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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Please change claim 20’s dependency from claim 6 to claim 16. This appears to be a typo. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 9 recites “At least one non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising machine-readable instructions to cause at least one processor circuit to at least: integrate a distance traveled by a wheel of a vehicle based on coordinate information of global navigation satellite system (GNSS) data; determine a number of revolutions of the wheel corresponding to the distance traveled; calculate a size parameter of a tire of the wheel based on the distance traveled and the number of revolutions; and cause a display of the vehicle to display the size parameter.” The steps of integrating, determining and calculating can all be done via mental process by performing routine mathematical/observational calculations of pre-solution variables.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional display step is drawn to routine post-solution activity such as outputting a result and is claimed with a high-level of generality.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the display step is drawn to routine post-solution activity such as outputting a result and is claimed with a high-level of generality. Additionally, the claimed processor circuit is claimed with a high-level of generality and performs generic computing functions.
Regarding claim 10, this claim recites the step of calculating which can be done via mental process based on pre-solution variables and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 11, this claim recites the step of adjusting which can be done via mental process based on pre-solution variables and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 12, this claim recites the step of adjusting which can be done via mental process based on pre-solution variables and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 13, this claim further defines the vehicle condition and does not include additional elements or steps to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 14, this claim recites the step of determining which can be done via mental process based on pre-solution variables and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 15, this claim recites the step of integrating which can be done via mental process based on pre-solution variables and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 16 recites ”A method comprising: calculating, by at least one processor, a distance traveled by a wheel of a vehicle based on coordinate information of global navigation satellite system (GNSS) data; determining, by the at least one processor, a number of revolutions of the wheel corresponding to the distance traveled; calculating by the at least one processor, a size of a tire of the wheel based on the distance traveled and the number of revolutions; and at least one of storing or displaying, by the at least one processor, the size of the tire.” The steps of calculating, determining and calculating can all be done via mental process by performing routine mathematical/observational calculations of pre-solution variables.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional storing or displaying step is drawn to routine post-solution activity such as outputting/storing a result and is claimed with a high-level of generality.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the display/storing step is drawn to routine post-solution activity such as outputting/storing a result and is claimed with a high-level of generality. Additionally, the claimed processor circuit is claimed with a high-level of generality and performs generic computing functions.
Regarding claim 17, this claim recites the step of calculating which can be done via mental process based on pre-solution variables and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 18, this claim recites the step of calculating which can be done via mental process based on pre-solution variables and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 19, this claim recites the step of determining which can be done via mental process based on pre-solution variables and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rieck (EP 1475250 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rieck discloses an apparatus (Figures 2-3) comprising: interface circuitry communicatively coupled to first and second sensors of a vehicle (Figure 3, Elements 51, 53 and Paragraphs 0042-0043 where the GPS receiver and rotation detector are interfaced with vehicle circuitry); machine-readable instructions; and at least one processor circuit to be programmed by the machine-readable instructions to (Figure 3, Elements 52, 54, 59): calculate a distance traveled by a wheel of the vehicle based on coordinate information of global navigation satellite system (GNSS) data corresponding to first output from the first sensor (Figures 2-3 and Paragraphs 0012-0016, 0034-0040 and 0042-0043 where a distance traveled of the wheel of the vehicle is determined based on GPS data); determine a number of revolutions of a wheel of the vehicle based on second output from the second sensor, the number of revolutions corresponding to the distance traveled (Figures 2-3 and Paragraphs 0012-0016, 0034-0040 and 0042-0043 where a number of wheel revolutions is calculated over a distance); and calculate a size parameter of a tire of the wheel based on the distance traveled and the number of revolutions (Figures 2-3 and Paragraphs 0012-0016, 0034-0040 and 0042-0043 where a radius of a tire on the wheel is determined based on the distance traveled and revolution count).
Regarding claim 2, Rieck discloses wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to cause a human-machine interface to display information corresponding to the size parameter of the tire (Figure 2, Element 900, Figure 3, Element 57 and Paragraph 0042 where a driver is alerted to information related to the size parameter via a display monitor).
Regarding claim 3, Rieck discloses wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to calculate at least one arc compensation between consecutive coordinates of the coordinate information (Figures 2-3 and Paragraphs 0012-0016, 0034-0040 and 0042-0043 where a motion detector is further utilized to determine exact travel distance through turns and the like).
Regarding claim 4, Rieck discloses wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to calculate at least one wheel position compensation relative to a vehicle center for calculation of the distance traveled (Figures 2-3 and Paragraphs 0012-0016, 0034-0040 and 0042-0043 where relative wheel location on the vehicle is determined to calculate traveled distance).
Regarding claim 5, Rieck discloses wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to integrate segments between GNSS coordinates to determine the distance traveled (Figures 2-3 and Paragraphs 0012-0016, 0034-0040 and 0042-0043 where a distance traveled of the wheel of the vehicle is determined based on GPS data).
Regarding claim 6, Rieck discloses wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to determine a condition of the tire based on the calculated size parameter of the tire (Paragraphs 0012-0016, 0034-0040 and 0042-0043 where tire pressure is determined).
Regarding claim 7, Rieck discloses wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to determine a confidence level of the size parameter based on the distance calculated (Paragraphs 0012-0016, 0034-0040 and 0042-0043 where tire pressure is determined which is indicative of the confidence level of the tire).
Regarding claim 8, Rieck discloses wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to determine at least one condition of the vehicle corresponding to the GNSS data; and adjust at least one of the distance traveled or the size parameter based on the determined at least one condition (Figures 2-3 and Paragraphs 0012-0016, 0034-0040 and 0042-0043 where the radius of the tire is continuously monitored. The size parameter of the tire is adjusted as new calculations occur).
Regarding claim 9, see rejection for claim 2 which discloses all of the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 10, Rieck discloses wherein the machine-readable instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to calculate at least one arc compensation between consecutive coordinates of the coordinate information (Figures 2-3 and Paragraphs 0012-0016, 0034-0040 and 0042-0043 where a motion detector is further utilized to determine exact travel distance through turns and the like).
Regarding claim 11, Rieck discloses wherein the machine-readable instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to adjust the coordinate information for the integration of the distance (Figures 2-3 and Paragraphs 0012-0016, 0034-0040 and 0042-0043 where a motion detector is further utilized to determine exact travel distance through turns and the like).
Regarding claim 12, Rieck discloses wherein the machine-readable instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to adjust the size parameter based on at least one vehicle condition associated with the GNSS data (Figures 2-3 and Paragraphs 0012-0016, 0034-0040 and 0042-0043 where the radius of the tire is continuously monitored. The size parameter of the tire is adjusted as new calculations occur).
Regarding claim 13, Rieck discloses wherein the at least one vehicle condition includes at least one of a pressure or a temperature (Paragraphs 0012-0016, 0034-0040 and 0042-0043 where tire pressure is determined).
Regarding claim 14, Rieck discloses wherein the machine-readable instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to determine an inflation condition of the tire based on the calculated size parameter of the tire (Paragraphs 0012-0016, 0034-0040 and 0042-0043 where tire inflation pressure is determined).
Regarding claim 15, Rieck discloses wherein the distance traveled is integrated by removing a portion of the coordinate information (Figures 2-3 and Paragraphs 0012-0016, 0034-0040 and 0042-0043 where a motion detector is further utilized to determine exact travel distance through turns, driving direction and the like).
Method claim 16 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 2. Therefore method claim 16 corresponds to apparatus claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Regarding claim 17, Rieck discloses calculating, by the at least one processor, at least one wheel position compensation for calculation of the distance traveled (Figures 2-3 and Paragraphs 0012-0016, 0034-0040 and 0042-0043 where relative wheel location on the vehicle is determined to calculate traveled distance).
Regarding claim 18, Rieck discloses wherein calculating the distance traveled includes integrating segments between coordinates of the coordinate information (Figures 2-3 and Paragraphs 0012-0016, 0034-0040 and 0042-0043 where a distance traveled of the wheel of the vehicle is determined based on GPS data).
Regarding claim 19, Rieck discloses determining, by the at least one processor, an inflation condition of the tire based on the size of the tire (Paragraphs 0012-0016, 0034-0040 and 0042-0043 where tire inflation pressure is determined).
Regarding claim 20, Rieck discloses determining, by the at least one processor, that the tire has been changed or installed; and causing, by the at least one processor, collection of the GNSS data and revolution data of the tire in response to the determination that the tire has been changed or installed (Figures 2-3 and Paragraphs 0012-0016, 0034-0040 and 0042-0043 where tire radius and tire pressure are continuously monitored. This includes a period after tires have been changed and/or installed).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS D ALUNKAL whose telephone number is (571)270-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/THOMAS D ALUNKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights