavor Stewart teaches wherein determining the position of the sensors comprises ordering the respective parameters in an ordered list, wherein the position of the sensors is determined as a function of an order of the ordered list (See ¶0051 and 0086), wherein the method is carried out immediately after a vehicle off-state lasting a time interval greater than or equal to 5 minutes (See ¶0057).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Stewart into Lin because it allows for transmission of data in a certain order according to identification and position as described in at least ¶0051, thus allowing for ordered operation to be expected by the system.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (U.S. Patent No. 6,340,930) in view of Hollabaugh (U.S. PG Publication No. 2021/0382540).
In regards to claim 18, Lin fails to teach the method according to claim 13, wherein the respective second number is determined as a product of the duration of the determined time window and a respective transmission frequency of the respective time sequence of packets, and wherein the method further comprises acquiring a predetermined value of the respective transmission frequency or acquiring in real time a current value of the respective transmission frequency.
In a similar endeavor Hollabaugh teaches wherein the respective second number is determined as a product of the duration of the determined time window and a respective transmission frequency of the respective time sequence of packets (See ¶0042), and wherein the method further comprises acquiring a predetermined value of the respective transmission frequency or acquiring in real time a current value of the respective transmission frequency (See ¶0062 in view of 0042).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Hollabaugh into Lin because it allows for a calculation of total data transmitted through the use of a determined time interval, data transfer and frequency of transfer, thus allowing for a desired amount of transmission as described in at least ¶0042.
Claim(s) 20 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (U.S. Patent No. 6,340,930) in view of Townsend et al. (“Townsend”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2014/0150542).
In regards to claim 20, Lin fails to teach the method according to claim 13, wherein for each receiver of a plurality of receivers comprising respective antennas installed on the vehicle in respective determined positions, the method comprises: receiving by each receiver from each sensor, during the determined time window, at least one respective sub-group of the packets of the respective time sequence; determining a respective first number representative of an overall number of packets of the respective sub-group for each sensor; and calculating a respective parameter as a function of the respective first number and the respective second number for each sensor; and determining the position of the sensors as a function of the respective determined position of each antenna of the receivers and as a function of a comparison between the respective parameters calculated for the receivers.
That is, Lin merely teaches one single receiver. In a similar endeavor, Townsend teaches in ¶0019 that there may indeed be multiple receiver units to receive information from sensor units within the tire monitoring system. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Townsend into Lin as it allows multiple receiver units, which each may be specified to specific sensors and may be thus grouped by the overall system control system as described in ¶0019 and seen in FIG. 2.
Thus, together Townsend and Lin teach wherein for each receiver of a plurality of receivers comprising respective antennas installed on the vehicle in respective determined positions (See ¶0019 and FIG. 2 of Townsend in view of FIG. 1 and col. 2, li. 36-64 of Lin), the method comprises:
receiving by each receiver from each sensor, during the determined time window, at least one respective sub-group of the packets of the respective time sequence (See ¶0019 and FIG. 2 of Townsend in view of col. 4, li. 29-40 of Lin);
determining a respective first number representative of an overall number of packets of the respective sub-group for each sensor (See ¶0019 and FIG. 2 of Townsend in view of col. 4, li. 29-40 of Lin); and
calculating a respective parameter as a function of the respective first number and the respective second number for each sensor (See ¶0019 and FIG. 2 of Townsend in view of col. 4, li. 29-67 of Lin); and
determining the position of the sensors as a function of the respective determined position of each antenna of the receivers and as a function of a comparison between the respective parameters calculated for the receivers (See ¶0019 and FIG. 2 of Townsend in view of col. 4, li. 60 – col. 5, li. 31 and FIG. 1 of Lin).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Townsend into Lin as it allows multiple receiver units, which each may be specified to specific sensors and may be thus grouped by the overall system control system as described in ¶0019 and seen in FIG. 2.
In regards to claim 24, Lin teaches the system according to claim 22, further comprising a plurality of receivers comprising respective antennas installed on the vehicle in respective determined positions, wherein each receiver is in wireless communication with the plurality of sensors for receiving from each sensor, during the determined time window, at least a respective sub-group of the packets of the respective time sequence, and wherein, for each receiver, the processing unit carries out operations a) and c) and furthermore for determining the position of the sensors as a function of the respective determined position of each antenna of the receivers and as a function of a comparison between the respective parameters calculated for the receivers.
That is, Lin merely teaches one single receiver. In a similar endeavor, Townsend teaches in ¶0019 that there may indeed be multiple receiver units to receive information from sensor units within the tire monitoring system. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Townsend into Lin as it allows multiple receiver units, which each may be specified to specific sensors and may be thus grouped by the overall system control system as described in ¶0019 and seen in FIG. 2.
Thus, together Townsend and Lin teach further comprising a plurality of receivers comprising respective antennas installed on the vehicle in respective determined positions (See ¶0019 of Townsend), wherein each receiver is in wireless communication with the plurality of sensors for receiving from each sensor, during the determined time window, at least a respective sub-group of the packets of the respective time sequence (See ¶0019 and FIG. 2 of Townsend in view of col. 4, li. 29-67 of Lin), and wherein, for each receiver, the processing unit carries out operations a) and c) and furthermore for determining the position of the sensors as a function of the respective determined position of each antenna of the receivers and as a function of a comparison between the respective parameters calculated for the receivers (See ¶0019 and FIG. 2 of Townsend in view of col. 4, li. 60 – col. 5, li. 31 and FIG. 1 of Lin).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Townsend into Lin as it allows multiple receiver units, which each may be specified to specific sensors and may be thus grouped by the overall system control system as described in ¶0019 and seen in FIG. 2.
Claim(s) 21 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (U.S. Patent No. 6,340,930) in view of Townsend et al. (“Townsend”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2014/0150542) and Stewart et al. (“Stewart”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2006/0017554).
In regards to claim 21, Lin fails to teach the method according to claim 19, wherein, for each sensor, the respective second number is determined as a function of the counters of a respective set of packets formed by a union of the packets of the respective sub-groups received by the plurality of receivers, and wherein determining the position of the sensors comprises, for each receiver: ordering the respective parameters in an ordered list, wherein the position of the sensors is determined as a function of an order of the ordered list; and comparing an order of the ordered list with at least one further order of a further ordered list of a further receiver of the plurality of receivers.
That is, Lin merely teaches one single receiver. In a similar endeavor, Townsend teaches in ¶0019 that there may indeed be multiple receiver units to receive information from sensor units within the tire monitoring system. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Townsend into Lin as it allows multiple receiver units, which each may be specified to specific sensors and may be thus grouped by the overall system control system as described in ¶0019 and seen in FIG. 2.
Thus, together Townsend and Lin teach wherein, for each sensor, the respective second number is determined as a function of the counters of a respective set of packets formed by a union of the packets of the respective sub-groups received by the plurality of receivers (See ¶0019 and FIG. 2 of Townsend in view of col. 2, li. 65 – col. 3, li. 30 and col. 4, li. 1-12 of Lin).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Townsend into Lin as it allows multiple receiver units, which each may be specified to specific sensors and may be thus grouped by the overall system control system as described in ¶0019 and seen in FIG. 2.
In a similar endeavor Stewart teaches wherein determining the position of the sensors comprises, for each receiver:
ordering the respective parameters in an ordered list (See ¶0051 and 0086), wherein the position of the sensors is determined as a function of an order of the ordered list (See ¶0057); and
comparing an order of the ordered list with at least one further order of a further ordered list of a further receiver of the plurality of receivers (See ¶0051, 0057 and 0086 of Stewart in view of 0019 of Townsend).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Stewart into Lin because it allows for transmission of data in a certain order according to identification and position as described in at least ¶0051, thus allowing for ordered operation to be expected by the system.
In regards to claim 25, Lin fails to teach the system (100) according to claim 24, wherein, for each receiver, the processing unit: orders the respective parameters in an ordered list, wherein the position of the sensors is determined as a function of an order of the ordered list, and compares an order of the ordered list with at least one further order of a further ordered list of a further receiver of the plurality of receivers.
However, in a similar endeavor Townsend and Stewart teach orders the respective parameters in an ordered list, wherein the position of the sensors is determined as a function of an order of the ordered list (See ¶0051 and 0086 of Stewart), and compares an order of the ordered list with at least one further order of a further ordered list of a further receiver of the plurality of receivers (See ¶0019 of Townsend wherein it is understood that this would be done to the plurality of receiving units).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Townsend and Stewart into Lin as it allows multiple receiver units, which each may be specified to specific sensors and may be thus grouped by the overall system control system as described in ¶0019 and seen in FIG. 2, and it allows for transmission of data in a certain order according to identification and position as described in at least ¶0051, thus allowing for ordered operation to be expected by the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lammers et al. (U.S. PG Publication No. 2016/0016444) and Muddiman et al. (U.S. PG Publication No. 2018/0111430) as they teach sensor modules for respective wheels of a vehicle and a receiver unit which retrieves rotation information of the wheels along with identifier information to ascertain more information of the wheels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDEMIO NAVAS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, ~ 9 AM -6 PM.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
EDEMIO NAVAS JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2483
/EDEMIO NAVAS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483