DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 of application 19/011,171, filed on 6-January-2025, are presented for examination. The IDS received on the same date has been considered.
The present application, filed on or after 16-March-2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
2.1 35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
2.2 Claim 1: A method of measuring motion of a wheel [generic linking to technical field, 2106.05(h)], the method comprising:
providing a first acceleration sensor and a second acceleration sensor configured to measure acceleration in respect of a first measurement axis and a second measurement axis, the second measurement axis being in respect of a tangential direction of the wheel and substantially orthogonal to the first measurement axis in respect of a radial direction of the wheel [pre-solution activity (data gathering), 2106.05(g) using generic sensors, generic link to technical field, 2106.05(h)];
measuring first accelerations in respect of the first and second measurement axes [pre-solution activity (data gathering), 2106.05(g) using generic sensors, generic link to technical field, 2106.05(h)];
waiting a predetermined period of time [mental process/step];
measuring second accelerations in respect of the first and second measurement axes [pre-solution activity (data gathering), 2106.05(g) using generic sensors, generic link to technical field, 2106.05(h)];
and calculating an estimate of change of acceleration by formulaically combining the first and second accelerations measured [mathematical/mental process/step].
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. Therefore, the claim falls within one of the four statutory categories [see MPEP 2106.03].
101 Analysis – Step 2A/Prong 1: Judicial Exception – Yes
In Step 2A/Prong 1 of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes [see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)].
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mathematical concepts and mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)].
The claim recites the limitation(s) of waiting a predetermined period of time and calculating an estimate of change of acceleration by formulaically combining the first and second accelerations measured. These limitations, as drafted, are a simple mathematical and/or mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the mathematical step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement.
Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept and a mental process.
101 Analysis – Step 2A/Prong 2: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A/Prong 2 of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: (1) Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (2106.05(f)); (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (2106.05 (g)); and/or (3) generic/generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (2106.05 (h)), do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of providing a first acceleration sensor and a second acceleration sensor configured to measure acceleration in respect of a first measurement axis and a second measurement axis, the second measurement axis being in respect of a tangential direction of the wheel and substantially orthogonal to the first measurement axis in respect of a radial direction of the wheel, measuring first accelerations in respect of the first and second measurement axes and measuring second accelerations in respect of the first and second measurement axes. The measuring steps from the sensors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering wheel acceleration data for use in the calculating step), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim [see MPEP 2106.05].
As discussed with respect to Step 2A/Prong 2, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception as a general means of gathering wheel acceleration data for use in the calculating step, and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Remaining Claims
Independent claim 18 (an apparatus) is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under the same rationale as detailed above in regard to claim 1.
Dependent claims 2 and 5-13 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of these dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application Therefore, dependent claims 2 and 5-13 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 3-4, 14-17 and 19-20 recite limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. The limitations of these dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, the limitations for “placing the acceleration measurement circuit in the power conservation mode during the predetermined period of time” (claim 3); “waking the acceleration measurement circuit from the power conservation mode at the end of the predetermined period of time to perform the second acceleration measurements” (claim 4); “generating a trigger signal in response to detection of motion of the wheel” (claim 14); “wherein a pressure of a tyre of the wheel is measured in response to the trigger signal” (claim 15); “wherein the pressure of the tyre is communicated to a control unit and analysed” (claim 16); “wherein the control unit is configured to generate a driver warning alert in response to the pressure of the tyre being below a predetermined value” (claim 17); “measuring a pressure of a tyre of the wheel before the vehicle has left its starting location in order to avoid missing an opportunity to correct any maintenance issues” (claim 19); and “generating a trigger signal in response to detection of motion of the wheel, and measuring a temperature of the vehicle in response to the trigger signal” (claim 20).
Therefore, dependent claims 3-4, 14-17 and 19-20 are patent eligible, but are rejected here for being dependent on a rejected ineligible base claim.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
3.1 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3.2 Claims 1-4 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al, USP 9,180,743.
Park discloses:
Claims 1 and 18: A method/apparatus of measuring motion of a wheel [col. 11:ln(s) 47 (The
centrifugal force acceleration is used for motion detection.)], comprising:
providing a first acceleration sensor [11:25-38] and a second acceleration sensor [9:27; 10:29; 12:20] configured to measure acceleration in respect of a first measurement axis [11:25-38 (Z-axis sensor)] and a second measurement axis [12:20 (an X-axis sensor)], the second measurement axis being in respect of a tangential direction of the wheel [9:27; 10:29 (The acceleration sensor 18 is configured to sense information related to the tangential acceleration of the at least one wheel of the vehicle.); 12:20-29 (FIG. 6 illustrates an embodiment with an X-axis direction in the sensor, i.e. with a tangential acceleration sensor 18.)] and substantially orthogonal to the first measurement axis in respect of a radial direction of the wheel [11:25-38 (The acceleration measured by this Z-axis sensor points away from the rotation axis of the wheel, i.e. radial accelerations are measured.)];
measuring first accelerations in respect of the first and second measurement axes [7:30 (In other words, accelerations may be measured at different times. A measurement at the first time is stored in the memory.)];
waiting a predetermined period of time [7:33 (At a certain time later…)];
measuring second accelerations in respect of the first and second measurement axes [7:33 (a second measurement is taken)];
and calculating an estimate of change of acceleration by formulaically combining the first and second accelerations measured [7:33-44 (At a certain time later, a second measurement is taken and compared to the first measurement. If the difference between the two measurements lies below the threshold, which can be set in a predetermined way, the system is operated in standby mode. If acceleration changes are detected, the system can be switched into a measurement mode and provide more frequent measurements than in the standby mode. The time
period between the first time and the second time, i.e. the wake-up settings for the above comparisons, may be preset as well. Hence, the wake-up intervals in standby mode can be
adjusted and therewith the corresponding energy consumption.)].
Claim 2: comparing the estimate of change of acceleration with a predetermined threshold value to detect motion of the wheel [7:28-39 (the control unit is configured to operate the system in a standby mode when the stored information differs from the recent information by less than a predetermined threshold…At a certain time later, a second measurement is taken and compared to the first measurement. If the difference between the two measurements lies below the threshold, which can be set in a predetermined way, the system is operated in standby mode. If acceleration changes are detected, the system can be switched into a measurement mode and provide more frequent measurements than in the standby mode.)]
Claim 3: wherein the first and second acceleration sensors are operably coupled to an acceleration measurement circuit having a power conservation mode [7:28-30 (the control unit is configured to operate the system in a standby mode when the stored information differs from the recent information by less than a predetermined threshold)];
further comprising: placing the acceleration measurement circuit in the power conservation mode during the predetermined period of time [7:34-39 (If the difference between the two measurements lies below the threshold, which can be set in a predetermined way, the system is operated in standby mode. If acceleration changes are detected, the system can be switched into a measurement mode and provide more frequent measurements than in the standby mode.)].
Claim 4: waking the acceleration measurement circuit from the power conservation mode at the end of the predetermined period of time to perform the second acceleration measurements [7:33-44 (At a certain time later, a second measurement is taken and compared to the first measurement. If the difference between the two measurements lies below the threshold, which can be set in a predetermined way, the system is operated in standby mode. If acceleration changes are detected, the system can be switched into a measurement mode and provide more frequent measurements than in the standby mode. The time period between the first time and the second time, i.e. the wake-up settings for the above comparisons, may be preset as well. Hence, the wake-up intervals in standby mode can be adjusted and therewith the corresponding energy consumption.); 15:9-15 (In the stationary state, the TPS performs a periodic wakeup to detect a motion at 102. When the TPS is woken up in the stationary step, the TPS measures one sample, which is referred to as Ax(i) as shown at 104 in FIG. 14. Then, the control unit 56, in the TPS, may compare this recent acceleration value with the stored acceleration value Ax(i-1) as stored in the RAM 54 as shown at 106 in FIG. 14.); 15:43-45 (In embodiments in standby mode the system 50 or TPS may wake up frequently. The period between such wakeups can be preset, e.g. it may correspond to 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 30, 60, 120, 240, 480 s.)].
Claim 10: using the comparison of the estimate of change of acceleration with the predetermined threshold value to determine that the wheel is stationary [7:33-44 (If the difference between the two measurements lies below the threshold (i.e. close to zero), which can be set in a predetermined way, the system is operated in standby mode.)];
waiting the predetermined period of time in response to the wheel being determined as stationary [7:33 (At a certain time later…)];
measuring third accelerations in respect of the first and second measurement axes [7:33 ((In view of the fact that third accelerations can apparently be either/or both additional first and second accelerations of the first and second measurement axes) a second (or perhaps an equivalent fourth?) measurement is taken)]; and
calculating another estimate of change of acceleration by formulaically combining the second and third accelerations measured [7:33-39 (At a certain time later, a second (or third or fourth?) measurement is taken and compared to the first (or third?) measurement. If the difference between the two measurements lies below the threshold, which can be set in a predetermined way, the system is operated in standby mode. If acceleration changes are detected, the system can be switched into a measurement mode and provide more frequent measurements than in the standby mode.)].
Claim 11: comparing the another estimate of change of acceleration with the predetermined threshold value to detect motion of the wheel [11:47 (The centrifugal force acceleration is used for motion detection.); 7:33-37 (At a certain time later, a second (or third or fourth?) measurement is taken and compared to the first (or third?) measurement. If the difference between the two measurements lies below the threshold, which can be set in a predetermined way, the system is operated in standby mode.)].
Claim 12: calculating the predetermined threshold value using at least one of: a radius of the wheel [13:28 (In the diagram shown in FIG. 9 at the top, r represents the radius from
the center to the sensor 18. R represents the tire radius.)], a placement position of the first and second acceleration sensors on the wheel [11:25 (FIG. 4 illustrates such a Z-axis sensor 60, which is mounted on a wheel 62, i.e., the rim or the tire, where the wheel 62 is shown in an idealized way in FIG. 4.); 12:20-23 (FIG. 6 illustrates an embodiment with an X-axis direction
in the sensor, i.e. with a tangential acceleration sensor 18. FIG. 6 shows the acceleration sensor 18 mounted on the wheel 70, where the wheel is shown in an idealized way.)], a required detection time and/or a power consumption requirement.
Claim 13: wherein the placement position is on a tire of the wheel or a rim of the wheel [11:25 (FIG. 4 illustrates such a Z-axis sensor 60, which is mounted on a wheel 62, i.e., the rim or the tire, where the wheel 62 is shown in an idealized way in FIG. 4.); 12:20-23 (FIG. 6 illustrates an embodiment with an X-axis direction
in the sensor, i.e. with a tangential acceleration sensor 18. FIG. 6 shows the acceleration sensor 18 mounted on the wheel 70, where the wheel is shown in an idealized way.)].
Claim 14: generating a trigger signal in response to detection of motion of the wheel [10:12-39 (The detector 12 is configured to provide an acceleration signal of the at least one wheel of the vehicle to the locator 16…As further indicated in FIG. 2, the locator 16 can be configured to determine the information related to the position of the at least one wheel by determining
information related to a correlation 20 of the information related to the tangential acceleration of the at least one wheel and the information related to the angular rotations of the plurality of wheels of the vehicle. Furthermore, the unit 14 may comprise one or more sensors 22 to obtain the rotation signal.)].
Claim 15: wherein a pressure of a tyre of the wheel is measured in response to the trigger signal [4:30-51; 10:39-45 (The locator 16 can be configured to receive a pressure signal from the detector 12 comprising information related to a tire pressure of the at least one wheel where the locator 16 can be further configured to associate the information related to the tire pressure with the position signal. Correspondingly, the detector 12 may further comprise a pressure sensor 24 for generating the pressure signal.)].
Claim 16: wherein the pressure of the tyre is communicated to a control unit and analysed [14:17-52; 15:57-16:11 (the method may comprise obtaining information related to a tire pressure of the at least one wheel 70 and associating the information related to the tire pressure with
the position of the at least one wheel. The method may further comprise transmitting information using a radio signal and receiving information from the radio signal in line with the above description.)].
Claim 17: wherein the control unit is configured to generate a driver warning alert in response to the pressure of the tyre being below a predetermined value [1:20-31 (Therefore pressure sensors are used in the tires and the system may report the tire pressure information to the driver of the vehicle. Such a configuration can enable the system to report or signal pressure losses of the tires to the driver. Some known TPMS provide localization information on the tire or wheel on top of pressure information so as to indicate to a driver of a vehicle the position of a wheel having a pressure loss.)].
Claim 19: detecting motion of the wheel by comparing the estimate of change of acceleration with a predetermined threshold value [11:47 (The centrifugal force acceleration is used for motion detection.); 7:33-37 (At a certain time later, a second measurement is taken and compared to the first measurement. If the difference between the two measurements lies below the threshold, which can be set in a predetermined way, the system is operated in standby mode. If acceleration changes are detected, the system can be switched into a measurement mode and provide more frequent measurements than in the standby mode.)]; and
measuring a pressure of a tyre of the wheel before the vehicle has left its starting location in order to avoid missing an opportunity to correct any maintenance issues [1:20-31 (Therefore pressure sensors are used in the tires and the system may report the tire pressure information to the driver of the vehicle. Such a configuration can enable the system to report or signal pressure losses of the tires to the driver. Some known TPMS provide localization information on the tire or wheel on top of pressure information so as to indicate to a driver of a vehicle the position of a wheel having a pressure loss. Examples are indications on whether a pressure loss of a tire of a wheel of a car is on the Front Left (FL) tire, the Front Right (FR) tire, the Rear Left (RL) tire, and/or the Rear Right (RR) tire. After replacement of a wheel or tire, assignment or re-assignment of the sensor signals to the positions on the vehicle may be necessary.)].
Claim 20: detecting motion of the wheel by comparing the estimate of change of acceleration with a predetermined threshold value [11:47 (The centrifugal force acceleration is used for motion detection.); 7:33-37 (At a certain time later, a second measurement is taken and compared to the first measurement. If the difference between the two measurements lies below the threshold, which can be set in a predetermined way, the system is operated in standby mode. If acceleration changes are detected, the system can be switched into a measurement mode and provide more frequent measurements than in the standby mode.)];
generating a trigger signal in response to detection of motion of the wheel [10:12-39 (The detector 12 is configured to provide an acceleration signal of the at least one wheel of the vehicle to the locator 16…As further indicated in FIG. 2, the locator 16 can be configured to determine the information related to the position of the at least one wheel by determining information related to a correlation 20 of the information related to the tangential acceleration of the at least one wheel and the information related to the angular rotations of the plurality of wheels of the vehicle. Furthermore, the unit 14 may comprise one or more sensors 22 to obtain the rotation signal.)];
and measuring a temperature of the vehicle in response to the trigger signal [15:16 (If the magnitude of Ax(i)-Ax(i-1) is less than a threshold, where some tolerance is allowed due to, for example, temperature drifts, the vehicle is very likely to be still in a stationary state.)].
Claim Objections
4. In regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejections noted above, claims 5-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Prior Art
5. The following prior art, discovered in an updated search and herein made of record, is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, and consists of documents A-F and U on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Documents A and B define documents of particular relevance, wherein the claimed invention cannot be considered novel or cannot be considered to involve an inventive step when the document is taken alone.
Documents B and C define documents of particular relevance, wherein the claimed invention cannot be considered to involve an inventive step when the document is combined with one or more other such documents, such combination being obvious to a person skilled in the art.
Documents D-F and U define the general state of the art which is not considered to be of particular relevance.
Prior Art of Record
6. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure (see MPEP §2163.06). Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. [SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123].
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art [See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966)]. Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference [See In re Freda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963)]. Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art [See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973)]. Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references [See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962)].
Response Guidelines
7.1 A shortened statutory period for response to this non-final action is set to expire 3 (three) months and 0 (zero) days from the date of this letter. Unless the applicant is notified in writing that a reply is required in less than six months (see the shortened response period previously noted), a maximum period of six months is allowed, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed [see MPEP 710 and 35 U.S.C. 133]. Failure to respond within the required period for response will cause the application to become abandoned [see MPEP 710.02, 710.02(b)].
7.2 Any response to the Examiner in regard to this non-final action should be
directed to: Russell Frejd, telephone number (571) 272-3779, Monday-Friday from 0730 to
1600 ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful,
please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Nolan, who can be reached at
(571) 270-7016.
mailed to: Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
faxed to: (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.
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.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to the Customer Service Window, Randolph Building, 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314.
/RUSSELL FREJD/
Primary Examiner AU 3661
Prosecution Insights