CTNF 18/721,700 CTNF 86510 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. Claim Status In the preliminary amendment filed on June 19, 2024, claims 1-9 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-11 are currently pending for examination. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1-4 and 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites "said monitoring device" which is supposed to be “said remote monitoring and/or control device” for consistency. Claim 1 recites “capable of intercepting” in line 9. It has been held that the recitation that an element is “capable of” performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. Examiner suggest to amend “capable of” as “configured to”. Claim 4 recites “(1C)” in line 2 which is supposed to be deleted. Claims 2, 3, 6 and 7 recite “in a running mode” which is supposed to be “in the running mode”. Claim 4 recites “in a non-running mode” which is supposed to be “in the non-running mode” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “the communication parameters”, ‘the size”, “the communicated message”, “the periodicity” in lines 1-2, “the energy consumption” in line 21 and “the vehicle” inline 23 without proper antecedent basis in the claims. Claim 1 recites “its presence” in line 8. It is unclear to which element “it” is being referred. Claim 1 recites “at least one of the communication parameters from among the size of the communicated message or the periodicity of communication is replaced by at least one other communication parameter characterized by a second predetermined size and a second predetermined periodicity”. It is unclear how the size OR periodicity is replaced by both of a second size and periodicity. In other words, it is unclear the claim requires to replace only one or both parameters. For the purpose of Examination, Examiner interprets as only one of two parameters is required to replace. Claims 2-11 are rejected because they depend from the rejected claim 1. Claim 3 recites “it responds” in line 5. It is unclear to which element “it” is being referred. Claim 8 recites “A wheel unit … implements an adjustment method as claimed in claim 1”. However, Claim 1 includes limitations that are not performed by a wheel unit. It is not clear those limitations are required by claim 8 or not. For the purpose of Examination, Examiner interprets the claim requires all elements and steps from claim 1. Claim 9 recites “A communication device or a central monitoring and/or control device unit”. However, Claim 1 includes limitations that are not performed by a communication device or a central monitoring and/or control device unit. It is not clear those limitations are required by claim 9 or not. For the purpose of Examination, Examiner interprets the claim requires all elements and steps from claim 1. Claim 11 recites “storage on which code instructions for …” which appears to be an incomplete sentence. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 10 is drawn to a data structure, per se ; therefore, fail(s) to fall within a statutory category of invention as a program product is interpreted to be only a data structure which can be software only. A claim directed to a signal, a carrier wave, or a data structure, per se , is non-statutory because it is not: A process, or A machine, or A manufacture, or A composition of matter. Claim 11 is drawn to a non-transient computer-readable storage medium on which code instructions, where the non-transient computer-readable storage medium can be transitory, i.e., is not explicitly limited as disclosed as only being non-transitory computer readable media; therefore, fail(s) to fall within a statutory category of invention. Applicant should note that adding "non-transitory" to the claim to limit a claimed computer readable medium to being statutory would be acceptable. It is noted that a signal can be transient or not transient if referring to the decay characteristic, hence non-transient is NOT synonymous with non-transitory. A claim directed to a computer readable medium having stored thereon a computer program is non-statutory, where the computer readable medium can be a signal, a carrier wave, or a data structure, per se , which are non-statutory as noted, infra . A claim directed to a signal, a carrier wave, or a data structure, per se , is non-statutory because it is not: A process, or A machine, or A manufacture, or A composition of matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3, 4 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boisset et al. (WO 20200188058A1, see US 20220150709 as translation) in view of Lefaure (US 2004/0155762) . Regarding Claim 1, Boisset teaches a method for adjusting at least one of the communication parameters from among the size of the communicated message or the periodicity of communication between a wheel unit (Fig. 1, 3a-3d) and a remote monitoring and/or control device (Fig. 1, 2a), a communication between said monitoring device and the wheel unit being carried out according to a communication protocol allowing a two-way short-range exchange of data using ultra-high-frequency radio waves according to a two-way communication protocol ( Par 12, Communication between the monitoring device 2 , 2 a and the wheel unit 3 a to 3 d, whether it is a mobile telephone or technical equivalent in the possession of an authorized user or the central electronic unit 2 a for controlling the wheel units 3 a to 3 d that is integrated into the motor vehicle 105 , is carried out according to a communication protocol allowing a two-way short-range data exchange using ultra-high-frequency, or UHF, radio waves according to a communication protocol of Bluetooth® type or an equivalent protocol and Par 24 ), the wheel unit sending basic signaling messages indicating its presence to any ultra-high-frequency wave communication device located in an environment of the wheel unit ( Par 13, the wheel unit 3 a to 3 d periodically sends basic signaling messages indicating its presence to any ultra-high-frequency wave communication device 2 located in an environment of the wheel unit 3 a to 3 d. and Par 24 ), a communication device being capable of intercepting a basic signaling message and of sending a standard response message to the wheel unit ( Par 14, a communication device 2 is capable of intercepting a basic signaling message and of sending a standard response message to the wheel unit 3 a to 3 d, and par 24 ), wherein: in a mode referred to as "default", the communication between the wheel unit and the remote monitoring and/or control device is carried out according to a first predetermined size and a first predetermined periodicity ( Par [0086] The basic signaling messages 1 sent by the wheel unit 3 are simple, do not contain data, cannot be addressed, except in special cases, to a specific UHF communication device, and only serve to signal the presence of the wheel unit 3 to the device. And Par 96 and Par 34 ), upon reception of a standard response message from the remote monitoring and/or control device, the wheel unit switches to a communication mode referred to as "adjusted" in which at least one of the communication parameters from among the size of the communicated message or the periodicity of communication is replaced by at least one other communication parameter characterized by a second predetermined size and a second predetermined periodicity, resulting in an adaptation of the energy consumption of the wheel unit ( Par [0093] If the communication device having sent a standard response message belongs to the group, the wheel unit 3 replaces the first periodicity P 1 with at least one shorter second periodicity P 2 resulting in a more intense two-way exchange for any signaling message subsequently sent from the wheel unit 3 to the authorized device 2 . And Par 97 and Par 43 ), Boisset does not explicitly disclose the modes referred to as "default" and "adjusted" being predefined as a function of a running or non-running mode of the vehicle. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lefaure teaches a data transmission method for a tire-pressure monitoring system of a vehicle (abstract) and further teaches the modes referred to as "default" and "adjusted" being predefined as a function of a running or non-running mode of the vehicle ( Fig. 2 and Par [0033] It should be noted that the natural time lag .DELTA..sigma. also applies to the time interval of one minute (in running mode) and of one hour (in parking mode) between each data transmission . And Par 26 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lefaure in order to avoid collisions between transmitted data ( Lefaure: par 7). Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Boisset and Lefaure teaches the adjustment method as claimed in claim 1, wherein, when the vehicle is in a running mode and the wheel unit sends a packet of several frames constituting the basic signaling message, as soon as the communication device receives a frame from the packet of frames constituting the basic signaling message sent by the wheel unit , it responds with a standard response message and the wheel unit , upon reception of this standard response message , cancels the sending of the subsequent frames of the packet of frames constituting the basic signaling message (Boisset: Par 39, when the wheel unit receives response messages from a UHF communication device that it identifies as authorized, the wheel unit may advantageously switch to a more intense communication mode and Fig. 2, upon receipt of standard response message 1a, transmitting basic signaling message 1 stops and check signaling message 4 starts and Par 113 ). Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Boisset and Lefaure teaches the adjustment method as claimed in claim 1, wherein, when the vehicle is in a non-running mode: the first size of the communicated message during the "default" mode is smaller than the second size of the communicated message during the "adjusted" mode (claim 1 does not require both size and periodicity are replaced), and the first periodicity of communication during the "default" mode is longer than the second periodicity of communication during the "adjusted" mode (Boisset: Par [0093] If the communication device having sent a standard response message belongs to the group, the wheel unit 3 replaces the first periodicity P 1 with at least one shorter second periodicity P 2 resulting in a more intense two-way exchange ). Claims 8-11 are also rejected for the same reasons for claim 1 above. Boisset further teaches microprocessor in wheel unit ( Par 68, Par 166) and the computer program ( Par 11 ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boisset in view of Lefaure further in view of Kessler et al. (Kessler: US 20160001614A1) . Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Boisset and Lefaure teaches the adjustment method as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein, in a running mode, the "adjusted" mode is maintained as long as a variation in pressure measured in the tire of the wheel associated with the wheel unit is lower than a predetermined threshold. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kesseler teaches TPMS systems installed in motor vehicles comprising sensors which measure the pressures of the tires and transfer these pressures to a central unit using wireless links ( par 3 ) and further teaches wherein, in a running mode, the "adjusted" mode is maintained as long as a variation in pressure measured in the tire of the wheel associated with the wheel unit is lower than a predetermined threshold ( Par [0023] if the pressure variation is below said threshold, the messages are transmitted at a high bit rate; [0024] if the pressure variation is above said threshold, the wheel unit sets itself to “stationary” mode, to transmit messages at a low bit rate and See also Par 76-77 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kesseler in order to avoid disturbance in reception ( Kesseler: Par 14 ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boisset in view of Lefaure further in view of Tsujita et al. (Tsujita: US 20190036625 A1) . Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Boisset and Lefaure teaches the adjustment method as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein, in a running mode, the "adjusted" mode is maintained as long as a variation in temperature measured in the tire of the wheel associated with the wheel unit is lower than a predetermined threshold. However, in the same field of endeavor, Tsujita teaches tire condition monitoring system having transmitters (Fig. 1-2 and Par 23-24) and wherein, in a running mode, the "adjusted" mode is maintained as long as a variation in temperature measured in the tire of the wheel associated with the wheel unit is lower than a predetermined threshold ( Par 174, the transmitter control section 25 may be switched to the first state if changes in the pressure per unit time or changes in the temperature per unit time are greater than or equal to a threshold value. ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tsujita in order to detect the abrupt change (Tsujita: Par 174) . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2 and 5 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcome the 112 rejections and/or claim objections set forth above. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior arts cited for the record but not used in Office Action, are listed in attached PTO-892. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nay Tun whose telephone number is (571)270-7939. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs from 9:00-5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's Supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached on (571) 270-1210. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /Nay Tun/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688 Application/Control Number: 18/721,700 Page 2 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 18/721,700 Page 3 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 18/721,700 Page 4 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 18/721,700 Page 6 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 18/721,700 Page 7 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 18/721,700 Page 8 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 18/721,700 Page 10 Art Unit: 2688
Prosecution Insights