DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This non-final office action is in response to the application filled on 12/19/2024. Claims 1-10 are pending and examined below.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a) ‐ (d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN 2022/11042599.6, filed on 08/29/2022. PCT/CN2023/107657 was filled on 07/17/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of date of this action, IDS filled has been annotated and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claim 5), which recites “preset mapping relationship” line 4, the specification lacks written description. The submitted specification does not describe what exactly the preset mapping relationship is. Is it static load parameter and tire pressure values are constant ? or proportional? or something else? Preset mapping relationship is mentioned on [0033], [0040-42] and [0044] of PGPub of submitted specification. However, the written description of those paragraphs is exactly same as claim limitation.
Regarding claim 4 (and similarly claim 8), which recites “a preset mapping relationship between the static load parameter, the actual tire pressure value, and the static load” the specification lacks written description. The submitted specification does not describe what exactly the preset mapping relationship is.
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(s) 1-10 is/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.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claim 5), which recites “determining a safe tire pressure value based on the static load parameter, the actual tire pressure value, and a preset mapping relationship between the static load parameter, the actual tire pressure value, and the safe tire pressure value” is not clear. From the recited claim language and submitted specification, it is not clear whether determining safe tire pressure value is a feedback loop or not. If it is a feedback loop then the initial safe tire value is set by manufacturer or something else?
Dependent claim(s) 2-4 and 6-10 is/are also rejected because they do not resolve their parent deficiencies.
Regarding claim 4 (and similarly claim 8), which recites “a static load” and “a static load parameter” is not clear. The submitted specification also does not clarify the difference between static load and static load parameter. It is not clear both are same or different.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0185166 (“Hung”), and further in view of US 2016/0200155 (“Steinmeyer”).
Regarding claim 5 (and similarly claim 1), as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Huang discloses a tire pressure alarm apparatus (see at least fig 2 and fig 3), comprising:
a radius detection module, configured to obtain a static load parameter of a tire (static load parameter may be static load diameter or static load radius of the tire, see at least [0039] of PGPub of the submitted specification. see Huang at least fig 3, block S10, [0038] and [0047]. See also [0010], where “measurement parameter of each tire through a contour variation calculation formula to generate a tire volume parameter to represent change of the tire.”; see also [0041], where “the final tire circumferential length the diameter of the tire 2 can be derived”);
a tire pressure sensor, configured to obtain an actual tire pressure value of the tire (see at least fig 2, tire pressure sensor, 31. See also [0032]);
a calculation and comparison module, connected to the radius detection module and the tire pressure sensor through a signal, wherein the calculation and comparison module is configured to (see at least fig 6 and fig 2):
determine tire safety (see at least fig 9 and [0032-54]), and a preset mapping relationship between the static load parameter, the actual tire pressure value, and the tire safety (see at least [0034-38], where safety of tire 2 is monitored by measuring and comparing the current/actual tire circumferential length and previous/initial tire circumferential length. And compare the pressure gradient data. If pressure gradient data is not consistent then generate alarm. The current tire pressure is not safe. See also fig 7 and fig 8, where variation proportions is monitored which is interpreted as preset mapping relationship); and
an alarm module, connected to the calculation and comparison module through a signal, wherein the alarm module is configured to emit an alarm signal if the actual tire pressure value is less than the safe tire pressure value (see at least fig 3, block S50, [0034], [0050] and [0053-54]; tire being abnormal is interpreted as actual tire pressure value is less than the safe tire pressure value).
Huang does not disclose the following limitation:
determine a safe tire pressure value.
However, Steinmeyer discloses a system wherein determine a safe tire pressure value (see at least [0006-7] and fig 3, where setpoint tire pressure is interpreted as safe tire pressure value).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Huang to incorporate the teachings of Steinmeyer by including the above feature for providing vehicle stability and thus the safety of the driver and the safety of all other road users.
Regarding claim 8 (and similarly claim 4), as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Huang in view of Steinmeyer further discloses an apparatus wherein the calculation and comparison module comprises a first calculation unit and a second calculation unit, the first calculation unit is configured to obtain a static load of the tire through calculation based on the actual tire pressure value, the static load parameter, and a preset mapping relationship between the static load parameter, the actual tire pressure value, and the static load, and the second calculation unit is configured to obtain the safe tire pressure value of the tire through calculation based on the static load, the actual tire pressure value, and a preset mapping relationship between the static load, the actual tire pressure value, and the safe tire pressure value (see citation on claim 5).
Regarding claim 9, Huang further discloses a computer device, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program that is stored in the memory and that is capable of running on the processor, wherein the processor executes the computer program to implement the tire pressure alarm method according to claim 1 (see citation on claim 5).
Regarding claim 10, Huang further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores a computer program, and the computer program is executed by a processor to implement the tire pressure alarm method according to claim 1 (see citation on claim 5).
Claim(s) 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0185166 (“Hung”), and in view of US 2016/0200155 (“Steinmeyer”), as applied to claim 1 and 5 above, and further in view of US 2025/0231021 (“Tanabe”).
Regarding claim 6 (and similarly claim 2), Huang further discloses an apparatus wherein the radius detection module is configured to detect an inner cavity of the tire to obtain an inner cavity contour of the tire (see at least [0041], [0010-11] and [0034-35]).
Huang in view of Steinmeyer does not disclose the following limitation:
the radius detection module is a laser scanner or an ultrasonic detector…wherein the static load parameter is determined based on a minimum size of the inner cavity contour in a radial direction of the tire.
However, Tanabe discloses a system wherein the radius detection module is a laser scanner or an ultrasonic detector…wherein the static load parameter is determined based on a minimum size of the inner cavity contour in a radial direction of the tire (see at least [0068] and [0028]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Huang in view of Steinmeyer to incorporate the teachings of Tanabe by including the above feature for determining tire parameter quickly and accurately.
Claim(s) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0185166 (“Hung”), and in view of US 2016/0200155 (“Steinmeyer”), as applied to claim 1 an d5 above, and further in view of US 11,840,241 (“Barrett”).
Regarding claim 7 (and similarly claim 3), Huang in view of Steinmeyer does not disclose claim 7. However, Barrett discloses a system wherein the radius detection module is a rangefinder disposed on a wheel shaft, and the rangefinder is configured to measure a distance between a tire axis and a ground, wherein the static load parameter is determined based on the distance between the tire axis and the ground (see at least col 7, line 62-col 8, line 9, where “At a first block 310, computer 104 may receive data from sensors 108, such as data from at least one of a camera, RADAR sensor, ultrasonic sensor, and/or LiDAR sensor of the vehicle 102. Based upon this data, at block 320, the computer 104 may determine that a ride height of the vehicle 102 has changed based on the sensor data. This determination may be made in various ways. In one implementation, an ultrasonic sensor of the ultrasonic parking sensor on a bumper of vehicle 102 may directly measure that the distance to the ground (road surface) is at a different distance than previously measured, and the computer 104 can determine the changed ride height based upon comparing previously measured distance to the currently measured distance from the ultrasonic parking sensor.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Huang in view of Steinmeyer to incorporate the teachings of Barrett by including the above feature for determining tire parameter quickly and accurately.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOHANA TANJU KHAYER whose telephone number is (408)918-7597. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7 am-5.30 pm, PT.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on 571-270-3976. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOHANA TANJU KHAYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657