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 based on an application filed in ISRAEL on 06 June 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 313435 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. The Office suggests that a certified copy is filed by the next response.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
---On P6 of 7, second paragraph, L8 of the page of the specification mentions a timer (371). Notice that reference number “371” is not shown in the Drawings (in particular Fig. 2). The Office suggests that either reference number “371” is shown in at least Fig. 2 of the drawings or the reference number “371” in the specification is deleted since according to the specification itself mentions that the timer (371) is “in the processor” which can be considered a conventional/trivial component of the processor and at least the processor (37) is shown in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
---Throughout the specification and the claims it is noted that the applicant uses both the term “GPS unit (36)” and “GPS unite” (see at least P4-5 of 7 of the specification). “Unit” is usually defined as “(noun) a device that has a specified function, especially one forming part of a complex mechanism”, whereas “unite” is usually defined as “(verb) come or bring together for a common purpose or action”. In the context of the application, the applicant appears to be attempting to describe a GPS unit (a Global Positioning System device for detecting the geolocation). The Office suggests that the instances that recite “GPS unite” in the specification and the claims are amended to “GPS unit”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 5-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
---Claims 3 and 5-6 recite “GPS unite” multiple times, as noted in the Specification section above, this appears to be typo and the applicant may have meant to claim “GPS unit” which is mentioned in at least P4 of the specification. As such, the Office suggests that every instance of the recitation “GPS unite” in the specification and the claims are amended to “GPS unit”.
---Claim 3 L4-5 recites “to indentifies a location of the tire valve that represent the location of the vehicle”. Notice the incorrect usage of “identifies” and the lack of antecedent basis for “a location of the vehicle”. The Office suggests that the recitation of claim 4 L4-5 is amended to “to identify a location of the tire valve that represent [[the]] a location of the vehicle”.
---Claims 5-6 L1 recites “A system of claim 4” when it should be amended to “[[A]] The system of claim 4” since claim 4 already recites the system.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-7 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
---Regarding claims 2-4 and 7:
Independent Claim 1 recites the following:
1. A tire valve that comprises a valve stem, a valve core, and a secondary air release mechanism; wherein the tire valve is designed to be assembled on a rim of a wheel of a vehicle for inflating and deflating a tire mounted on the rim; wherein the secondary air release mechanism includes an electric air valve, a power source, an electronic card, and an antenna; wherein the valve stem includes a main air passage, a main top opening that are designed to enable a user to fill air into the tire or to release air from the tire through the valve core, and a secondary exit that is designed to enable air to flow from the tire through the electric air valve when in open state and outside of the wheel through the secondary exit.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 7 recite the following:
2. A system for releasing air from a tire that is mounted on a wheel that comprises the tire valve of claim 1 and a remote controller; wherein the tire valve is mounted on the wheel of a vehicle and wherein the remote controller is configured to send a command to the tire valve to release air from the wheel.
3. A system for releasing air from a tire that is mounted on a wheel of a vehicle that comprises the tire valve of claim 1, a remote controller, and a GPS unite; wherein the tire valve is mounted on the wheel of the vehicle, and wherein the remote controller is configured to identifies a location of the tire valve that represent the location of the vehicle by the GPS unite and to send a command to the tire valve to release air from the wheel upon identified location of the vehicle.
4. A system for releasing air from a tire of a wheel that is mounted on a vehicle in case of unauthorized use of the vehicle that comprises the tire valve of claim 1 and a remote controller; wherein the tire valve further includes a processor with a unique identification code of said tire valve that is mounted on the wheel of the vehicle, and a displacement sensor that is designed to detect movement of the vehicle; wherein the processor is configured to send an automatic opening command to open the electric air valve for releasing the air from the tire after a predetermined period from detection, by the displacement sensor, that the vehicle starts moving; and wherein the processor is configured not to send said automatic opening command upon receiving a presence signal from the remote controller.
7. A system for releasing air from tires of wheels of a vehicle that comprises a first, second, third and fourth tire valves of claim 1 that are respectively mounted on a first, second, third and fourth wheels of a vehicle and a remote controller; wherein each tire valve further includes a processor with a unique identification code of said tire valve, and a touch sensor that is designed to detect a touch in a stem of said tire valve; and wherein the processors of the tire valves are configured to send an automatic opening command to open the electric air valves for releasing the air from the tires upon detection, by at least two of said four tire valves, a touch in the stems of said at least two tire valves and wherein the processor is configured not to send said automatic opening command upon receiving a presence signal from the remote controller.
Notice that dependent claims 2-4 and 7 recites the limitations of “a tire”, “a wheel” and “a vehicle”, however intervening claim 1 and/or claims 2-4 and 7 themselves already recite these limitations. This makes it unclear and indefinite if the applicant is attempting to claim distinct tires, wheels and/or vehicles or if they are the same limitations as previously recited. This issue becomes aggravated in claim 7 where it claims first, second, third and fourth tires and first, second, third and fourth wheels of a vehicle which considering that intervening claim 1 already recites these limitations it would bring to a total of five tires, five wheels and three vehicles. As best understood by the Office, the Office will assume that there is one vehicle comprising four tires and four wheels and each wheel comprise the tire valve as described in claim 1. The Office suggests that the claims are amended by either starting with a system for a vehicle that comprises a tire valve with all the limitations of claim 1 (i.e. claim a system with a component as the independent claim rather than a component of the system and then claim the system) and/or clarifying the components claimed in the system claims (claims 2-7) such that previously claimed elements of intervening claim 1 are not considered in addition to those claims (to avoid a situation such as in the case of claim 7 which as claimed would include five tires, five wheels and three vehicles in total).
---Regarding claims 5-6, claims 5-6 recite the following:
5. A system of claim 4, that further comprises a GPS unite and wherein said processor is configured to send said automatic opening command to open said electric air valve for releasing the air from the tire after a predetermined period from detection, by the GPS unite, that the vehicle is located outside a predetermined territory a user set in said remote controller, and wherein the processor is configured not to send said automatic opening command upon receiving a presence signal from the remote controller.
6. A system of claim 4, that further comprises a GPS unite and wherein said processor is configured to send said automatic opening command to open said electric air valve for releasing the air from the tire after a predetermined period from detection, by a timer in the processor, that the vehicle moves in certain time that a user set in said remote controller, and wherein the processor is configured not to send said automatic opening command upon receiving a presence signal from the remote controller.
Notice that intervening claims 1 and 4 already recites “a user” (in claim 1) and “a presence signal from the remove controller” which makes it unclear if the latter recitations of claims 5-6 are in addition to the previously recited limitations of claims 1 and/or 4 or if they are the same limitations. Based on the disclosure, the Office will assume that they are respectively the same limitations. If so, the Office suggests that the latter recitations of claims 5 and 6 of “a user” and “a presence signal from the remote controller” are amended to “[[a]] the user” and “[[a]] the presence signal from the remote controller”.
---Regarding claim 7, in addition to the issues discussed above, notice the recitation of “a touch in a stem of said tire valve”. It is noted that intervening claim 1 already recites a valve stem which makes it unclear and indefinite if these limitations are distinct from each other or if they are the same limitation. Similarly, notice in claim 7 the latter recitation of “a touch in the stems of said at least two tire valves” which makes it unclear if the previous “a touch in a stem of said tire valve” is the same one as the previous recitation or in addition to the previous recitation. Based on the disclosure, the Office will assume that the valve stem and the stem are the same/related limitations (as in the respective valve stem of the respective tire valve). The Office suggests that the claims are amended to clarify applicant’s invention.
---Claim(s) 2-7, being dependent on any of the preceding claim(s) above, inherit the same deficiencies as the parent/intervening claim(s) and as such is/are rejected in the same manner, see the rejection(s) above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGhee US-11845308.
Regarding claims 1-2, McGhee US-11845308 teaches in Figs. 1-10 (see in particular Fig. 3 and Fig. 5) of a tire valve (10b) that comprises a valve stem (12), a valve core (106), and a secondary air release mechanism (see side branch 60 with blocking component 62); wherein the tire valve is designed to be assembled on a rim of a wheel of a vehicle for inflating and deflating a tire mounted on the rim (tire valve 10b is configured to be mounted on a hole in the wheel rim of a vehicle for deflating the respective tire); wherein the secondary air release mechanism includes an electric air valve (blocking component 62 which can include a lug with a pin connected to a solenoid that when activated opens the blocking component to release the air from the tire, see at least C5 L7-18), wherein the valve stem includes a main air passage (see the main passage 18), a main top opening (see the opening in the upper housing 16 that is closed by cap 108) that are designed to enable a user to fill air into the tire or to release air from the tire through the valve core, and a secondary exit (see side branch 60 which includes the blocking component 62) that is designed to enable air to flow from the tire through the electric air valve when in open state and outside of the wheel through the secondary exit (see at least Fig. 3). Notice that the embodiment of Fig. 2 fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of “a power source, an electronic card, and an antenna” included with the secondary air release mechanism. However, it is noted that the disclosure by McGhee in particular the embodiment of Fig. 5 teaches a tire valve 10c having a side branch 160 with a secondary air release mechanism comprising a ball valve 172 and an electronics housing 180 having electronics with wireless communication electronics, a battery 182 and an electric motor 184 that when the motor is actuated by a signal received by the electronics, it drives a drive pin 186 which in turn actuates the blocking-component/ball-valve 172 to allow air to be released from the tire valve. Notice that this embodiment includes the electronic components and power source packaged in the electronics housing 180 which aids in protecting the components of the tire valve as well providing the ability to remotely communicate with a remote monitoring and control system via the wireless communication electronics housed within the electronics housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was effectively filed to modify the secondary air release mechanism of the device of the embodiment of Fig. 3 of McGhee to include a ball valve 172 blocking the side branch and an electronics housing 180 having electronics with wireless communication electronics, a battery 182 and an electric motor 184 that when the motor is actuated by a signal received by the electronics, it drives a drive pin 186 which in turn actuates the blocking-component/ball-valve 172 to allow air to be released from the tire valve via the side branch in a similar manner as the embodiment of Fig. 5 of McGhee since such a modification is not only an alternative structure for selectively releasing air in the tire but it provides a means to house, protect and power the electronics that allows the device to function but also provides the ability to remotely communicate with a remote monitoring and control system via the wireless communication electronics housed within the electronics housing allowing the tire valve to be monitored and controlled remotely.
As such, as best understood by the Office, the modified device of McGhee US-11845308 teaches the limitations of:
---Claim 1. A tire valve (tire valve 10b of Fig. 3 as modified to have secondary air release mechanism of Fig. 5) that comprises a valve stem (12 of Fig. 3), a valve core (106 of Fig. 3), and a secondary air release mechanism (see side branch 60 with blocking component 62 of Fig. 3 as modified to include the secondary air release mechanism of side branch 160 of Fig. 5); wherein the tire valve is designed to be assembled on a rim of a wheel of a vehicle for inflating and deflating a tire mounted on the rim (tire valves 10b/10c are configured to be mounted on a hole in the wheel rim of a vehicle for inflating/deflating the respective tire); wherein the secondary air release mechanism includes an electric air valve (ball valve 172 of Fig. 5 which is actuated via an electric motor 184), a power source (battery 182 of Fig. 5), an electronic card, and an antenna (electronics housing 180 of Fig. 5 includes electronics with wireless communication electronics that allow for remote communication with remote monitoring and control system); wherein the valve stem includes a main air passage (see the main passage 18 in Fig. 3), a main top opening (see the opening in the upper housing 16 in Fig. 3 that is closed by cap 108) that are designed to enable a user to fill air into the tire or to release air from the tire through the valve core, and a secondary exit (side branch 60 of Fig. 3 which includes secondary release mechanism of Fig. 5, see also side branch 160 in Fig. 5) that is designed to enable air to flow from the tire through the electric air valve when in open state and outside of the wheel through the secondary exit.
---Claim 2. A system for releasing air from a tire that is mounted on a wheel that comprises the tire valve of claim 1 and a remote controller; wherein the tire valve is mounted on the wheel of a vehicle and wherein the remote controller is configured to send a command to the tire valve to release air from the wheel (see at least C5 L24-43 and Fig. 10 teaching that the tire valves can be remotely monitored and controlled such as via a control panel, as shown in Fig. 10 or via a control device such as smartphone or tablet or other monitoring system linked to the vehicle).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGhee US-11845308 in view of Stopczynski US-11524532.
Regarding claim 3 the device of McGhee US-11845308 fails to disclose the system’s ability to detect the location of the tire valve via a GPS unit and control the release of air based on the identified location of the vehicle as claimed. However, systems for controlling inflation/deflation of tires in a vehicle based on the vehicle position is known in the art.
Stopczynski US-11524532 teaches in Figs. 1-2 a vehicle comprising at least four tires 22 and a monitoring and control system 24 including various sensors 30, 34, 36, an electronic control unit 12, valves 20 and a GPS unit 28 that allows the system to monitor the conditions of the tires of the vehicle and the location of the vehicle during operation and based on location of the vehicle, road conditions, weather conditions and other parameters, the system is capable of inflating and/or deflating the tires to adjust their tire pressure to aid in balancing between fuel economy and road control in real-time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was effectively filed to modify the tire pressure monitoring and controlling system of the device of McGhee to include various sensors 30, 34, 36, an electronic control unit 12 and a GPS unit 28 that allows for the real-time monitoring of the conditions of the tires of the vehicle and the location of the vehicle and based on the location of the vehicle, road conditions, weather conditions and other parameters, to configure the system to be capable of inflating and/or deflating the tires in a similar manner as taught by Stopczynski since such a modification aids providing optimum tire pressure during operation of the vehicle while maintain a balance between fuel economy and road control.
As such, as best understood by the Office, the device of the combination of McGhee US-11845308 in view of Stopczynski US-11524532 teaches the limitations of:
---Claim 3. A system for releasing air from a tire that is mounted on a wheel of a vehicle that comprises the tire valve of claim 1, a remote controller, and a GPS unite; wherein the tire valve is mounted on the wheel of the vehicle, and wherein the remote controller is configured to identifies a location of the tire valve that represent the location of the vehicle by the GPS unite and to send a command to the tire valve to release air from the wheel upon identified location of the vehicle (see at least C5 L24-43 and Fig. 10 of McGhee teaching that the tire valves can be remotely monitored and controlled such as via a control panel, as shown in Fig. 10 or via a control device such as smartphone or tablet or other monitoring system linked to the vehicle, see also Figs. 1-2 of Stopczynski teaching of a tire pressure monitoring and control system which includes a GPS unit 28 and an electronic control unit 12 that allows the system to monitor the location of vehicle and use that information to command the system to inflate or deflate the tires to provide optimum tire pressure for the expected journey of the vehicle in real-time).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art are:
---References A (Tire pressure monitoring and/or control systems): Koppisetty US-12447778, Coombs US-12179520, Beverly US-11787239, Musgrave US-11685201, Stopczynski US-11524532, Hong US-11400667, Steele US-10807420, Wu US-10696105, Kraayenbrink US-10052920, Gaskin US-9821766, McCormick US-9649895, Hennig US-9579937, Muthukumar US-9296263, Tzarum US-8336667, Schussler US-6826951, Adams US-6144295, Stancliffe US-6068076, Fauci US-5942971, Schultz US-4917163, Schultz US-4825925, Mann US-3688257, Muthukumar US-20250229791, Mungara US-20240198737, Richardson US-20240198736, Wijeysooriya US-20210129603, Shibagaki US-20120203425, Lee US-20090184814, Tsai US-20070137751, Molloy WO-2017127394, Kumagai WO-2015115581, Denso JP-2004138679, Fazekas ES-2750821, Li CN-110733300, Guo CN-107310336, Jonathan GB-2539257, Linster EP-2551130, Honzek GB-2466203 and Tsai WO-2012016178.
---References B (Tire Valves): McGhee US-11845308, Jordan US-11535069, Grace US-8146413, Marguet US-7916011, DeLauer US-6296010, Pashayan US-6252498, Banzhof US-6005480, Rothman US-5921265, Ruffler US-5090223, Marchiori US-4969342, Mourot US-4818029, Bertani US-4375200, Tone US-3003539, Markert US-20210070118, Austin US-20160325593 and Pritschet US-20110017317.
As best understood by the Office, references A teaches of various examples of tire pressure monitoring and/or control systems for vehicles wherein the systems include some form electronic controller, valves and sensors that allow for the monitoring of the tire pressure and allowing the system to be capable of controlling the pressure within the tires by either inflating the tire and/or deflating the tire which aids achieving better fuel economy and improve road handling which is similar to applicant’s general invention. It is also noted that among these references, some of these systems include theft prevention measures such that if the system detects unauthorized used of the vehicle while the vehicle’s anti-theft system is armed, the system deflates the tires of the vehicle making it difficult for the unauthorized user to drive the vehicle similar to a key feature of the claimed invention. References B teaches of various examples of tire valves which are used to allow for selectively inflating or deflating the tire similar to applicant’s main invention. As it is noted in the rejections above, McGhee US-11845308 teaches of a tire valve assembly having the conventional valve stem, valve core and main flow path that fluidly connects valve core to the inside and the outside of the tire and also includes a secondary exit branch that is selectively controlled by an electric valve to allow air to be selectively released in a similar manner as applicant’s invention. It is noted that while the prior art comprises similar structure and function, as some of the features of the claimed invention, the closest prior art fails to disclose all of the specifics the tire valve 1 and the theft prevention system with the tire valve 1 in combination with all the limitations as claimed in claims 4-7 and as shown in at least Fig. 2 and Fig. 4 of the application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID COLON-MORALES, whose telephone number 571-270-1741 and fax number is 571-270-2741. If the applicant has authorized internet communications via the filling of form PTO/SB/439, the examiner can be reached via email at david.colon-morales@uspto.gov , email communication is not permitted if the applicant has not filed an authorization for internet communication (see MPEP 502.03 for more details on internet communications). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (7:30AM-3:30PM 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 supervisors can be reached by phone. KENNETH RINEHART can be reached at 571-272-4881 or CRAIG SCHNEIDER can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/DAVID COLON-MORALES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753