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
This office action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on April 6, 2026. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended. Claims 6 and 11 have been cancelled. No claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12 remain pending in the application.
Response to Amendments/Remarks
Applicant’s amendments and/or remarks, filed on April 6, 2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 101 rejections have been fully considered and are found persuasive. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and/or remarks, filed on April 6, 2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration of the amended claims, a new ground(s) of 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been made in view of newly cited art Yesh et al. (US20200240869A1).
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 Yesh et al. (US20200240869A1; hereinafter Yesh).
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 a first gas pressure level from a pressure sensor and a first gas temperature level of a gas in a vehicle tire from a temperature sensor at a first point in time (Paragraph 0049 describes sensors configured to measure pressure and temperature (“…a sensor CAP, itself comprising a means for measuring the pressure in the tire P1, and a means for measuring the temperature in the tire P1. As a variant, the system S1 comprises two sensors, each of these sensors being specifically for measuring a pressure or a temperature”); 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 a second gas pressure level from the pressure sensor and a second gas temperature level of the gas in the vehicle tire from the temperature sensor at a second point in time, the second point in time being an instant point in time subsequent to the first point in time (Paragraph 0049 describes the sensors being configured to obtain subsequent measurements (“The sensor CAP measures a temperature T(k) for each measurement step k, and a pressure measurement P(k) for each measurement step k”); 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 deviation of the second value from the first value being above a predetermined threshold limit (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0065 describes determining that leakage has occurred when the deviation of the second value (
P
(
k
0
+
l
)
T
(
k
0
+
l
)
) compared to 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”)).
While Saint-Loup further discloses perform a responsive action in response to the determined gas leakage [based on the difference between the first and second values] (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0066 describes sending an “alert message” when the predetermined threshold limit “seuil_p” is exceeded), Saint-Loup does not explicitly recite: the responsive action being autonomously driving for maintenance in response to the difference between the first and second values being within a first predetermined range above the predetermined threshold limit, and the responsive action being autonomously driving for stopping in response to the difference between the first and second values being above the first predetermined range above the predetermined threshold limit.
Nevertheless, Yesh teaches features for initiating different levels of autonomous vehicle responses in response to component failure (see at least Paragraph 0013, “Various levels of mitigating response actions”) comprising:
the responsive action being autonomously driving for maintenance in response to the difference between the first and second values being within a first predetermined range above the predetermined threshold limit (Paragraph 0057 describes autonomously traveling to a service center in response to a component failure being within a threshold range (e.g. above a second threshold and below a third threshold) (“…the controller may be programmed to route the vehicle to a service center destination in response to the battery temperature exceeding a second temperature threshold…”)), and
the responsive action being autonomously driving for stopping in response to the difference between the first and second values being above the first predetermined range above the predetermined threshold limit (Paragraph 0059 describes autonomously stopping the vehicle in response to a component failure that goes beyond a threshold range (e.g. above a third threshold) (“…If at step 234 the battery temperature exceeds the third temperature threshold T3, the algorithm includes seeking an immediate nearby stop location to pull over at step 236. In this way, the vehicle avoids becoming inoperable while in a roadway. According to some examples, autonomous vehicle logic includes calculating the nearest location for the vehicle to pull over and park”)).
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 initiating responsive actions based on amount of leaked gas exceeds a predetermined threshold (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0066) to include decision-making logic for varying levels of a vehicle failure, as taught by Yesh, for the benefit of reducing interruptions for autonomously driven vehicles (e.g. avoids being towed for failures that could have been repaired later at a service station) when possible (see at least Yesh, Paragraph 0013).
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 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 Yesh 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saint-Loup in view of Yesh and Abdossalami et al. (US20190023089A1; hereinafter Abdossalami).
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Okamoto (US12038348B1) teaches techniques for responding to vehicle component failure (see at least Abstract) comprising features for setting different levels of responses based on a plurality of thresholds relating to tire wear (Column 8, Lines 39-60, “…threshold data can include one or more thresholds associated with the one or more vehicle component… the first tire threshold may be associated with adjusting a stopping distance of vehicle 202…the third tire threshold may be associated with determining a route to a maintenance facility”).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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 9:30 AM - 5:30 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
Prosecution Insights