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
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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adler et al [US 11498373 B2].
As for claim 1, Adler discloses a positioning system of tire pressure sensor applied in a vehicle, the vehicle comprising a plurality of wheels, each of the plurality of wheels provided with a tire pressure sensor (Figure 1), the positioning system comprising:
a plurality of positioning devices (12, 14, 16) arranged in the vehicle, each of the plurality of positioning devices configured to receive a plurality of Bluetooth signals from the plurality of tire pressure sensors (20a, 20b, 20c, 20d), and obtain a set of positioning data according to the plurality of Bluetooth signals (column 4, lines 33-51); and
a receiving device (22) configured to determine a matching relationship between the plurality of tire pressure sensors and the plurality of wheels according to preset positions of the plurality of positioning devices and the plurality of sets of positioning data, to locate the plurality of tire pressure sensors on the vehicle (column 4, line 46 – column 5, line 14).
As for claim 5, Adler discloses that the plurality of positioning devices is respectively arranged in structural areas of the vehicle adjacent to the plurality of wheels (column 4, lines 6-17).
Claims 6 and 11 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above.
Claims 10 and 15 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 5 above.
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 2, 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adler et al as applied to the claims above.
As for claim 2, Adler is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above. Adler does not specifically disclose RF modulators or identity documents. The skilled artisan would have recognized that Bluetooth receivers are fundamentally designed to demodulate high-frequency radio signals to recover original baseband information and that each Bluetooth component is configured with unique identity documents. Further, Adler teaches that the control unit could be standalone or that it could be incorporated into at least one of the positioning devices.
Claims 7 and 12 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 2 above.
Claims 4, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adler et al as applied to the claims above and further in view of Beaurepaire et al [US 20230158842 A1].
As for claim 4, Adler discloses that it was known in the art for vehicles with tire pressure monitoring systems to be equipped with a display unit. Adler does not specifically disclose that the receiving device is further configured to send the matching relationship between the plurality of tire pressure sensors and the plurality of wheels to a display unit of the vehicle. In an analogous art, Beaurepaire discloses that it was known in the art for a vehicle having a tire pressure monitoring system to receive TPMS data from individual tires of the vehicles and to present the data to a driver via a vehicle display unit (paragraph 0029). Having each of the references on hand, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Adler to include a display unit as taught by Beaurepaire. The modification would have been obvious because it would have allowed the user to observe the data received from the receiving device regarding the matching relationship between the plurality of tire pressure sensors and the plurality of wheels.
Claims 9 and 14 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 4 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 8 and 13 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of the cited references discloses tire pressure monitoring systems using Bluetooth technology that were known in the art at the time of filing the instant application .
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