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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20170256105 (herein Lopes).
Regarding claim 1, Lopes teaches A wheel detachment monitoring and detection device, which is to be installed on a vehicle wheel using a fastening member that passes through a fastening hole formed on the vehicle wheel (detect the loosening of nuts within screw fixings, such as particularly in wheel nuts or axle nuts of vehicles, [0006], Fig. 1), the wheel detachment monitoring and detection device comprising:
a washer, defining a through hole and having an engaging portion, in which the through hole is for the fastening member to pass through and fix the washer, and the fastening member is sized to at least cover a part of the engaging portion (washer 440, hole 414, [0038], Fig. 8);
a housing, comprising an upper housing piece and a lower housing piece, in which the upper housing piece has an upper extension portion and the lower housing piece has a lower extension portion, so that the upper extension portion and the lower extension portion are combined together to be engaged with the engaging portion ([0038] teaches plate 427 and unit 428 combine to make corresponding housing, as shown in Fig. 8; pcb portion 429 corresponds to engaged to recess 421 of washer 440);
a detachment detection module, having a pressure sensing portion located between the upper extension portion and the lower extension portion, in which the pressure sensing portion is pressed by the fastening member to press against a surface of the vehicle wheel and detects a pressing force acting thereon (body 413 of the washer 410 is subjected to the pressure and torsion forces which are applied when the nut of the screw connection is tightened and which can be detected with the sensor element 411 within the recess 421, [0038]), so that when the pressure sensing portion detects disappearance of the pressing force, the detachment detection module sends out a warning signal (central reception unit 690 is provided in order to detect the individual sensor signals and to forward them to an on-board electronic system (not shown) where it is possible to establish via the individual sensor signals whether the tightening torque of the individual wheel nuts and/or axle nuts is moving within the tolerance range for a secure arrangement or outside this tolerance range, [0040]); and
a power source, being coupled to and powering the detachment detection module (transmission unit may be arranged within the recess together with the sensor element a battery for electrical supply, [0014]).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopes as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Lopes teaches, in another embodiment, “wherein the upper extension portion has a surface provided with a plurality of bumps.” Wrench faces that create bumps on wall 333’ ([0037], Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the lug bumps into the embodiment shown in Fig. 8. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of using a wrench on the part. Furthermore, based on MPEP 2144.04 IV B, changes of shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed was significant. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Note that according to § MPEP 2144, “Office personnel may invoke legal precedent as a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately supported.”
Claim(s) 4-10, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopes as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20130088346 (herein Broadfield).
Regarding claim 4, Lopes does not teach, “herein the detachment detection module further has an alarm unit, in which the alarm unit is coupled to the pressure sensing portion, so that when the pressure sensing portion detects disappearance of the pressing force, the alarm unit sends out the warning signal..” However, Broadfield teaches it is known in the art to trigger an alarm signal using a detector 31 having a pressure switch ([0062]) to indicate when a device is detached from a wheel (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the alarm of Broadfield into the loosening detection of Lopes. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of warn a vehicle driver of a loose part to avoid dangerous situations (Lopes, [0005]).
Regarding claim 5, Lopes does not teach, “wherein the lower housing piece further defines a detection hole located in the lower extension portion, and the pressure sensing portion further comprises a detection pole that is installed in the detection hole and configured to stretch out of the detection hole to contact the surface of the vehicle wheel, in which depending on that the fastening member is relatively near or remote from the vehicle wheel, the detection pole is in a tightness position or a looseness position, and when the detection pole is in the looseness position, the pressure sensing portion sends out a looseness signal to the alarm unit so that the alarm unit sends out the warning signal in response..” However, Broadfield teaches a corresponding detection hole and detection pole (case 27 that extends out of plate 34 of detector device 25 shown in Fig. 7a-7b) with corresponding alarm (S5, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Lopes does not teach, “wherein the lower housing piece further defines a detection hole located in the lower extension portion, and the pressure sensing portion further comprises a detection pole that is installed in the detection hole and configured to stretch out of the detection hole to contact the surface of the vehicle wheel, in which depending on that the fastening member is relatively near or remote from the vehicle wheel, the detection pole is in a tightness position or a looseness position, and when the detection pole is in the tightness position, the pressure sensing portion keeps sending a tightness signal to the alarm unit, and when the detection pole is in the looseness position, the pressure sensing portion stops sending the tightness signal to the alarm unit, so that the alarm unit sends out the warning signal correspondingly.” However, Broadfield teaches a corresponding detection hole and detection pole (case 27 that extends out of plate 34 of detector device 25 shown in Fig. 7a-7b) with corresponding alarm (S5, Fig. 6) in the event of rim detected away from wheel.
Regarding claim 7, Lopes does not teach, “wherein after the pressure sensing portion stops sending the tightness signal for a waiting period, the alarm unit sends out the warning signal correspondingly.” However, Broadfield teaches S4 detects from coming away from wheel, with a duration between S4 and S6 corresponding to waiting period.
Regarding claim 8, Lopes does not teach, “wherein the detachment detection module is programmed with a signal-sending interval so that the pressure sensing portion sends out the tightness signal regularly according to the signal-sending interval.” However, Broadfield inherently teaches intervals during repeated and continuous detection of Step S4, [0054], Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 9, Lopes teaches a circuit board, which is installed in the housing (printed-circuit board portion 429, [0038]), along with equivalent processor (on-board electronic unit for evaluation, [0034]). But the electronic unit for evaluation is not installed in the same housing, so Lopes does not teach, “a circuit board, which is installed in the housing and has a processor, wherein the processor is coupled to the detachment detection module and serves to receive and transmit the warning signal.” However, Broadfield teaches it is a processor in the PCB 7 responsible for detecting loosening, and transmission circuitry 8 for sending an alarm signal ([0045]). Both teach equivalent processors but at different locations. Such may be a mere rearrangement of parts which is an obvious design choice and, according to MPEP § 2144.04 VI. C, it may be held unpatentable because the rearrangement would not affect the operation of the device. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Note that according to MPEP § 2144, “Office personnel may invoke legal precedent as a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately supported.”
Regarding claim 10, Lopes teaches a wireless interface which inherently includes an antenna, but it does not teach, “a signal transmission antenna, which is installed on the circuit board and coupled to the processor, wherein the signal transmission antenna serves to transmit the warning signal.” However, Broadfield teaches RF or wireless transmission may be included in transmission circuitry 8 which inherently includes antenna ([0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the wireless transmission integrated in the detector as taught by Broadfield into the device of Lopes. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of providing an alternative arrangement for transmission of signal to drivers.
Regarding claim 12, Lopes teaches “wherein the signal transmission antenna is coupled to an automotive human-machine interface, in which the automotive human-machine interface receives the warning signal and sends out a detachment message to a user accordingly“ (an on-board electronic unit, via which information from sensor elements can be displayed for the vehicle driver, [0002]; sensor element is connected to a wireless interface which is configured to transmit a sensor signal of the sensor element wirelessly to an external reception unit, [0008]).
Regarding claim 13, Lopes does not teach, “a position module, which is installed in the housing and coupled to the processor, wherein the position module records a position information about the wheel detachment monitoring and detection device and the vehicle wheel on which the wheel detachment monitoring and detection device is installed.” However, Broadfield teaches memory arranged to store an identifier for the device, wherein the alarm signal includes the identifier. In this way, each device can be given an identifier associated with a particular wheel ([0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the memory and identifier of Broadfield into the device of Lopes. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of informing the driver which wheel is at risk of detaching ([0018]).
For claims 4-10 and 12-13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the alarm of Broadfield into the loosening detection of Lopes. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of warn a vehicle driver of a loose part to avoid dangerous situations (Lopes, [0005]).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopes and Broadfield as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of JP2015201120A (herein Sharp).
Regarding claim 14, Lopes and Broadfield do not teach, “a state control module, which is installed in the housing and coupled to the processor, wherein the state control module serves to control the wheel detachment monitoring and detection device to be in an off state, a detection state, or a sleep state.” However, Sharp teaches it is known in the art to use control unit 21 to control power supply states of a device 1 ([0055]) having a speed mode, power supply state, and non-power supply state ([0061]).
Regarding claim 15, Lopes and Broadfield do not teach, “a trigger control module, which is installed on the upper housing piece and coupled to the processor and the state control module, wherein the trigger control module when operated by a user outputs a trigger signal to the processor to trigger the state control module to control the wheel detachment monitoring and detection device to be in the off state, the detection state, or the sleep state.” However, Sharp teaches it is known in the art to use a power switch 142 to switch between states ([0057]). Sharp does not teach the power switch 142 installed on an upper housing piece. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the power switch of Sharp into the corresponding housing piece of Lopes. This is a mere rearrangement of parts and an obvious design choice and, according to MPEP § 2144.04 VI. C, may be held unpatentable because the rearrangement would not affect the operation of the device. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Note that according to MPEP § 2144, “Office personnel may invoke legal precedent as a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately supported.”
For claims 14-15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the control means of Sharp into the loosening detection device of Lopes. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of reducing power consumption, and improving speed of activation ([0006]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C . 103 as being unpatentable over Lopes, Broadfield, and Sharp as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of JP 2020013598A (herein Matsui).
Regarding claim 16, Lopes, Broadfield, and Sharp do not teach, “a light emission module, which is installed on the upper housing piece and coupled to the processor and the state control module, wherein the light emission module emits light in different patterns depending on that the wheel detachment monitoring and detection device is in the off state, the detection state, or the sleep state.” However, Matsui teaches it is known in the art to include an indicator light that indicate power states ([0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the an indicator light into the combination of Lopes, Broadfield, and Sharp to indicate modes of operation. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of another means of informing the user of device status. Matsui does not teach the indicator 24 is installed on an upper housing piece. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the indicator 24 of Matsui into the corresponding housing piece of Lopes. This is a mere rearrangement of parts and an obvious design choice and, according to MPEP § 2144.04 VI. C, may be held unpatentable because the rearrangement would not affect the operation of the device. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Note that according to MPEP § 2144, “Office personnel may invoke legal precedent as a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately supported.”
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopes and Broadfield as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of JP 2016188769A (herein Kusumi).
Regarding claim 18, Lopes and Broadfield do not teach, “a temperature sensing module, which is installed in the housing and coupled to the processor, wherein the temperature sensing module serves to measure a temperature of the vehicle wheel, and when the temperature of the vehicle wheel is higher than a predetermined temperature threshold, the temperature sensing module outputs a temperature warning signal to the processor.” However, Kusumi teaches it is known in the art to provide temperature sensor 14 that detects abnormal heat generation of the wheel 2, and subsequent displaying of detection result by determination unit 5 equivalent to the present invention ([0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the temperature sensor of Kusumi into the control means provided by the combination of Lopes and Broadfield. One would have been motivated to do so for at least the purpose of determining additional abnormalities in the fastening state of wheels ([0039]).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopes as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP2015186951A (herein Takura).
Regarding claim 19, Lopes does not teach, “a pointing member, which is installed on the upper housing piece, wherein when the fastening member is fastened, the pointing member is aligned with a mark formed on the vehicle wheel.” However, Takura teaches equivalent plate-like indicators 62 ([0038], Figs. 13-15) align in a predetermined direction of circle c1 of wheel ([0003]).
Regarding claim 20, Lopes does not teach, “wherein the fastening member is two or more in number, and the wheel detachment monitoring and detection device is also two or more in number, in which when the fastening members are all fastened, the pointing members of two adjacent said wheel detachment monitoring and detection devices are aligned with each other.” However, Takura teaches plural fixing portions 61 each with indicators 62 that are aligned as presented in Figs. 13-15 with each other ([0038], Figs. 13-15).
For claims 19-20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the indicator 62 into the loosening detection of Lopes. One would have been motivated to do so for at least the purpose of providing a simple visual indication of looseness of a wheel ([0001]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 11, and 17 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.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art does not teach, “wherein the upper extension portion has a changing width that is relatively large near a center of the washer and is relatively small remote from the center of the washer, and the lower extension portion also has a changing width that is relatively large near the center of the washer and is relatively small remote from the center of the washer.”
Regarding claim 11, the prior art does not teach, “wherein the signal transmission antenna is raised from a top surface of the circuit board for an installation height that is of between 0.2 cm and 2 cm.”
Regarding claim 17, the prior art does not teach, “a tire detection module, which is installed in the housing and coupled to the processor and the state control module, wherein the tire detection module serves to detect rotation of the vehicle wheel and output a tire rotation signal or a tire stop signal accordingly, in which when the tire detection module outputs the tire rotation signal, the state control module receives the tire rotation signal and controls the wheel detachment monitoring and detection device to be in the detection state, and when the tire detection module outputs the tire stop signal, the state control module receives the tire stop signal and controls the wheel detachment monitoring and detection device to be in the sleep state.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP FADUL whose telephone number is (571)272-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8pm-6pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/PHILIP T FADUL/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights