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
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are pending for examination. Claims 1 and 18 are currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered. Examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments to the claimed based upon the indication of allowable subject matter in the final rejection mailed December 17, 2025. However, upon further search and consideration, a new grounds of rejection is presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9-10, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al [US 20130321139 A1] in view of Szemes et al [US 20210219113 A1] in further view of Lammers [US 9851227 B2] in further view of Kanatani et al [US 20050172707 A1].
As for claim 1, Li discloses a system for vehicle wheel position localization (paragraph 0001), comprising:
at least one tire and/or wheel sensor respectively associated with each of a plurality of tires mounted on a vehicle, wherein the vehicle comprises at least one axle having a single tire on each of a first side and a second side and at least one other axle having a at least one tire on each of the first side and the second side (Figure 1);
for each of the axles (front and rear), a first directional antenna (12a, 12b) arranged to capture wireless output signals from the respective at least one tire associated with the axle on the first side and a second directional antenna (12b) arranged to capture wireless output signals from the respective at least one tire associated with the axle on the second side (paragraphs 0033-0034);
a data processing unit (22) configured to receive the output signals from each of the tire and/or wheel sensors via at least the respective directional antennas, and further configured to automatically identify a respective wheel location on the vehicle for each of the tires based on a mapped relative location for each of the directional antennas and further based on a detected relative output signal strength for at least the tire and/or wheel sensors associated with the plurality of axles having a plurality of tires on each of the first side and the second side (Figures 1-2 and paragraphs 0043-0045).
Li does not specifically disclose the claimed at least one axle having a plurality of tires on each of the first and second side or a pair of directional antennas mounted on the vehicle in association with each axle thereof. In an analogous art, Szemes discloses that it was known in the art for vehicles to include at least one axle having a plurality of tires one each on the first and second side (Figure 1). Having each of the references on hand, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Li to include the tire arrangement of Szemes. The skilled artisan would have recognized that the invention would be useful in various types of vehicles with different tire mounting arrangements. The skilled artisan would have expected reasonable success for determining the positions of each tire included in Li modified by Szemes using directional antennas and signal strength measurements.
Lammers discloses at least a pair of directional antennas mounted on the vehicle in association with each axle thereof, wherein for each of the axles, a first directional antenna of the respective pair of directional antennas is arranged to capture wireless output signals from the respective at least one tire associated with the axle on the first side and a second directional antenna of the respective pair of directional antennas is arranged to capture wireless output signals from the respective at least one tire associated with the axle on the second side (column 1, line 43 – column 2, line 17 and column 4, lines 45-67). Having each of the references on hand, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Li and Szemes to include the pairs of directional antennas at each axle of the plurality of axles in order to determine the position of mounted vehicle tires. The skilled artisan would have had good reason to pursue the known options for determining the position of tires that were within his/her technical grasps at the time of filing the instant application.
Neither, Li, Szemes, nor Lammers specifically discloses a switching device to enable selection between the directional antennas. In an analogous art, Kanatani discloses a wheel position localization system comprising a switching device configured to enable selection between each of the directional antennas associated with the vehicle for implementation of the respective output signals there through (paragraphs 0046-0050). Having each of the references on hand, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Li as modified by Szemes and Lammers to include the switching device of Kanatani. The skilled artisan would have had good reason to pursue the known options for communicating with the directional antennas that were within his/her technical grasps at the time of filing the instant application.
As for claims 2 and 3, the claim is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above.
As for claim 4¸ neither Li nor Szemes nor Lammers specifically discloses the use of RFID tags. Examiner takes official notice that it was known in the art for vehicles to use RFID tags along with vehicle wheels for communicating wheel sensor data. Having these teachings on hand, it would have been obvious to try known RFID tags in the invention of Li, Szemes and Lammers in order to yield predictable results. The modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known component for another.
Claims 9-10 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above.
Claim 15-17 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above. Examiner takes official notice that local, mobile, and remote processing were all well-known and commonly used techniques at the time of filing the instant application. As such, it would have been obvious to try these known techniques in the invention of Li and Szemes. The selection of a particular method/technique of processing is viewed as a matter of engineering preference that would be left to the artisan.
Claim 18 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claims 1-2 above.
Claims 5-7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al [US 20130321139 A1] in view of Szemes et al [US 20210219113 A1] and Lammers as applied to the claims above and in further view of Kanatani et al [US 20050172707 A1].
As for claim 5, neither Li nor Szemes nor Lammers discloses the data processing unit is configured to associate at least one of the one or more measured tire characteristics in data storage with each of the respectively identified tire and/or wheel sensor and the wheel location on the vehicle. In an analogous art, Kanatani discloses that the data processing unit is configured to associate at least one of the one or more measured tire characteristics in data storage with each of the respectively identified tire and/or wheel sensor and the wheel location on the vehicle (Figure 2; paragraphs 0147-0148). Having each of the references on hand, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Li, Szemes, and Lammers to include association taught by Kanatani in order to yield the predictable results of a systems wherein tire information data is properly associated with a particular tire and sensor.
As for claim 6, Kanatani discloses that the data processing unit is configured to detect a change in position for an identified tire and/or wheel sensor and corresponding tire from a first wheel location to a second wheel location on the vehicle, and to aggregate at least one of the one or more measured tire characteristics in data storage as received from the identified tire and/or wheel sensor at each of the first wheel location and the second wheel location (paragraphs 0134-0135 and Figures 1-2). Having each of the references on hand, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Li and Szemes to include association taught by Kanatani in order to yield the predictable results of a systems wherein tire information data is properly associated with a particular tire and sensor.
As for claim 7, Kanatani discloses a wireless signal receiver configured with a plurality of channels each corresponding to one of the directional antennas associated with the vehicle for simultaneous implementation of the respective output signals there through (paragraph 0132). Having each of the references on hand, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Li and Szemes to include association taught by Kanatani in order to yield the predictable results of a systems wherein tire information data is properly associated with a particular tire and sensor.
Claim 19 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claims 6-7 above.
Claims 11-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al [US 20130321139 A1] in view of Szemes et al [US 20210219113 A1] and Lammers and Kanatani, as applied to the claims above and in further view of Boss et al [US 20130289823 A1].
As for claim 11, neither Li nor Szemes, Lammers, nor Kanatani specifically discloses estimating tire wear conditions. In an analogous art for tire pressure monitoring, Boss discloses that a data processing unit is further configured to: accumulate in data storage historical information regarding tire wear for each tire; and estimate a current tire wear status for each tire, based at least on the respectively identified wheel position and the stored historical information regarding tire wear (paragraphs 0015, 0016, and 0026). Having each of the references on hand, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Li, Szemes, Lammers and Kanatani to include tire wear monitoring and storage taught by Boss in order to yield the predictable results of a system wherein the positions of tires could be determined along with various characteristics of said tire such as, the pressure, temperature, wear condition, etc. These modifications would have been obvious and advantageous because they would have allowed the operator to quickly and easily determine the status of vehicle tires.
Claims 12-14 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 11 above. See Boss, paragraphs 0014-0018 and 0025-0026.
Claim 20 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claims 11-14 and 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M BLOUNT whose telephone number is (571)272-2973. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a - 5:30p.
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, Quan Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
ERIC M. BLOUNT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
/Eric Blount/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685