DETAILED ACTIONAcknowledgment is made of applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 6/14/24.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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.3. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not generally limited to a single paragraph and because of the language “Figure for the abstract: Figure 2”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 15 – 17, 20 and 23 - 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Nizet et al. (CN112996676, hereinafter Nizet) in view of Rocca et al. (2020/0353778, hereinafter Rocca – See IDS dated 6/14/24).
Regarding claim 15, Nizet discloses a method comprising determining a mechanical property of a ground 7, 8 on which a tire 1 mounted on a vehicle is running, the tire being fitted with a sensor 10 configured to acquire a measurement signal representative of a change in a curvature of the tire as it runs over the ground, acquiring, using the sensor, a measurement signal representative of the change in the curvature of the tire while it is running; determining, from the measurement signal, measurement data comprising a first parameter representative of a rate at which the tire flattens on contact with the ground over a course of one revolution of a wheel bearing the tire, and determining the mechanical property of the ground as a function of the first parameter (See Pg. 5, Para. 4 and Pg. 6, Paras. 1 – 4). Nizet fails to disclose a second parameter representative of a rate at which the tire regains shape on becoming separated from the ground over the course of one revolution of the wheel bearing the tire. However, Rocca discloses a method and apparatus comprising a second parameter that is representative of a rate at which a tire 1 regains shape on becoming separated from a ground surface over the course of one revolution of a wheel bearing the tire (See Pg. 1, Paras. 0003 – 0005, Pg. 3, Paras. 0066 – 0070 and Pg. 5, Para. 0103). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Nizet according to the teachings of Rocca for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device does not have a limit in detecting the occurrence of aquaplane phenomenon (See Rocca, Pg. 1, Para. 0009). Regarding claim 16, in Nizet, during running, over the course of one revolution of the wheel, the curvature of the tire changes according to a cycle exhibiting a part where there is no contact with the ground, and a part where there is contact with the ground, wherein the first parameter is determined from a part of the measurement signal corresponding to a transition in the curvature of the tire between the part where there is no contact with the ground and the part where there is contact with the ground, and a second parameter is determined from a part of the measurement signal corresponding to a transition in the curvature of the tire between the part where there is contact with the ground and the part where there is no contact with the ground (See Figs. 1 and 2). Regarding claim 17, in Nizet, during running, over the course of one revolution of the wheel, the curvature of the tire changes according to a cycle exhibiting a part where there is no contact with the ground, characterized in the measurement signal by a stable curvature, a part where there is contact with the ground, characterized in the measurement signal by a contact curvature variation spike, a coming-into-contact transition between the part where there is no contact with the ground and the part where there is contact with the ground, characterized in the measurement signal by a coming-into-contact curvature variation spike that is opposite of the contact curvature variation spike, and a coming-out-of-contact transition between the part where there is contact with the ground and the part where there is no contact with the ground, characterized in the measurement signal by a coming-out-of-contact curvature variation spike that is opposite of the contact curvature variation spike, the first parameter being determined by a gradient between the coming-into-contact curvature variation spike and the contact curvature variation spike, and the second parameter being determined by a gradient between the coming-into-contact curvature variation spike and the contact curvature variation spike (See Figs 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 20, in Nizet, the mechanical property of the ground is determined by calculating a mechanical property factor from the first parameter and by comparing the mechanical property factor to thresholds delimiting mechanical property categories for the ground (See Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 23, in Nizet, a step of locating the vehicle during the step of acquiring the signal that provides an at least two-dimensional position of the vehicle (See Pg. 14, Para. 4).
Regarding claim 24, in Nizet, the tire comprises the sensor 10 that is sensitive to a change in a curvature of the tire and that is configured to generate a measurement signal representative of the change in the curvature of the tire as it runs over a ground, an active part 11 and an electronic circuit board 15 are provided, the active part being configured to generate the measurement signal, the electronic circuit board being configured to determine measurement data comprising a first parameter representative of a rate at which the tire flattens on contact with the ground over a course of one revolution of a wheel bearing the tire, the sensor being configured to transmit the measurement data to outside the tire (See Pg. 5, Para. 4 and Pg. 6, Paras. 1 – 4). Nizet fails to disclose a second parameter representative of a rate at which the tire regains shape on becoming separated from the ground over the course of one revolution of the wheel bearing the tire However, Rocca discloses a method and apparatus comprising a second parameter that is representative of a rate at which a tire 1 regains shape on becoming separated from a ground surface over the course of one revolution of a wheel bearing the tire (See Pg. 1, Paras. 0003 – 0005, Pg. 3, Paras. 0066 – 0070 and Pg. 5, Para. 0103). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Nizet according to the teachings of Rocca for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device does not have a limit in detecting the occurrence of aquaplane phenomenon (See Rocca, Pg. 1, Para. 0009). Regarding claim 25, in Nizet, a first parameter representative of a rate at which the tire flattens on contact with the ground over a course of one revolution of a wheel bearing the tire is determined and the data processing unit is configured to determine the mechanical property of the ground as a function of the first parameter (See Pg. 5, Para. 4 and Pg. 6, Paras. 1 – 4). Nizet fails to disclose a second parameter representative of a rate at which the tire regains shape on becoming separated from the ground over the course of one revolution of the wheel bearing the tire. However, Rocca discloses a method and apparatus comprising a second parameter that is representative of a rate at which a tire 1 regains shape on becoming separated from a ground surface over the course of one revolution of a wheel bearing the tire (See Pg. 1, Paras. 0003 – 0005, Pg. 3, Paras. 0066 – 0070 and Pg. 5, Para. 0103). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Nizet according to the teachings of Rocca for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device does not have a limit in detecting the occurrence of aquaplane phenomenon (See Rocca, Pg. 1, Para. 0009). Regarding claim 26, in Nizet, at least one sensor 10 sensitive to a change in a curvature of the tire and configured to generate a measurement signal representative of the change in the curvature of the tire as it runs over a ground is provided, a data processing unit 15 is configured to receive measurement data derived from the measurement signal representative of the change in the curvature of the tire as it runs over a ground and to determine the mechanical property of the ground as a function of at least one of the measurement data, the measurement data comprising a first parameter representative of a rate at which the tire flattens on contact with the ground over a course of one revolution of the wheel bearing the tire (See Fig. 1, See Pg. 5, Para. 4 and Pg. 6, Paras. 1 – 4). Nizet fails to disclose a second parameter representative of a rate at which the tire regains shape on becoming separated from the ground over the course of one revolution of the wheel bearing the tire. However, Rocca discloses a method and apparatus comprising a second parameter that is representative of a rate at which a tire 1 regains shape on becoming separated from a ground surface over the course of one revolution of a wheel bearing the tire (See Pg. 1, Paras. 0003 – 0005, Pg. 3, Paras. 0066 – 0070 and Pg. 5, Para. 0103). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Nizet according to the teachings of Rocca for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device does not have a limit in detecting the occurrence of aquaplane phenomenon (See Rocca, Pg. 1, Para. 0009). Regarding claim 27, in Nizet, the at least one sensor 10 is disposed inside the tire 1 (See Fig. 1). Regarding claim 28, in Nizet, the at least one sensor comprises an active part 11 and an electronic circuit board 15, the active part being configured to generate the measurement signal, and the electronic circuit board being configured to determine the measurement data, and wherein the data processing unit is disposed outside the tire (See Fig. 1). 7. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nizet and Rocca, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN205292120, hereinafter Zhang). Regarding claim 21, in Nizet, the mechanical property of the ground iscompaction of the ground caused by the tire (See Pg. 18, Para. 6 and Pg. 19, Para. 1). Nizet and Rocca fail to disclose that the mechanical property of the ground is included in the group comprising a rut depth RD, a mechanical resistance of the ground on entering a contact patch Cpcia, and a mechanical resistance of the ground on leaving the contact patch Cpcout. However, Zhang discloses an apparatus comprising mechanical properties of ground including rut depth and ground resistance (See Pg. 3, Para. 10 and Pg. 4, Para. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Nizet and Rocca according to the teachings of Zhang for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device is simple and flexible for dry land and paddy field working and road running normally, and can greatly reduce tractor soil compaction, enhanced driving force, increasing the farming width and improves the working efficiency (See the abstract of Zhang).8. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nizet and Rocca, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Ebato (JP2021132572). Regarding claim 22, Nizet and Rocca fail to disclose that the mechanical property of the ground is defined over a ground depth X of less than 40 centimeters.
However, Ebato discloses an apparatus comprising a mechanical property of ground defined over a ground depth X of less than 40 centimeters (See Pg. 10, Paras. 1 – 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Nizet and Rocca according to the teachings of Ebato for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device provides an agricultural work machine operation support method that can support safe operation of an agricultural work machine (See Ebato, Pg. 1, Para. 2). Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 18 and 19 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.
10. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject
matter: The primary reasons for indicating allowable subject matter is that the prior art does not anticipate or make obvious the provisions of “the mechanical property of the ground is determined using a linear relationship connecting the mechanical property of the ground and the first parameter KSin and/or the second parameter KSout” (referring to claim 18) and “the linear relationship takes the following form:F=a+bx KSi orj, or F=a+bxKSi+cxKSj where F is a mechanical property factor, KSiorj is the first or the second parameter, and a, b and c are predetermined fixed coefficients” (referring to claim 19) in combination with the other limitations presented in claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.12. Begou et al. (11,267,298) disclose a device for evaluating the deformation of a pneumatic tire casing. Begou et al. (WO2019053384) disclose a device for evaluating the firmness of a ground. Weston (10,000,100) discloses a piezoelectric based system and method for determining tire load. Freytag (9,834,045) discloses a vehicle tire deformation detection device.13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm. 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, John Breene can be reached at 5712724107. 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.
/OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 5/30/26
Prosecution Insights