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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the amendments and/or arguments filed on March 3, 2026. Claims 11-22 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Page 5, filed March 3, 2026, with respect to 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is noted that the amended limitations of “ascertains an optimum time window…” recites a mental process, as a human can perform this task mentally as it is merely evaluating and/or judging an optimal time window for the auto-location based on a one or more parameters that are received. The component of a “central unit” is merely a generic computing component that is being sued to perform the abstract idea. Therefore the claim amendments do not overcome the 101 rejection. A detailed rejection follows below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 5, filed March 3, 2026, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 5-6, filed March 3, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11-22 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Huard et al. (US 20210162821; hereinafter Huard).
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 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 1
Claims 11-19 recite a method/process, therefore claims 11-19 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claims 20-22 recite an apparatus/system, therefore claims 20-22 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 11 includes limitations that recites mathematical concepts and/or mental processes (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 11 recites:
An auto-location method for a sensor in or on a vehicle, the method comprising the following steps:
establishing a bidirectional communication between a central unit and at least one sensor;
ascertaining trigger data for an auto-location based on vehicle state data which are provided to the central unit;
transmitting the trigger data to the at least one sensor;
initiating the auto-location using the central unit;
starting ascertainment of sensor data for the auto-location by the at least one sensor after the initiation; and
ascertaining a position of the at least one sensor based on the ascertained sensor data,
wherein the central unit ascertains an optimum time window for initiating the auto-location based on one or more vehicle state parameters provided by other vehicle units or by remote and cloud-based signals.
These limitations, as drafted, is a system that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental process. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as mental process. For example, " ascertaining trigger data…", " ascertaining a position...", and “ascertains an optimum time window…” encompass mental processes as a human can perform these limitations using observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. “ascertaining trigger data…" involves a human judging and/or evaluating if a trigger condition has been met based on vehicle data, “ascertaining a position..." involves a human making a judgment and/or evaluating a position of a sensor based on sensor data, and “ascertains an optimum time window…” involves a human evaluating and/or judging an optimal time window for the auto-location based on a one or more parameters that are received. Thus, the claim recites at least a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a "practical application."
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the "additional limitations" while the bolded portions continue to represent the "abstract idea"):
An auto-location method for a sensor in or on a vehicle, the method comprising the following steps:
establishing a bidirectional communication between a central unit and at least one sensor;
ascertaining trigger data for an auto-location based on vehicle state data which are provided to the central unit;
transmitting the trigger data to the at least one sensor;
initiating the auto-location using the central unit;
starting ascertainment of sensor data for the auto-location by the at least one sensor after the initiation; and
ascertaining a position of the at least one sensor based on the ascertained sensor data,
wherein the central unit ascertains an optimum time window for initiating the auto-location based on one or more vehicle state parameters provided by other vehicle units or by remote and cloud-based signals.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of " An auto-location method for a sensor in or on a vehicle” the examiner submits that this limitation characterizes the method as being associated with a sensor in or on a vehicle, which merely amounts to indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Additionally, “central unit” is a generic computing component that merely applies the judicial exception (See 2106.05(f)). Additionally, the claim limitation “establishing a bidirectional communication …”, ” transmitting the trigger data…”, “initiating the auto-location…”, and “starting ascertainment of sensor data…” does not amount to an inventive concept since it is insignificant extra-solution activity as it is merely a form of data collection and outputting (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The examiner submits that these limitations are mere data collection and outputting components to apply the above-noted abstract idea within an indicated field of use (MPEP §2106.05).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular process for safety performance evaluation, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B in the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “establishing a bidirectional communication …”, ”transmitting the trigger data…”, “initiating the auto-location…”, and “starting ascertainment of sensor data…” amounts to extra-solution data gathering and outputting. With respect to “establishing a bidirectional communication …”, ”transmitting the trigger data…”, “initiating the auto-location…”, and “starting ascertainment of sensor data…” it was ruled within Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015), which are recited within MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that mere data collection or receiving/obtaining and transmitting of data over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic matter, as it is here. Additionally, “central unit” is a generic computing component that merely applies the judicial exception (See 2106.05(f)). Additionally, “An auto-location method for a sensor in or on a vehicle” is merely a technological environment or field of use as the limitations merely link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Additionally, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
Claims 20 and 22 recites analogous limitations to that of claim 11, and are therefore rejected by the same premise.
Dependent claims 12-19 and 21 specify limitations that elaborate on the abstract idea of claims 11, 20, and 22, and thus are directed to an abstract idea nor do the claims recite additional limitations that integrate the claims into a practical application or amount to "significantly more" for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 16-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weston (US 20100191409; already of record from IDS) in view of Huard et al. (US 20210162821; hereinafter Huard)
In regards to claim 11, Weston discloses of an auto-location method for a sensor in or on a vehicle (“Disclosed is an apparatus and methodology for identifying tire locations associated with a vehicle (10). Sensed variations in tire related parameters are measured as a vehicle traverses a known or ascertainable travel path (FIG. 3). Data accumulated over one or more measurement windows may be analyzed to determine the location of each individual tire (20) associated with a vehicle (10). Measurements and accumulation of data may be initiated upon detection of a stationary vehicle state exceeding a predetermined time, a predetermined lateral acceleration, and/or a predetermined vehicle speed.” (Abstract)), the method comprising the following steps:
establishing a bidirectional communication between a central unit and at least one sensor (“An (S-D-T-L-R) autolocation process may proceed as follows: If the lateral acceleration a.sub.y is greater than a predetermined threshold then ECU 40 will transmit an (N,t) request, i.e., a data request, to all ITEMs 20, 22. In response to an (N,t) request, each ITEM 20, 22 transmits its current revolution count total, N, its time of tire clock, t.sub.ITEM, clock speed, and its individual ID. If any data is missing, then that dataset will be deleted. If no data is missing and if the lateral acceleration a.sub.y is greater than a predetermined threshold for more than a predetermined minimum time, t.sub.minimum, then ECU 40 will transmit an (N,t) request again as soon as the lateral acceleration a.sub.y drops below the predetermined threshold. It should be appreciated that each ITEM responds exactly the same way to any (N,t) request.” (Para 0034));
ascertaining trigger data for an auto-location based on vehicle state data which are provided to the central unit (“An (S-D-T-L-R) autolocation process may proceed as follows: If the lateral acceleration a.sub.y is greater than a predetermined threshold then ECU 40 will transmit an (N,t) request, i.e., a data request, to all ITEMs 20, 22. In response to an (N,t) request, each ITEM 20, 22 transmits its current revolution count total, N, its time of tire clock, t.sub.ITEM, clock speed, and its individual ID. If any data is missing, then that dataset will be deleted. If no data is missing and if the lateral acceleration a.sub.y is greater than a predetermined threshold for more than a predetermined minimum time, t.sub.minimum, then ECU 40 will transmit an (N,t) request again as soon as the lateral acceleration a.sub.y drops below the predetermined threshold. It should be appreciated that each ITEM responds exactly the same way to any (N,t) request.” (Para 0034), see also Para 0032);
transmitting the trigger data to the at least one sensor (“An (S-D-T-L-R) autolocation process may proceed as follows: If the lateral acceleration a.sub.y is greater than a predetermined threshold then ECU 40 will transmit an (N,t) request, i.e., a data request, to all ITEMs 20, 22. In response to an (N,t) request, each ITEM 20, 22 transmits its current revolution count total, N, its time of tire clock, t.sub.ITEM, clock speed, and its individual ID. If any data is missing, then that dataset will be deleted. If no data is missing and if the lateral acceleration a.sub.y is greater than a predetermined threshold for more than a predetermined minimum time, t.sub.minimum, then ECU 40 will transmit an (N,t) request again as soon as the lateral acceleration a.sub.y drops below the predetermined threshold. It should be appreciated that each ITEM responds exactly the same way to any (N,t) request.” (Para 0034),;
initiating the auto-location using the central unit (“An (S-D-T-L-R) autolocation process may proceed as follows: If the lateral acceleration a.sub.y is greater than a predetermined threshold then ECU 40 will transmit an (N,t) request, i.e., a data request, to all ITEMs 20, 22. In response to an (N,t) request, each ITEM 20, 22 transmits its current revolution count total, N, its time of tire clock, t.sub.ITEM, clock speed, and its individual ID. If any data is missing, then that dataset will be deleted. If no data is missing and if the lateral acceleration a.sub.y is greater than a predetermined threshold for more than a predetermined minimum time, t.sub.minimum, then ECU 40 will transmit an (N,t) request again as soon as the lateral acceleration a.sub.y drops below the predetermined threshold. It should be appreciated that each ITEM responds exactly the same way to any (N,t) request.” (Para 0034);
starting ascertainment of sensor data for the auto-location by the at least one sensor after the initiation (“An (S-D-T-L-R) autolocation process may proceed as follows: If the lateral acceleration a.sub.y is greater than a predetermined threshold then ECU 40 will transmit an (N,t) request, i.e., a data request, to all ITEMs 20, 22. In response to an (N,t) request, each ITEM 20, 22 transmits its current revolution count total, N, its time of tire clock, t.sub.ITEM, clock speed, and its individual ID. If any data is missing, then that dataset will be deleted. If no data is missing and if the lateral acceleration a.sub.y is greater than a predetermined threshold for more than a predetermined minimum time, t.sub.minimum, then ECU 40 will transmit an (N,t) request again as soon as the lateral acceleration a.sub.y drops below the predetermined threshold. It should be appreciated that each ITEM responds exactly the same way to any (N,t) request.” (Para 0034), see also Para 0035-0036); and
ascertaining a position of the at least one sensor based on the ascertained sensor data (“An (S-D-T-L-R) autolocation process may proceed as follows: If the lateral acceleration a.sub.y is greater than a predetermined threshold then ECU 40 will transmit an (N,t) request, i.e., a data request, to all ITEMs 20, 22. In response to an (N,t) request, each ITEM 20, 22 transmits its current revolution count total, N, its time of tire clock, t.sub.ITEM, clock speed, and its individual ID. If any data is missing, then that dataset will be deleted. If no data is missing and if the lateral acceleration a.sub.y is greater than a predetermined threshold for more than a predetermined minimum time, t.sub.minimum, then ECU 40 will transmit an (N,t) request again as soon as the lateral acceleration a.sub.y drops below the predetermined threshold. It should be appreciated that each ITEM responds exactly the same way to any (N,t) request.” (Para 0034), “The data from each table will be put in descending order of magnitude. As illustrated in FIG. 3, the left turn table will eventually separate from top to bottom where Rsteer>Rdrive>Lsteer>Ldrive>Rtrail>Ltrail. In similar fashion, the right turn table will eventually separate from top to bottom where Lsteer>Ldrive>Rsteer>Rdrive>Ltrail>Rtrail. The autolocation position conclusion must satisfy both tables with sufficient separation based on the predetermined decision confidence criteria. The dual pair identification process proceeds at the same time as the (S-D-T-L-R) process and from the same accumulated data (FIG. 3). All dual pairs will be identified as those ID's having substantially identical (i.e., within a predetermined statistically inseparable number) cumulative revolution count.” (Para 0037), “With reference to FIG. 1, it will be noted that steer wheel positions are designated as corresponding to wheel location 100, drive positions are at wheel locations 110, 120, and trailer wheel locations are at wheel locations 130, 140. For reference purposes, the left side is designated by arrow 150 while the right side is designated by arrow 160. As may be observed from FIG. 1, dual pair tires are located on both the left and right sides of locations 110, 120, 130, and 140 so that with the steer wheels at location 100, wheel locations for a common 18-wheel tractor-trailer combination may be identified.” (Para 0030)).
However, Weston does not specifically disclose of wherein the central unit ascertains an optimum time window for initiating the auto-location based on one or more vehicle state parameters provided by other vehicle units or by remote and cloud-based signals.
Huard, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein the central unit ascertains an optimum time window for initiating the auto-location based on one or more vehicle state parameters provided by other vehicle units or by remote and cloud-based signals (“Depending on the embodiments, the modification of the periodicity of these communications is, notably, carried out on the basis of the location of the smart device 203 in the environment of the vehicle 105. In the figure, the smart device 203 is shown only in the second area 201, corresponding to the immediate proximity of the vehicle 105. However, depending on whether the smart device 203 is located in the second area 201 or in the first area 202 which correspond to the environment a little farther from the vehicle 105, the periodicity of its exchanges with the wheel units can be modified. Additionally, the initiation of these modifications may also take into account, if necessary, the movement or the absence of movement of the smart device 203 in or between these areas. An aspect of the invention is not limited by the number of areas taken into account, which may or may not be concentric rings around the vehicle 105 like the areas shown in FIG. 2. They may, for example, be areas corresponding to the four quadrants around the vehicle 105, or front and rear areas, or alternatively left and right areas on each side of the vehicle 105.” (Para 0053), “The aim of the method, according to the embodiments of the present invention as described below, is to adjust the periods of the exchanges that take place, via this type of UHF signal, particularly in the “exchange” mode (i.e. the periods of the phases permitting the activation of two-way communication), between the TPMS units of a vehicle 105 and the smart device 203 of its user (or of one of its users), for example according to its position and possible movement in the environment of the vehicle 105. This is done in order to reduce the energy consumption entailed by the use of this type of signal, and thus to allow the effective implementation of transceivers using this type of UHF signal in the wheel units 103a-103d of a TPMS.” (Para 0062), “Finally, the method therefore makes it possible to adjust the periodicity of the wireless communications of the units 104, 103a-103d, and notably of the wheel units 103a-103d of the TPMS, with the smart device 203, in order to optimize/minimize the energy consumption due to these communications, while ensuring good reactivity of the exchanges for the various functions offered by the TPMS units. Whether it is for the purpose of transmitting information to the user about the tires of his vehicle 105 via his smart device 203, or for providing the user with “hands free” access to his vehicle 105, the method therefore makes it possible to consume only the energy that is really essential for the good reactivity of this functionality.” (Para 0077), see also Para 0071).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the initiating of auto-location by the central unit, as taught by Weston, to include determining an optimum time window based on vehicle parameters, as taught by Huard, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to optimize/minimize the energy consumption of the communications while ensuring good reactivity of the exchanges (Guard Para 0077).
In regards to claim 12, Weston in view of Huard teaches of the method according to claim 11, wherein the sensor is a tire pressure monitoring system (“TPMS”) sensor (“It should be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art that each of the tires mounted on tractor-trailer 10 are provided with an In Tire Electronic Module (ITEM), representatively illustrated at 20, 22, comprising at least one piezoelectric sensor. Based on signals generated by the piezoelectric sensor each ITEM produces and transmits information based at least in part on change in shape of the tire with which it is associated. In addition, each ITEM may be provided with additional information within an onboard memory. Such additional information may relate to information particular to the tire with which the sensor is associated including, but not limited to a unique identifier (ID), manufacturing information including manufacturing date and location, tire type, and other related information.” (Weston Para 0027), “It would be beneficial in a tire-vehicle-fleet system if pressure loss could be automatically detected and such information transmitted to fleet operation management. Knowing the tire ID, the rate of pressure loss, and the position on the vehicle would permit fleet operation management to efficiently arrange the correct replacement tire size and type in an appropriate timeframe along that vehicle's route, thus minimizing down-time.” Weston Para 0008), see also Weston Para 0032).
In regards to claim 16, Weston in view of Huard teaches of the method according to claim 11, wherein the auto-location is initiated based on a flag provided to the sensor by the central unit (“An (S-D-T-L-R) autolocation process may proceed as follows: If the lateral acceleration a.sub.y is greater than a predetermined threshold then ECU 40 will transmit an (N,t) request, i.e., a data request, to all ITEMs 20, 22. In response to an (N,t) request, each ITEM 20, 22 transmits its current revolution count total, N, its time of tire clock, t.sub.ITEM, clock speed, and its individual ID. If any data is missing, then that dataset will be deleted. If no data is missing and if the lateral acceleration a.sub.y is greater than a predetermined threshold for more than a predetermined minimum time, t.sub.minimum, then ECU 40 will transmit an (N,t) request again as soon as the lateral acceleration a.sub.y drops below the predetermined threshold. It should be appreciated that each ITEM responds exactly the same way to any (N,t) request.” (Weston Para 0034)).
In regards to claim 17, Weston in view of Huard teaches of the method according to claim 11, wherein the sensor data of the sensor are transmitted to the central unit until the position of the sensor has been ascertained with predetermined accuracy (“This process is repeated whenever lateral acceleration a.sub.y is greater than a predetermined threshold for more than a minimum time, t.sub.minimum, until the count separation is large enough to permit a S-D-T-L-R conclusion that meets predetermined confidence criteria. Confidence intervals or criteria and their selection relate to known statistical analysis techniques and, thus, will not be further discussed herein. Once the predetermined confidence criteria is met, ECU 40 will discontinue transmission of (N,t) requests until the predetermined vehicle stop time is again exceeded. Alternatively, of course, the data collection process may be manually or automatically triggered as a vehicle enters on to a known path having predetermined turn patterns.” (Weston Para 0036)).
In regards to claim 18, Weston in view of Huard teaches of the method according to claim 11, wherein the bidirectional communication is switched off once the position of the sensor has been ascertained (“This process is repeated whenever lateral acceleration a.sub.y is greater than a predetermined threshold for more than a minimum time, t.sub.minimum, until the count separation is large enough to permit a S-D-T-L-R conclusion that meets predetermined confidence criteria. Confidence intervals or criteria and their selection relate to known statistical analysis techniques and, thus, will not be further discussed herein. Once the predetermined confidence criteria is met, ECU 40 will discontinue transmission of (N,t) requests until the predetermined vehicle stop time is again exceeded. Alternatively, of course, the data collection process may be manually or automatically triggered as a vehicle enters on to a known path having predetermined turn patterns.” (Weston Para 0036)).
In regards to claim 19, Weston in view of Huard teaches of the method according to claim 11, wherein the sensor is an inertial measurement sensor in the form of an acceleration sensor and/or an angular rate sensor (“Phase one of the self-learning (S-D-T-L-R) and dual pair identification process may proceed as follows. A single piezoelectric sensor or some other revolution counting capable sensor device is installed in each tire on the tractor and trailer, possibly as a portion of representatively illustrated ITEMs 20, 22. In addition a lateral accelerometer 30 may be installed on the tractor. Lateral acceleration a.sub.y is measured and known by a vehicle Electronic Control Unit (ECU) 40 at all times when the vehicle is running. Knowledge of the lateral acceleration experienced is necessary to define and control the measurement time frame and to correctly interpret rolling distance measurement within that time frame for cumulative contribution to the (S-D-T-L-R) conclusion. Revolution count, N, occurs when a tire is rolling. This value N will normally be updated continuously on-board the tire, in the individual In Tire Electronic Modules (ITEMs). It should be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art that lateral acceleration may be measured by way of an onboard lateral accelerometer or, alternatively, may be inferred by directing the vehicle over a known path having predetermined turns and tracking, for example, distance traveled and speed to obtain location on the predetermined path. Further, as an alternative measurement of tire speed during the maneuvers described above may be substituted for revolution counting.” (Weston Para 0032), “An (S-D-T-L-R) autolocation process may proceed as follows: If the lateral acceleration a.sub.y is greater than a predetermined threshold then ECU 40 will transmit an (N,t) request, i.e., a data request, to all ITEMs 20, 22. In response to an (N,t) request, each ITEM 20, 22 transmits its current revolution count total, N, its time of tire clock, t.sub.ITEM, clock speed, and its individual ID. If any data is missing, then that dataset will be deleted. If no data is missing and if the lateral acceleration a.sub.y is greater than a predetermined threshold for more than a predetermined minimum time, t.sub.minimum, then ECU 40 will transmit an (N,t) request again as soon as the lateral acceleration a.sub.y drops below the predetermined threshold. It should be appreciated that each ITEM responds exactly the same way to any (N,t) request.” (Weston Para 0034)).
In regards to claim 20, the claim recites analogous subject matter to claim 11 and is rejected on the same premise, but further teaches wherein the central unit is configured to ascertain a position of the at least one sensor based on the ascertained sensor data, and wherein the at least one sensor is configured to receive the trigger data from the central unit, to ascertain sensor data for the auto-location after initiation and to transmit ascertained sensor data to the central unit (“An (S-D-T-L-R) autolocation process may proceed as follows: If the lateral acceleration a.sub.y is greater than a predetermined threshold then ECU 40 will transmit an (N,t) request, i.e., a data request, to all ITEMs 20, 22. In response to an (N,t) request, each ITEM 20, 22 transmits its current revolution count total, N, its time of tire clock, t.sub.ITEM, clock speed, and its individual ID. If any data is missing, then that dataset will be deleted. If no data is missing and if the lateral acceleration a.sub.y is greater than a predetermined threshold for more than a predetermined minimum time, t.sub.minimum, then ECU 40 will transmit an (N,t) request again as soon as the lateral acceleration a.sub.y drops below the predetermined threshold. It should be appreciated that each ITEM responds exactly the same way to any (N,t) request.” (Weston Para 0034), “The data from each table will be put in descending order of magnitude. As illustrated in FIG. 3, the left turn table will eventually separate from top to bottom where Rsteer>Rdrive>Lsteer>Ldrive>Rtrail>Ltrail. In similar fashion, the right turn table will eventually separate from top to bottom where Lsteer>Ldrive>Rsteer>Rdrive>Ltrail>Rtrail. The autolocation position conclusion must satisfy both tables with sufficient separation based on the predetermined decision confidence criteria. The dual pair identification process proceeds at the same time as the (S-D-T-L-R) process and from the same accumulated data (FIG. 3). All dual pairs will be identified as those ID's having substantially identical (i.e., within a predetermined statistically inseparable number) cumulative revolution count.” (Weston Para 0037), “With reference to FIG. 1, it will be noted that steer wheel positions are designated as corresponding to wheel location 100, drive positions are at wheel locations 110, 120, and trailer wheel locations are at wheel locations 130, 140. For reference purposes, the left side is designated by arrow 150 while the right side is designated by arrow 160. As may be observed from FIG. 1, dual pair tires are located on both the left and right sides of locations 110, 120, 130, and 140 so that with the steer wheels at location 100, wheel locations for a common 18-wheel tractor-trailer combination may be identified.” (Weston Para 0030)).
In regards to claim 21, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 19 and is rejected on the same premise.
In regards to claim 22, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 20 and is rejected on the same premise.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weston in view of Huard, as applied to claim 11, further in view of Mckellar et al. (US 20170174015; hereinafter Mckellar; already of record).
In regards to claim 13, Weston in view of Huard teaches of the method according to claim 11.
However, Weston in view of Huard does not specifically teach of wherein a time window for initiating the auto- location is ascertained, and a sampling rate for the sensor is ascertained based on the ascertained time window, the sampling rate being provided to the sensor for ascertaining the sensor data at the sampling rate.
Mckellar, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein a time window for initiating the auto- location is ascertained, and a sampling rate for the sensor is ascertained based on the ascertained time window, the sampling rate being provided to the sensor for ascertaining the sensor data at the sampling rate (“By way of example, sampling of the pressure sensor output signal may be performed over an assessment period of typically 0.5 to 5 seconds duration (preferably approximately 1 second), and be repeated periodically, for example every 10 seconds (or other period preferably between 5 and 60 seconds). During each assessment period, the output signal is sampled multiple times, typically at a sampling rate corresponding to between 5 to 50 times per second, and a respective count value is calculated for each sample. It will be understood that the assessment period and repeat period may be longer or shorter than stated, and that the sampling rate may be higher or lower as suits the application.” (Para 0063), see also Para 0058).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the initiating of auto-location of the sensor, as taught by Weston in view of Huard, to include the sampling rate being adjusting based on a time window, as taught by Mckellar, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow the sampling rate to be selected or appropriate for the application (Mckellar Para 0063 and 0058).
In regards to claim 14, Weston in view of Huard in view of Mckellar teaches of the method according to claim 13, wherein the sampling rate is ascertained based on the vehicle state data, including based on vehicle movement data (“By way of example, sampling of the pressure sensor output signal may be performed over an assessment period of typically 0.5 to 5 seconds duration (preferably approximately 1 second), and be repeated periodically, for example every 10 seconds (or other period preferably between 5 and 60 seconds). During each assessment period, the output signal is sampled multiple times, typically at a sampling rate corresponding to between 5 to 50 times per second, and a respective count value is calculated for each sample. It will be understood that the assessment period and repeat period may be longer or shorter than stated, and that the sampling rate may be higher or lower as suits the application.” (Mckellar Para 0063), “In the embodiment of FIG. 5, the respective count value for multiple samples are used to assess the variance of the pressure sensor output signal, the variance being indicative of the signal's power. The count value is indicative of the magnitude of the respective sample of the pressure sensor output signal, the magnitude being a characteristic of the signal that can be used to measure variance and therefore obtain an indication of power. In preferred embodiments, therefore, it may be said that the measurement apparatus 203, samples the pressure sensor output signal and provides to the controller 201 in respect of each sample, a value for a characteristic of the signal that can be used to assess the power of the signal. The characteristic may be a magnitude of the signal sample. In the present example, the characteristic is the difference between positive and negative sample values taken from a differential output signal of the pressure sensor.” (Mckellar Para 0065).
The motivation for combining Weston, Huard, and Mckellar is the same as that recited for claim 13 above.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weston in view of Huard, as applied to claim 11, further in view of Singh et al. (US 20220236405; hereinafter Singh; already of record).
In regards to claim 15, Weston in view of Huard teaches of the method according to claim 11.
However, Weston in view of Huard does not specifically teach of wherein a transmission of data between the sensor and the central unit is confirmed by a receiving side of the transmission.
Singh, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein a transmission of data between the sensor and the central unit is confirmed by a receiving side of the transmission (“According to embodiments of the present disclosure, the tire sensor location may be learned while the car is parked by a RF beamforming feature using a phased antenna array at a high frequency range. The beamforming technique allows an RF transceiver to transmit a beam of RF signal in a specific direction. Using this technique, an RF signal beam may be transmitted in the direction of each tire one by one. An RF receiver fitted in the TPMS sensor can acknowledge the reception of the signal and send back an acknowledgement message confirming sensor identification for given tire.” (Para 0020)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission between the sensor and the central processor, as taught by Weston in view of Huard, to include being confirmed by the receiving side of the transmission, as taught by Singh, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow an acknowledgement of the signal to be sent (Singh Para 0020).
Conclusion
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 Kyle J Kingsland whose telephone number is (571)272-3268. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-4:30.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-9855. 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.
/KYLE J KINGSLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663