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 7, 2026, claims 1-15 have been canceled, claim 35 has been newly added and claims 16, 25-27 and 30 have been amended. Therefore, claims 16-34 are currently pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 25 and 35 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 25 recites "operable in wherein" which appears to be a typographical error of “wherein”.
Claim 35 recites “in the UWB signal includes a UWB radar frame” which is supposed to be “a UWB radar frame is included in the UWB signal”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 16-18, 20, 21, 27-31, 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKellar et al. (McKellar: US 2025/0249709) in view of Gray (US 9776462).
Regarding Claim 16, McKellar teaches a tyre monitoring sensor, TMS, (Fig. 1, tire monitors 104) comprising
an ultra-wideband, UWB, device (Fig. 1, tire monitor 104 includes UWB and Par 22), wherein the UWB device is configured to be mounted on a tyre (Fig. 1, Par 21, Each of the tires 102 has associated therewith a tire monitor 104. Specifically, each one of the tire monitors 104 is coupled to each one of the tires 102.) and having at least a first mode, a second mode, and a third mode;
wherein the first mode is a sensing mode, in which the UWB device is configured to determine a value of a physical property of the tyre (Par [0023] The sensor(s) 106 are configured to generate signals associated with one or more measured attributes of the tires 102. For example, the sensor(s) 106 can include a pressure sensor configured to generate pressure data associated with the associated tires.);
wherein the second mode is a communication mode, in which the UWB device is configured to communicate the value to a control unit (Par [0026] The first UWB transceiver(s) 110 are configured to receive, generate, and/or transmit signals using UWB technologies and/or protocols. For example, the first UWB transceiver(s) 110 can perform some or all of the same functions as the first BLE transceiver(s) 108, including transmitting sensor data, but using UWB radio technology and Par 29, [0029] The tire monitoring system 114 can be configured to communicate with the tire monitor(s) 104 via … the second UWB transceiver(s) 118. );
wherein the third mode is a ranging mode, in which the UWB device is configured to localise the UWB device relative to a controller node (Par 31, autolocation component 122 may, via the distance determination component 124, estimate a distance or proximity of individual of the tire monitors 104 to the tire monitoring system 114, and, based at least in part on the distance/proximity, determine a location of the tire monitor 104 on the vehicle 100. And Par 63, the second UWB transceiver(s) 118 may send one or more signals to a first tire monitor, a second tire monitor, a third tire monitor, and a fourth tire monitor, e.g., the four tire monitors 104 associated with the four tires 104, requesting a response and Par 67, the tire monitoring system 114 may send an exit signal to the tire monitor 10 and Par 56, the auto-location system 122 associated with the tire monitoring system 114 and the auto-location determination systems 132 associated with the individual tire monitor(s) 104 can each determine locations of tire monitors 104 on the vehicle 100. In some examples both systems may be included as in FIG. 1. For instance, the two systems may act as redundant systems.).
McKellar does not explicitly disclose using a UWB signal to determine a value of a physical property of the tyre.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gray teaches a sensor (Fig. 3, 212 and Fig. 4, 312 ) configured to measure a selected portion of the tire chamber and to communicate the measurement to the controller (abstract) and further teaches using a UWB signal to determine a value of a physical property of the tyre (col. 9 lines 35-55, radar technologies such as UWB-IR and Col. 10 lines10-25; transducer 212 for the inflation status and see also Col. 11 lines 35-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gray in order to provide a more understanding of the forces acting on the tire and tire inflation issues (Gray: Col. 11 lines 65-Col. 12 lines 4).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of McKellar and Gray teaches the TMS according to claim 16, where the sensing mode is a tyre-property-determination mode (McKellar: Par [0023] The sensor(s) 106 are configured to generate signals associated with one or more measured attributes of the tires 102. For example, the sensor(s) 106 can include a pressure sensor configured to generate pressure data associated with the associated tires. …. The sensor(s) 106 may generate updated data at a predetermined frequency, e.g., according to a sampling rate. The sensor(s) 106 may be configurable, e.g., the sampling rate may be adjustable).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of McKellar and Gray teaches the TMS according to claim 16, wherein the physical property is a pressure of the tyre (McKellar: Par 23, pressure data).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of McKellar and Gray teaches the TMS according to claim 16, further configured to associate the UWB device with a wheel of a vehicle and on which the tyre is fitted, in response to the determination of a distance between the UWB device and the controller node (McKellar: Par 22, an association of each of the monitors 104 with a tire is based on automatic location principles, e.g., based on data and signals sent between the tire monitors 104 and a centralized system in communication with the tire monitors 104, Par 32, UWB transceiver(s) 118 associated with the tire monitoring system 114, on the vehicle 100, the distance to each of the tire monitors 104 from the tire monitoring system 114 is sufficiently different to be discernable by the distance determination component, thereby allow for appropriate location of each of the tire monitors 104 on the vehicle).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of McKellar and Gray teaches the TMS according to claim 20, wherein the UWB device is configured to, subsequent to the association of the UWB device with the wheel, operate in the third mode only in response to a user input (McKellar: Par 36, , proximity of a user 128 to the vehicle 100 may be a trigger for performing auto-location as described herein, e.g., such that the user is alerted to any tire pressure anomalies prior to beginning travel)
Regarding Claim 27, McKellar teaches a tyre pressure monitoring system, comprising:
a control unit (Fig. 1, 114, 118); and
a plurality of tyre monitor sensors (Fig. 1, tire monitors 104), each comprising an ultra-wideband, UWB, device (Fig. 1, tire monitor 104 includes UWB and Par 22),
wherein each UWB device is configured to be mounted on a tyre (Fig. 1, Par 21, Each of the tires 102 has associated therewith a tire monitor 104. Specifically, each one of the tire monitors 104 is coupled to each one of the tires 102) and having at least a first mode, a second mode, and a third mode;
wherein the first mode is a sensing mode, in which the UWB device is configured to determine a value of a physical property of the tyre (Par [0023] The sensor(s) 106 are configured to generate signals associated with one or more measured attributes of the tires 102. For example, the sensor(s) 106 can include a pressure sensor configured to generate pressure data associated with the associated tires);
wherein the second mode is a communication mode, in which the UWB device is configured to communicate the value to a control unit (Par [0026] The first UWB transceiver(s) 110 are configured to receive, generate, and/or transmit signals using UWB technologies and/or protocols. For example, the first UWB transceiver(s) 110 can perform some or all of the same functions as the first BLE transceiver(s) 108, including transmitting sensor data, but using UWB radio technology and Par 29, [0029] The tire monitoring system 114 can be configured to communicate with the tire monitor(s) 104 via … the second UWB transceiver(s) 118.), and
wherein the third mode is a ranging mode, in which the UWB device is configured to localise the UWB device relative to a controller node (Par 31, autolocation component 122 may, via the distance determination component 124, estimate a distance or proximity of individual of the tire monitors 104 to the tire monitoring system 114, and, based at least in part on the distance/proximity, determine a location of the tire monitor 104 on the vehicle 100. And Par 63, the second UWB transceiver(s) 118 may send one or more signals to a first tire monitor, a second tire monitor, a third tire monitor, and a fourth tire monitor, e.g., the four tire monitors 104 associated with the four tires 104, requesting a response and Par 67, the tire monitoring system 114 may send an exit signal to the tire monitor 10 and Par 56, the auto-location system 122 associated with the tire monitoring system 114 and the auto-location determination systems 132 associated with the individual tire monitor(s) 104 can each determine locations of tire monitors 104 on the vehicle 100. In some examples both systems may be included as in FIG. 1. For instance, the two systems may act as redundant systems).
McKellar does not explicitly disclose using a UWB signal to determine a value of a physical property of the tyre.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gray teaches a sensor (Fig. 3, 212 and Fig. 4, 312 ) configured to measure a selected portion of the tire chamber and to communicate the measurement to the controller (abstract) and further teaches using a UWB signal to determine a value of a physical property of the tyre (col. 9 lines 35-55, radar technologies such as UWB-IR and Col. 10 lines10-25; transducer 212 for the inflation status and see also Col. 11 lines 35-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gray in order to provide a more understanding of the forces acting on the tire and tire inflation issues (Gray: Col. 11 lines 65-Col. 12 lines 4).
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of McKellar and Gray teaches the tyre pressure monitoring system according to claim 27, further comprising a UWB transceiver proximal to each TMS (McKellar: Par [0029] The tire monitoring system 114 can be configured to communicate with the tire monitor(s) 104 via .. the second UWB transceiver(s) 118 i.e. the UWB is proximal to the tire monitor 104 in the communication path), and in electrical communication with the control unit which is distal from each TMS (McKellar: Par 30, tire monitoring system 114 also is illustrated as including the auto-location component 122 …. Although illustrated in FIG. 1 for ease of reference and understanding, various parts of the illustrated blocks and/or other aspects of the tire monitoring system 114 may be implemented in an intelligent hardware device, e.g., a central processing unit (CPU), a microcontroller.).
Regarding Claim 29, the combination of McKellar and Gray teaches the tyre pressure monitoring system according to claim 27, wherein the control unit comprises a controller UWB transceiver, which, in use, is unequal distance from each TMS (McKellar: Par 63, the second UWB transceiver(s) 118 may be located at an unequal distance from the four monitor(s) 104. And Fig. 3 and Par 72, anchor 304 )
Regarding Claim 30, McKellar disclose a method of operating a tyre monitoring system comprising a UWB device mounted on a tyre (Fig. 1, tire monitor 104 includes UWB and Par 21, Each of the tires 102 has associated therewith a tire monitor 104. Specifically, each one of the tire monitors 104 is coupled to each one of the tires 102), the method comprising:
operating the UWB device in a first, sensing, mode to determine a value of a physical property of the tyre (Par [0023] The sensor(s) 106 are configured to generate signals associated with one or more measured attributes of the tires 102. For example, the sensor(s) 106 can include a pressure sensor configured to generate pressure data associated with the associated tires);
operating the UWB device in a second, communication, mode to communicate the value to a control unit (Par [0026] The first UWB transceiver(s) 110 are configured to receive, generate, and/or transmit signals using UWB technologies and/or protocols. For example, the first UWB transceiver(s) 110 can perform some or all of the same functions as the first BLE transceiver(s) 108, including transmitting sensor data, but using UWB radio technology and Par 29, [0029] The tire monitoring system 114 can be configured to communicate with the tire monitor(s) 104 via … the second UWB transceiver(s) 118); and
operating the UWB device in a third, ranging, mode to determine a distance between the UWB device and a controller node (Par 31, autolocation component 122 may, via the distance determination component 124, estimate a distance or proximity of individual of the tire monitors 104 to the tire monitoring system 114, and, based at least in part on the distance/proximity, determine a location of the tire monitor 104 on the vehicle 100. And Par 63, the second UWB transceiver(s) 118 may send one or more signals to a first tire monitor, a second tire monitor, a third tire monitor, and a fourth tire monitor, e.g., the four tire monitors 104 associated with the four tires 104, requesting a response and Par 67, the tire monitoring system 114 may send an exit signal to the tire monitor 10 and Par 56, the auto-location system 122 associated with the tire monitoring system 114 and the auto-location determination systems 132 associated with the individual tire monitor(s) 104 can each determine locations of tire monitors 104 on the vehicle 100. In some examples both systems may be included as in FIG. 1. For instance, the two systems may act as redundant systems).
McKellar does not explicitly disclose using a UWB signal to determine a value of a physical property of the tyre.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gray teaches a sensor (Fig. 3, 212 and Fig. 4, 312 ) configured to measure a selected portion of the tire chamber and to communicate the measurement to the controller (abstract) and further teaches using a UWB signal to determine a value of a physical property of the tyre (col. 9 lines 35-55, radar technologies such as UWB-IR and Col. 10 lines10-25; transducer 212 for the inflation status and see also Col. 11 lines 35-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gray in order to provide a more understanding of the forces acting on the tire and tire inflation issues (Gray: Col. 11 lines 65-Col. 12 lines 4).
Regarding Claim 31, the combination of McKellar and Gray teaches the method of claim 30, wherein the physical property is a pressure of the tyre (McKellar: Par 23, pressure data).
Regarding Claim 33, the combination of McKellar and Gray teaches the method of claim 30, further comprising associating the UWB device with a wheel of a vehicle and on which the tyre is fitted, in response to the determination of a distance between the UWB device and the controller node (McKellar: Par 22, an association of each of the monitors 104 with a tire is based on automatic location principles, e.g., based on data and signals sent between the tire monitors 104 and a centralized system in communication with the tire monitors 104, Par 32, UWB transceiver(s) 118 associated with the tire monitoring system 114, on the vehicle 100, the distance to each of the tire monitors 104 from the tire monitoring system 114 is sufficiently different to be discernable by the distance determination component, thereby allow for appropriate location of each of the tire monitors 104 on the vehicle ).
Regarding Claim 34, the combination of McKellar and Gray teaches the method of claim 30, further comprising, subsequent to the associating the UWB device with the wheel, operating the UWB device in the third mode only in response to a user input (McKellar: Par 36, , proximity of a user 128 to the vehicle 100 may be a trigger for performing auto-location as described herein, e.g., such that the user is alerted to any tire pressure anomalies prior to beginning travel).
Claims 19, 24 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKellar in view of Gray further in view of Preradovic et al. (Preradovic: US 20210188016 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of McKellar and Gray teaches the TMS according to claim 16, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the physical property is a tyre-tread thickness of the tyre.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of tire monitoring devices in a vehicle. Preradovic teaches communicating the tread depth to a user of the vehicle on a display (Par 36) and further teaches wherein the physical property is a tyre-tread thickness of the tyre (Fig. 4-5 and Par 41-43; The receiver 60 receives the at least one radio wave 64 reflected from a road surface with the antenna 63. Item 104. The tread depth T of the tire 30 can then be determined based on the at least one radio wave 64 reflected from the road surface 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to monitor the tyre-tread thickness as taught by Preradovic in order to provide the remaining tread levels to the user (Preradovic: Par 36).
Regarding Claim 32, the combination of McKellar and Gray teaches the method of claim 30, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the physical property is a tyre-tread thickness of the tyre.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of tire monitoring devices in a vehicle. Preradovic teaches communicating the tread depth to a user of the vehicle on a display (Par 36) and further teaches wherein the physical property is a tyre-tread thickness of the tyre (Fig. 4-5 and Par 41-43; The receiver 60 receives the at least one radio wave 64 reflected from a road surface with the antenna 63. Item 104. The tread depth T of the tire 30 can then be determined based on the at least one radio wave 64 reflected from the road surface 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to monitor the tyre-tread thickness as taught by Preradovic in order to provide the remaining tread levels to the user (Preradovic: Par 36).
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of McKellar and Gray teaches the TMS according to claim 16, wherein the UWB device is configured to operate in a frequency ranged between 3.1 GHz and 10.6 GHZ, (McKellar: Fig. 4, 432 (6.0-8.5GHz)) but does not explicitly disclose to occupy a bandwidth of at least 500 MHz.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of tire monitoring devices in a vehicle. Preradovic teaches a tire monitoring system (Fig. 4-5) using UWB device to occupy a bandwidth of at least 500 MHz (Par 42, The ultra-wide band radio wave includes a bandwidth greater than or equal to 500 MHz' ) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to occupy a bandwidth of at least 500 MHz in order to monitor the tire tread depth (Preradovic: Par 42).
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKellar in view of Gray further in view of Owens et al. (Owens: US 2011/0202229).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of McKellar and Gray teaches the TMS according to claim 20, configured to periodically operate the UWB device in the first mode with a repetition rate (McKellar: Par [0023] The sensor(s) 106 are configured to generate signals associated with one or more measured attributes of the tires 102. …. The sensor(s) 106 may generate updated data at a predetermined frequency, e.g., according to a sampling rate. The sensor(s) 106 may be configurable, e.g., the sampling rate may be adjustable.).
McKellar does not explicitly disclose the repetition rate is at least one Hertz. However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of tire pressure monitoring systems. Owens teaches tire pressure monitoring sensor operatively positioned at each tire of the vehicle and configured to collect the tire pressure data and transmit such data to the module (abstract) and further teaches the repetition rate of the pressure monitoring mode is at least one Hertz (Par 57, vehicle bus 38 will be triggered to periodically pull pressure values from the sensor(s) 14 as the filling event occurs. The periodic values may be retrieved at predetermined intervals during the filling event. For example, the vehicle bus 38 may request an updated pressure reading every 500 milliseconds, every second).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Owens in order to compare the tire pressure to the placard value and to instruct the user to cease the tire pressure filling (Owens: Par 57 and Par 61).
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of McKellar and Gray teaches the TMS according to claim 20, configured to periodically operate the UWB device in the second mode with a repetition rate (McKellar: Par [0023] The sensor(s) 106 are configured to generate signals associated with one or more measured attributes of the tires 102. …. The sensor(s) 106 may generate updated data at a predetermined frequency, e.g., according to a sampling rate. The sensor(s) 106 may be configurable, e.g., the sampling rate may be adjustable.).
McKellar does not explicitly disclose the repetition rate is at least one Hertz. However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of tire pressure monitoring systems. Owens teaches tire pressure monitoring sensor operatively positioned at each tire of the vehicle and configured to collect the tire pressure data and transmit such data to the module (abstract) and further teaches the repetition rate of the mode to transmit tire pressure is at least one Hertz (Par 57, vehicle bus 38 will be triggered to periodically pull pressure values from the sensor(s) 14 as the filling event occurs. The periodic values may be retrieved at predetermined intervals during the filling event. For example, the vehicle bus 38 may request an updated pressure reading every 500 milliseconds, every second).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Owens in order to compare the tire pressure to the placard value and to instruct the user to cease the tire pressure filling (Owens: Par 57 and Par 61).
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKellar in view of Gray further in view of Trotta (US 10399393).
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of McKellar and Gray teaches the TMS according to claim 16 wherein the second mode is configured to operate in a second frequency range (McKellar: Fig. 4, 432 (6.0-8.5GHz)).
McKellar does not explicitly disclose wherein the first mode is configured to operate in a first frequency range, or wherein the second frequency range is lower than the first frequency range.
However, Trotta teaches a sensor system for tire monitoring (title) having a first mode for monitoring health of tire (Col. 6 lines 2-6) configured to operate in a first frequency range that is higher than 6-8.4 GHz (Col. 6 lines 31-45, 20 GHz to 122 GHz).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate in first frequency range in order to improve accuracy (Trotta: Col. 6 lines 53-60).
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of McKellar, Gray and Trotta teaches the TMS according claim 25, wherein the first frequency range is in a range between 57 GHz and 64 GHZ (Trotta: Col. 6 lines 38-40, 20 GHz to 122 GHz), and the second frequency range is within a range of 3.1 GHz to 10.6 GHz (McKellar: Fig. 4, 432 (6.0-8.5GHz)).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKellar in view of Gray further in view of Santhoff et al. (Santhoff: US 2005/0058153A1).
Regarding Claim 35, the combination of McKellar and Gray teaches the TMS according to claim 16 but does not explicitly disclose wherein in the UWB signal includes a UWB radar frame.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of UWB communication devices. Santhoff teaches UWB impulse radio signals (Par 36, ultra-wideband is often called "impulse radio." That is, the UWB pulses are transmitted) and further teaches wherein in the UWB signal includes a UWB radar frame (Fig. 3, frame 10 and Par 50 and Par 52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Santhoff for the benefit of compatibility and coexistence (Santhoff: Par 8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on April 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejections.
Conclusion
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 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