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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The terms tyre , analyse, characterized, and overmoulded the standard spelling in British English and Commonwealth Countries in claims 1, 3, 7-10, 13, 15 and the specification should be changed to American English tire, analyze, characterized, and overmolded.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the system with address of hardness 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and/or with certain percentages of hardness/rigidity and the claim also recites the broad recitation the choice of “or more specifically” raises the question of if the limitation is optional which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-10, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ichikawa (WO-2006001255-A1).
In regards to claim 1, Ichikawa teaches a tyre monitoring system (1) for a vehicle for detecting the end of life of the tyre (2), the system (1) comprising: (abstract; 10, 70, 80 fig(s) 1-4, ‘pneumatic tire’, ‘acceleration sensor/detection means’, ‘Electronic Control Unit/Engine Control Unit (ECU)’)
[Symbol font/0x2D] a first tyre wear indicator (4) integrated into the tyre (2) or placed thereon; (40 fig(s) 1-4, ‘wear indicator/slip sign/slip indicator’; para(s) [0015-0019, 0059])
[Symbol font/0x2D] a second tyre wear indicator (4) integrated into the tyre, or placed thereon, the first indicator (4) and the second indicator (4) being spatially separated along the circumference of the tyre, and the indicators (4) comprising at least one part which is harder than the tread (3) of the tyre (2); (40 fig(s) 1-4, ‘wear indicator/slip sign/slip indicator’; para(s) [0015-0019, 0059])
[Symbol font/0x2D] an accelerometer (7) integrated into the tyre (2), or placed thereon, and arranged to generate an accelerometer signal that is arranged to indicate a vibration of the tyre (2) when the indicators (4) come into contact with a road surface as a result of sufficient wear of the tyre (2); and (70, 70a, 70b, 70c, 70d fig(s) 1-4, ‘acceleration sensors/detection means’)
[Symbol font/0x2D] a detection algorithm arranged to analyse the accelerometer signal, thereby detecting tyre vibration indicating the end of the life of the tyre (2). (80, 81, 82, 83, 90 fig. 4, ‘Electronic Control Unit/Engine Control Unit (ECU) ‘, ‘control unit ‘, ‘wear determination unit/wear judgement unit’, ‘storage unit/memory unit’, ‘meter display unit’)
In regards to claim 2, Ichikawa teaches a system (1) according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the first indicator (4) and the second indicator (4) are not diametrically opposite. (40 fig(s) 1-4, ‘wear indicator/slip sign/slip indicators are arranged in the groove 30 at regular intervals para [0015])
In regards to claim 3, Ichikawa teaches a system (1) according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the angular separation of the first indicator (4) and the second indicator (4) on the circumference of the tyre (2) deviates from 180 degrees by at least 10 degrees, or by at least 20 degrees or 30 degrees. (40 fig(s) 1-4, ‘wear indicator/slip sign/slip indicators are arranged in the groove 30 at regular intervals para [0015])
In regards to claim 4, Ichikawa teaches a system (1) according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the detection algorithm is based on a frequency analysis, and/or comprises an artificial intelligence module, and/or comprises a filter. ( para [0029], ‘ acceleration sensors 70a, 70b, 70c, and 70d output signals containing the detected values to the ECU 80.’; fig. 3, ‘detection signal of the acceleration sensor’, ‘it can be said that the signal of the accelerometer is a substantially periodic signal when the vehicle is moving at a substantially steady rate’)
In regards to claim 5, Ichikawa teaches a system (1) according to claim 4, (see claim rejection 4) wherein the artificial intelligence network comprises an artificial neural network, and/or the filter is a Kalman filter. (para [0040], ‘The output signals from the CAR speed sensors 70a, 70b, 70c, and 70d to the ECU can be transmitted via wired connection or wirelessly using a wireless LAN, etc.’; ‘comprises a determination unit/wear judgement unit 82 where signals applying filters is often used to improve signal strength’)
In regards to claim 6, Ichikawa teaches a system (1) according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the accelerometer signal is a substantially periodic signal when the vehicle is moving at a substantially constant speed. . ( para [0029], ‘ acceleration sensors 70a, 70b, 70c, and 70d output signals containing the detected values to the ECU 80.’; fig. 3, ‘detection signal of the acceleration sensor’, ‘it can be said that the signal of the accelerometer is a substantially periodic signal when the vehicle is moving at a substantially steady rate’)
In regards to claim 7, Ichikawa teaches a system (1) according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the accelerometer signal has a set of features, such as a set of peaks, indicating the vibration of the tyre (2), and the detection algorithm is arranged to analyse the accelerometer signal in order to detect the set of features thus detecting the vibration of the tyre, and/or wherein the accelerometer (7) is integrated into the valve of the tyre (2). (fig(s) 3a, 3b; para(s) [0023-0027]); ‘Figure 3(b), G/ is the acceleration when the tire tread near slip sign 40 is in 07-07-2026 - Page 19 contact with the ground’)
In regards to claim 9, Ichikawa teaches a system (1) according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the first indicator (4) and/or the second indicator (4) forms/form an element within the material of the tyre (2), and which is not exposed on the tread (3) when the tyre (2) is in a new state, and wherein the element has different mechanical properties to the tread (3). (‘figs. 1-2 describe that "the first tire wear indicator and / or the second tire wear indicator form an element in the material of the tire, and the element is not exposed to the tread when the tire is in a new state, if the tire wear indicator is made harder than the tread of the tire, as a result, it can be said that the element has mechanical properties different from those of the tread.’)
In regards to claim 10, Ichikawa teaches a system (1) according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the first indicator (4) and the second indicator (4) are placed in a groove (6) of a tread (3) of the tyre (2). (10, 20, 30 40 fig(s) 1, 2(a-b), ‘pneumatic tire’, ‘protrusions’, ‘grooves’ ‘wear indicator/slip sign/slip indicator’)
In regards to claim 14, Ichikawa teaches a system (1) according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the accelerometer (7) comprises wireless communication means for transmitting the detection result to an autonomous control module. (para [0040], ‘The output signals from the CAR speed sensors 70a, 70b, 70c, and 70d to the ECU can be transmitted via wired connection or wirelessly using a wireless LAN, etc.’; ‘comprises a determination unit/wear judgement unit 82 where signals applying filters is often used to improve signal strength’; 80, 81, 82, 83, 90 fig. 4, ‘Electronic Control Unit/Engine Control Unit (ECU) ‘, ‘control unit ‘, ‘wear determination unit/wear judgement unit’, ‘storage unit/memory unit’, ‘meter display unit’)
In regards to claim 15, Ichikawa teaches a method for detecting the end of life of a tyre (2) of a vehicle using the tyre monitoring system (1) according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) which method comprises: (abstract; 10, 70, 80 fig(s) 1-4, ‘pneumatic tire’, ‘acceleration sensor/detection means’, ‘Electronic Control Unit/Engine Control Unit (ECU)’)
[Symbol font/0x2D] analysing, using the detection algorithm, the accelerometer signal and detecting the vibration of the tyre (2) indicating the end of life of the tyre (2); and (80, 81, 82, 83, 90 fig. 4, ‘Electronic Control Unit/Engine Control Unit (ECU) ‘, ‘control unit ‘, ‘wear determination unit/wear judgement unit’, ‘storage unit/memory unit’, ‘meter display unit’)
[Symbol font/0x2D] transmitting the result of the detection using wireless communication means to an autonomous control module. (para [0040], ‘The output signals from the CAR speed sensors 70a, 70b, 70c, and 70d to the ECU can be transmitted via wired connection or wirelessly using a wireless LAN, etc.’; 82 fig, 4, ‘, ‘wear determination unit/wear judgement unit’)
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.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa (WO-2006001255-A1), in view of, Ahmed (US-9862238-B2)
Ichikawa teaches:
In regards to claim 11, The system (1) according to claim 10, (see claim rejection 10)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Ichikawa to provide a system and method for determining tire wear of a vehicle.
Ichikawa does not teach:
wherein the first indicator (4) and/or the second indicator (4) comprises/comprise a coating forming a layer that is harder than the inner part of the respective indicator.
Ahmed teaches:
wherein the first indicator (4) and/or the second indicator (4) comprises/comprise a coating forming a layer that is harder than the inner part of the respective indicator. (100a, 100b, 100-103, 105 fig. 1A; 55 col. 5, ‘coated plastic’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Ahmed to provide a coating forming layer for a system and method for determining tire wear of a vehicle.
In regards to claim 12, Ichikawa & Ahmed teach a system (1) according to claim 11, (see claim rejection 11) wherein the coating contains a resinous substance. (Ahmed: 100a, 100b, 100-103, 105 fig. 1A; 55 col. 5, ‘coated plastic’)
In regards to claim 13, Ichikawa & Ahmed teach a system (1) according to claim 10, (see claim rejection 10) wherein the first indicator (4) and/or the second indicator (4) is/are one or more overmoulded elements. (Ahmed: 100a, 100b, 100-103, 105 fig. 1A; 55 col. 5, ‘coated plastic’)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited Lehmann (WO-2026093216-A1), Erdinc (US-20250196545-A1), and Takahashi (JP-2015101122-A) references further describe a system and method for determining tire wear of a vehicle as described by the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C BUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3973. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Stephanie E Bloss can be reached at (571)272-3555. 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.
/K.C.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights