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 .
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.
Claims status
In the amendment filed on April 23, 2026, claim 12 has been canceled and claims 2-11, 13-16 and 18-21 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-11 and 13-21 are currently pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites "claim 8, ," which appears to be a typographical error.
Claim 21 recites "The computer program product according to claim 20" which appears to be a typographical error of “The apparatus of claim 20” because claim 20 is an apparatus claim. 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.
Claims 13-16 and 21 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.
Claims 13-16 and 21 recite “The computer program” or “The computer program product” without proper antecedent basis in the claims.
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 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.
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.
Claim 1-11 and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svedberg et al. (Svedberg: US 20100182142) in view of Hsia (US 2013/0282233).
Regarding Claim 1, Svedberg teaches a method for determining the severity of a deflation of at least one tire, the method comprising:
receiving wheel speed signals from at least one wheel speed sensor (Par 19, the obtained data may include measuring data directly obtained from vehicle's sensors, such as rotational speed sensors (as existent in the vehicle's ABS) which indicate the angular velocity of the rotating wheels. And see also Par 23);
determining a first indicator value based on the received wheel speed signals, wherein the first indicator value is indicative of at least one tire-related quantity (Par 25, outputs a tire pressure signal based on data from WRA unit 5);
determining whether the first indicator value satisfies a first condition (Fig. 2, P<(Pcal-ΔP0) and Par 27);
outputting, in response to determining that the first indicator value satisfies the first condition, a preliminary deflation alarm (Par 32, different alarm types (e.g. "yellow", …) may be issued by the warning unit 10 for the first threshold value .DELTA.P.sub.0 is exceeded after the minimum time period .);
determining a second condition in response to determining that the first indicator value satisfies the first condition (Par 32, during the minimum time period .DELTA.T.sub.min, the pressure signal P decreases with a rate greater than a predetermined rate);
determining a second indicator value based on the received wheel speed signals, wherein the second indicator value is indicative of at least one tire-related quantity (Par 25, outputs a tire pressure signal based on data from WRA unit 5 and Par 32, Pressure signal P is monitored);
determining whether the second indicator value satisfies the determined second condition (Par 32, during the minimum time period .DELTA.T.sub.min, the pressure signal P decreases with a rate greater than a predetermined rate .DELTA.P.sub.0/.DELTA.t.sub.0.); and outputting, in response to determining that the second indicator value satisfies the second condition, a severe deflation alarm (Fig. 5 and Par 32, different alarm types (e.g. ""red",) may be issued by the warning unit 10 for the three cases, namely that … the predetermined rate .DELTA.P.sub.0/.DELTA.t.sub.0 is exceeded within the minimum time period .DELTA.T.sub.min.).
Svedberg does not explicitly disclose recording, in response to determining that the first indicator value satisfies the first condition, the first indicator value; or determining a second condition from at least the recorded first indicator value.
Svedberg further teaches determining a second condition i.e. pressure decreasing rate greater than the predetermined rate in response to first condition (Par 32, during the minimum time period .DELTA.T.sub.min, the pressure signal P decreases with a rate greater than a predetermined rate).
However, the preceding limitations are known in the art of tire pressure monitoring. Hsia teaches a system and method for monitoring tire pressure having calculating module, which is in turn configured to calculate a rate of change of the tire pressure (abstract) and further teaches recording the tire pressure value i.e. the first indicator value; and determining a second condition from at least the recorded first indicator value (Par 20-21, a rate of pressure change or variation is calculated by having at least two or more values of the tire pressure sensed and stored in the memory device 110. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to record the tire pressure value and determine the rate of change of pressure in order to enable the user to initiate appropriate measure before a total tire deflation (Hsia: Par 31).
Claims 11 and 17 are also rejected for the same reasons for claim 1 above. Svedberg further teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and the apparatus to perform the operations (Par 16, the system may be software-implemented or hardware-implemented and Par 17-18, software routine, CPU).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Svedberg and Hsia teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein said wheel speed signals are received continuously or repeatedly from a wheel speed sensor (Svedberg: Par 19, the obtained data may include measuring data directly obtained from vehicle's sensors, such as rotational speed sensors (as existent in the vehicle's ABS) which indicate the angular velocity of the rotating wheels. And see Fig. 2-5, the tire pressure signals are continuous over time).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Svedberg and Hsia teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein said indicator values indicative of at least one tire-related quantity are determined continuously or repeatedly based on said continuously or repeatedly received wheel speed signals (Svedberg: Fig. 2-5, the tire pressure signals are measured continuously over time).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Svedberg and Hsia teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein determining whether the first indicator value satisfies the first condition comprises comparing the first indicator value to at least one first threshold value (Svedberg: Fig. 2, P<(Pcal-ΔP0) and Par 27).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Svedberg and Hsia teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein determining whether the first indicator value satisfies the first condition comprises successively comparing the first indicator value to multiple first threshold values (Svedberg: Fig. 2, P<(Pcal-ΔP0) and Par 27 and Fig. 4, P<(Pcal-ΔP1) and Par 32).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Svedberg and Hsia teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein determining whether the second indicator value satisfies the second condition comprises comparing the second indicator value to at least one second threshold value (Svedberg: Par 32, pressure signal P decreases with a rate greater than a predetermined rate ΔP0/ Δt0 ).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Svedberg and Hsia teaches the method according to claim 6, but does not explicitly disclose wherein determining whether the second indicator value satisfies the second condition comprises comparing the second indicator value to multiple second threshold values (Svedberg: Par 32, pressure signal P decreases with a rate greater than a predetermined rate ΔP0/ Δt0 and Par 33, threshold values are dependent on vehicle’s velocity … the system may use calibration values P.sub.cal that have been learned during a preceding calibration phase for different wheel speed intervals).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Svedberg and Hsia teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising determining whether a change in the rate of change of the determined indicator values over time satisfies a third condition (Svedberg: Par 32, pressure signal P decreases with a rate greater than a predetermined rate ΔP0/ Δt0 and Par 33, threshold values are dependent on vehicle’s velocity … the system may use calibration values P.sub.cal that have been learned during a preceding calibration phase for different wheel speed intervals.).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Svedberg and Hsia teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein determining whether the change in the rate of change of the determined indicator values over time satisfies a third condition comprises comparing the change in the rate of change of the determined indicator values over time to a sequence of third threshold values (Svedberg: Par 32, pressure signal P decreases with a rate greater than a predetermined rate ΔP0/ Δt0 and Par 33, threshold values are dependent on vehicle’s velocity … the system may use calibration values P.sub.cal that have been learned during a preceding calibration phase for different wheel speed intervals).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Svedberg and Hsia teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein, in response to determining that the change in the rate of the determined indicator values over time satisfies a third condition, issuing an alarm (Svedberg: Fig. 5 and Par 32, different alarm types (e.g. ""red",) may be issued by the warning unit 10 for the three cases, namely that … the predetermined rate ΔP0/ Δt0 is exceeded within the minimum time period Δtmin).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Svedberg and Hsia teaches the computer program product according to claim 11, wherein said wheel speed signals are received continuously or repeatedly from a wheel speed sensor (Svedberg: Par 19, the obtained data may include measuring data directly obtained from vehicle's sensors, such as rotational speed sensors (as existent in the vehicle's ABS) which indicate the angular velocity of the rotating wheels. And see Fig. 2-5, the tire pressure signals are continuous over time).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Svedberg and Hsia teaches the computer program according to claim 13, wherein said indicator values indicative of at least one tire-related quantity are determined continuously or repeatedly based on said continuously or repeatedly received wheel speed signals (Svedberg: Fig. 2-5, the tire pressure signals are measured continuously over time).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Svedberg and Hsia teaches the computer program according to claim 11, wherein determining whether the first indicator value satisfies the first condition comprises comparing the first indicator value to at least one first threshold value (Svedberg: Fig. 2, P<(Pcal-ΔP0) and Par 27).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Svedberg and Hsia teaches the computer program product according to claim 15, wherein determining whether the first indicator value satisfies the first condition comprises successively comparing the first indicator value to multiple first threshold values (Svedberg: Fig. 2, P<(Pcal-ΔP0) and Par 27 and Fig. 4, P<(Pcal-ΔP1) and Par 32).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Svedberg and Hsia teaches the apparatus claim 17, wherein said wheel speed signals are received continuously or repeatedly from a wheel speed sensor (Svedberg: Par 19, the obtained data may include measuring data directly obtained from vehicle's sensors, such as rotational speed sensors (as existent in the vehicle's ABS) which indicate the angular velocity of the rotating wheels. And see Fig. 2-5, the tire pressure signals are continuous over time).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Svedberg and Hsia teaches the apparatus of claim 18, wherein said indicator values indicative of at least one tire-related quantity are determined continuously or repeatedly based on said continuously or repeatedly received wheel speed signals (Svedberg: Fig. 2-5, the tire pressure signals are measured continuously over time).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Svedberg and Hsia teaches the apparatus of claim 17, wherein determining whether the first indicator value satisfies the first condition comprises comparing the first indicator value to at least one first threshold value (Svedberg: Fig. 2, P<(Pcal-ΔP0) and Par 27).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Svedberg and Hsia teaches the computer program product according to claim 20, wherein determining whether the first indicator value satisfies the first condition comprises successively comparing the first indicator value to multiple first threshold values (Svedberg: Fig. 2, P<(Pcal-ΔP0) and Par 27 and Fig. 4, P<(Pcal-ΔP1) and Par 32).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on April 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 10-13 of the Applicant’s Response, applicants argue that “the cited combination fails to teach or suggest at least the following two features: - recording, in response to determining that the first indicator value satisfies the first condition, the first indicator value"; and - determining a second condition from at least the recorded first indicator value ...Claim 1 requires two steps of checking conditions, namely one step of determining whether a first condition is satisfied and another step of determining whether a second condition is satisfied. Moreover, the claim requires that the second condition is determined from the indicator value that has been recorded upon satisfying the first condition …”.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Svedberg clearly teaches determining pressure decreasing rate greater than the predetermined rate i.e. a second condition (Par 32, during the minimum time period .DELTA.T.sub.min, the pressure signal P decreases with a rate greater than a predetermined rate) which is determined during the minimum time period .DELTA.T.sub.min, in response to satisfying first condition. It is clear that pressure decreasing rate is a function of the pressure signal P. Even though Svedberg does not explicitly disclose storing pressure signal P, calculating the rate of change over time necessitates to store the pressure values over time. Examiner relies on the secondary reference Hsia teaching a memory for storing of pressure values for calculating rate of change pressure (Par 20-21). And the motivating for storing pressure values over time for calculating rate of pressure change is in order to enable the user to initiate appropriate measure before a total tire deflation (Hsia: Par 31). Therefore, the combination of Svedberg and Hisa teaches calculating the rate of change of pressure from the stored pressure values i.e. determining the second condition from at least the recorded first indicator value. Because the calculation of rate of change of pressure with storing pressure values are performed during .DELTA.T.sub.min, these steps are in response to satisfying the first condition of P<(Pcal-ΔP0).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights