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 (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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites “…a sudden difference between the first and second values…”. The term “sudden” is a subjective term that is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide an objective standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of the term, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge and consistent with the instant specification (Paragraph 0011, “A sudden change, i.e. when deviating from a previous calculation, i.e. from a calculation of the first value, an air gas leakage may be detected”), the limitation is being interpreted as deviation of the second from the first value.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Claim 11 is directed to “a computer program product comprising program code” which is considered by the office as software (software per se).
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 (which recites substantially similar subject matter as independent claim 10) recites:
A computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to:
receive sensor data of a first gas pressure level and a first gas temperature level of a gas in a vehicle tire at a first point in time;
calculate a first value indicative of a gas amount contained in the tire at the first point in time, the first value being calculated in response to the first gas pressure level and the first gas temperature level;
receive sensor data of a second gas pressure level and a second gas temperature level of the gas in the vehicle tire at a second point in time, the second point in time being subsequent to the first point in time;
calculate a second value indicative of a gas amount contained in the tire at the second point in time, the second value being calculated in response to the second gas pressure level and the second gas temperature level;
determine that a gas leakage is present in the vehicle tire in response to a difference between the first and second values being above a predetermined threshold limit; and
transmit data to perform a responsive action in the form of transmitting an alarm message to a display arranged inside a vehicle provided with the vehicle tire in response to the determined gas leakage, wherein the alarm message causes the display to indicate a maintenance event to the operator of the vehicle in response to the difference between the first and second values being within a first predetermined range above the predetermined threshold limit, and wherein the alarm message causes the display to indicate a vehicle stop event to the operator of the vehicle in response to the difference between the first and second values being above the first predetermined range above the predetermined threshold limit.
Step 1: Independent claims 1 and 10 are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The recited limitations (represented by bolded font) constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting
“processing circuitry”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the process from being practically performed in the mind. For example, the bolded limitations in the context of claims 1 and 10 under broadest reasonable interpretation may encompass a passenger determining whether a tire leak has occurred by calculating the change in a tire’s pressure to temperature ratio over time. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The independent claims recite additional elements (represented by underlined font) that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “processing circuitry”, the examiner submits that this element is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a general processor performing a generic computer function) such that the element is considered a mere generic computer component which allow the abstract idea to be applied (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)).
Regarding the additional limitation of “receive sensor data…” and “transmit data…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. The steps are directed to data gathering and post-solution displaying, which have previously been indicated by the office as forms of insignificant extra-solution activities (MPEP § 2106.05).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) do not add anything that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “processing circuitry” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the component is anything other than generic computing devices.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receive sensor data…” and “transmit data…”, these are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because receiving and transmitting data over a network are recognized elements considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Therefore, independent claims 1 and 10 are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 2-9 and 11-12, the claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the corresponding independent claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well‐understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
Claims 2 and 5 further describe the timing for receiving sensor data and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 3 further describes the value indicating a gas amount and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 4 and 6 further describe how tire leaks are determined, which is directed to the previously discussed mental process (“determine that a gas leakage is present…” from independent claims 1 and 10).
Claims 7 further describes the vehicle implementing the computer system of claim 1 and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 8-9 describe sensors for obtaining data and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 11-12 further describe the computer-implemented of claim 10 and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-9 and 11-12 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 10.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saint-Loup et al. (US20160229235A1; hereinafter Saint-Loup) in view of Singh et al. (US20220063357A1; hereinafter Singh).
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, which recite substantially similar subject matter, Saint-Loup discloses a computer system comprising processing circuitry (Figure 2, Monitoring system S1 is shown to include computer board “CI”) configured to:
receive sensor data of a first gas pressure level and a first gas temperature level of a gas in a vehicle tire at a first point in time (Paragraphs 0061-0062 describe receiving a first gas pressure level (“P(k0) is the pressure measured in the measurement step k0”) and a first gas temperature level (“T(k0) is the temperature measured in the measurement step k0”) at a first point in time (“step k0”));
calculate a first value indicative of a gas amount contained in the tire at the first point in time, the first value being calculated in response to the first gas pressure level and the first gas temperature level (Paragraph 0063 describes calculating at each step, such as “k0”, the ratio between the measured pressure and temperature levels (“the absolute value of the ratio between the measured pressure and the measured temperature”); Examiner notes that the pressure to temperature ratio is reasonably indicative of a gas amount, as supported by the instant specification (Paragraphs 0051-052 describes using the equation
n
1
*
R
V
1
=
p
1
T
1
for determining the value indicative of a gas amount));
receive sensor data of a second gas pressure level and a second gas temperature level of the gas in the vehicle tire at a second point in time, the second point in time being subsequent to the first point in time (Paragraphs 0059-0060 describe receiving a second gas pressure level (“P(k0+1) is the pressure measured in the tire in the measurement step k0+1”) and a second gas temperature level (“T(k0+1) is the pressure measured in the tire in the measurement step k0+1”) at a second point in time (“step k0+1”));
calculate a second value indicative of a gas amount contained in the tire at the second point in time, the second value being calculated in response to the second gas pressure level and the second gas temperature level (Paragraph 0063 describes calculating at each step, such as “k0+1”, the ratio between the measured pressure and temperature levels (“the absolute value of the ratio between the measured pressure and the measured temperature”));
determine that a gas leakage is present in the vehicle tire in response to a difference between the first and second values being above a predetermined threshold limit (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0065 describes determining that leakage has occurred when the difference between the second value (
P
(
k
0
+
l
)
T
(
k
0
+
l
)
) and the first value (
P
(
k
0
)
T
(
k
0
)
) is above a predetermined threshold limit (
"
P
(
k
0
+
l
)
T
(
k
0
+
l
)
-
P
(
k
0
)
T
(
k
0
)
> seuil_p”)); and
transmit data to perform a responsive action in the form of transmitting an alarm message to a display arranged inside a vehicle provided with the vehicle tire in response to the determined gas leakage (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0066 describes sending a responsive alert (“alert message”) when the predetermined threshold limit (“seuil_p”) is exceeded; Paragraph 0048 describes a vehicle display for displaying the alert (“The computer ECU of the vehicle is suitable for displaying, on a human-machine interface, alert information to a user of the vehicle”).
While Saint-Loup discloses responsive alerts (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0066), Saint-Loup does not explicitly recite different notifications based on severity level, such as: wherein the alarm message causes the display to indicate a maintenance event to the operator of the vehicle in response to the difference between the first and second values being within a first predetermined range above the predetermined threshold limit, and wherein the alarm message causes the display to indicate a vehicle stop event to the operator of the vehicle in response to the difference between the first and second values being above the first predetermined range above the predetermined threshold limit.
Nevertheless, Singh teaches a tire pressure monitoring system (see at least Abstract) comprising:
wherein the alarm message causes the display to indicate a maintenance event to the operator of the vehicle in response to the difference between the first and second values being within a first predetermined range above the predetermined threshold limit, and wherein the alarm message causes the display to indicate a vehicle stop event to the operator of the vehicle in response to the difference between the first and second values being above the first predetermined range above the predetermined threshold limit (Figure 11 and Paragraph 0055 describes generating different alerts based on the severity of detected tire leakage, including at least a maintenance event (“REPAIR NOW”) when the tire leakage is between a predetermined range (e.g. between 3% and 20% tire pressure loss over a period between one day and one week) and a stoppage request (“STOP VEHICLE”) when the tire leakage exceeds such a range (e.g. greater than 20% tire pressure loss within one day)).
PNG
media_image1.png
676
441
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Saint-Loup invention to expand the features for generating alerts when the amount of leaked gas exceeds a predetermined threshold (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0066) to include different alerts based on severity of leakage, as taught by Singh, for the benefit of providing appropriate notifications to the driver (Singh, Paragraphs 0055-0056, “…enabling the vehicle 14 to be directed to a service center in a safe and convenient manner during an appropriate time window”).
Regarding Claim 2, Saint-Loup as modified teaches claim 1. Saint-Loup further discloses:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to receive the sensor data at the second point in time at a predetermined time difference from the first point in time (Paragraph 0063 describes setting a sampling rate within a predetermined time period, which is reasonably indicative of setting a predetermined time difference (“…the computer CPU measures, on each new measurement step…over a predetermined time period 1. 1 is a variable initialized at 1 and incrementing by 1 on each new measurement step up to an integer value less than or equal to a predetermined duration. This predetermined duration is set at ten measurement steps for example if the invention is used with another tire monitoring mode, or to thirty measurement steps if the invention is used as the only mode for monitoring the tires of the vehicle V”)).
Regarding Claim 4, Saint-Loup as modified teaches claim 1. Saint-Loup further discloses:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine that a gas leakage is present in the vehicle tire in response to the second value being lower than the first value by the predetermined threshold limit (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0065 describes determining that leakage has occurred when the difference between the second value (
P
(
k
0
+
l
)
T
(
k
0
+
l
)
) and the first value (
P
(
k
0
)
T
(
k
0
)
) is above a predetermined threshold limit (
"
P
(
k
0
+
l
)
T
(
k
0
+
l
)
-
P
(
k
0
)
T
(
k
0
)
> seuil_p”); Examiner notes that when the second value is less than the first value by a predetermined amount (once the difference exceeds the predetermined threshold limit “seuil_p”), leakage is determined).
Regarding Claim 5, Saint-Loup as modified teaches claim 1. Saint-Loup further discloses:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to continuously receive the sensor data for a predetermined time period of operation of a vehicle provided with the vehicle tire (Paragraphs 0055-0056 describes continuously receiving sensor data (“The step E1 is the measurement of the pressure of the tire P1. This measurement is a pressure…performed continually on each measurement step k. The step E2 is the measurement of the temperature…also performed continually on each measurement step k, in parallel with the step E1”); Paragraph 0063 describes the process being performed over a predetermined time period (“predetermined time period 1”)).
Regarding Claim 6, Saint-Loup as modified teaches claim 5. Saint-Loup further discloses:
wherein the second point in time is an instant point in time subsequent to the first point in time (Paragraph 0063 describes performing the process over a period of time (“the variation of the absolute value of the ratio between the measured pressure and the measured temperature over a predetermined time period 1”), which indicates that the second step (“step k0+1”) is temporally subsequent to the first step (“step k0”)).
the processing circuitry being configured to determine that the gas leakage is present in the vehicle tire in response to a sudden difference between the first and second values being above the predetermined threshold limit (Paragraph 0063 describes identifying variation between subsequent measurements (“…on each new measurement step, the variation of the absolute value of the ratio between the measured pressure and the measured temperature over a predetermined time period 1”); Figure 3 and Paragraph 0065 describes determining that a leakage has occurred when the difference between the second value (
P
(
k
0
+
l
)
T
(
k
0
+
l
)
) and the first value (
P
(
k
0
)
T
(
k
0
)
) is above a predetermined threshold limit (
"
P
(
k
0
+
l
)
T
(
k
0
+
l
)
-
P
(
k
0
)
T
(
k
0
)
> seuil_p”)).
Regarding Claim 7, Saint-Loup as modified teaches claim 1. Saint-Loup further discloses:
a vehicle comprising the computer system of claim 1 (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0044, “FIG. 1 represents a vehicle provided with monitoring systems according to the invention”).
Regarding Claim 8, Saint-Loup as modified teaches claim 7. Saint-Loup further discloses:
wherein the sensor data is received from at least one sensor connected to the vehicle tire (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0047, “Thus, the wheel R1 comprises a tire P1 comprising, in its valve, a monitoring system S1 according to the invention…”).
Regarding Claim 9, Saint-Loup as modified teaches claim 8. Saint-Loup further discloses:
wherein the at least one sensor is a pressure sensor and a temperature sensor (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0049, “…the system S1 comprises two sensors, each of these sensors being specifically for measuring a pressure or a temperature”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saint-Loup in view of Singh and Juzswik (US20140039752A1; hereinafter Juzswik).
Regarding Claim 3, Saint-Loup as modified teaches claim 1. While Saint-Loup discloses that the pressure to temperature ratio is reasonably indicative of the amount (mass) of gas (Paragraph 0023, “the ratio between the pressure and the temperature of the tire being indicative of the mass of air contained in the tire”), Saint-Loup does not explicitly recite: wherein the gas amount at the first point in time being a first number of gas molecules contained in the vehicle tire, and the gas amount at the second point in time being a second number of gas molecules contained in the vehicle tire.
Nevertheless, Juzswik teaches determining tire condition based on the ideal gas law (see at least Abstract) comprising
wherein the gas amount at the first point in time being a first number of gas molecules contained in the vehicle tire, and the gas amount at the second point in time being a second number of gas molecules contained in the vehicle tire (Paragraph 0035, “Since V can be assume constant (again, true for a radial tire) and R is a constant, the number of moles N for a particular tire can be approximated as N=P/T”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Saint-Loup invention to expand interpretations of the pressure to temperature ratio (Paragraph 0023) to include the number of gas molecules, as taught by Juzswik, for the benefit of including well-known representations of the pressure to temperature ratio using the ideal gas law.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saint-Loup in view of Singh and Abdossalami et al. (US20190023089A1; hereinafter Abdossalami).
Regarding Claim 11, Saint-Loup as modified teaches claim 10. While Saint-Loup further discloses computer structure for performing the method of claim 10 (Paragraph 0050, “This computer board CI comprises a computer CPU, a random-access memory RAM and a read-only memory ROM”), Saint-Loup does not explicitly recite a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry, the method of claim 10.
Nevertheless, Abdossalami teaches a processing system for determining tire leakage (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0019) comprising:
a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry, the method of claim 10 (Paragraph 0021, “The various components, modules, engines, etc. described regarding FIG. 1 may be implemented as instructions stored on a computer-readable storage medium, as hardware modules, as special-purpose hardware (e.g., application specific hardware, application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), as embedded controllers, hardwired circuitry, etc.), or as some combination or combinations of these”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Saint-Loup invention to expand functions of the computer board (Paragraph 0050) to implement code, as taught by Abdossalami, for the well-known benefit of using code to implement a method.
Regarding Claim 12, Saint-Loup as modified teaches claim 10. While Saint-Loup further discloses computer structure for performing the method of claim 10 (Paragraph 0050, “This computer board CI comprises a computer CPU, a random-access memory RAM and a read-only memory ROM”), Saint-Loup does not explicitly recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 10.
Nevertheless, Abdossalami teaches a processing system for determining tire leakage (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0019) comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 10 (Paragraph 0021, “The various components, modules, engines, etc. described regarding FIG. 1 may be implemented as instructions stored on a computer-readable storage medium, as hardware modules, as special-purpose hardware (e.g., application specific hardware, application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), as embedded controllers, hardwired circuitry, etc.), or as some combination or combinations of these”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Saint-Loup invention to expand functions of the computer board (Paragraph 0050) to implement coding instructions, as taught by Abdossalami, for the well-known benefit of using coding instructions to implement a method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EISEN YIM whose telephone number is (703)756-5976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/EISEN YIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669