DETAILED ACTION
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in Instant Application.
3. Claims 21-44 are cancelled.
Priority
4. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 07/03/2025 has been received and considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Examiner’s Note
6. Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all of part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Election/Restrictions
7. Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 06/05/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is system for monitoring wheel performance.
Claim 8 is directed to method.
Claim 15 is directed to non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below - bolded) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. The claim limitations that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application are underlined.
Claim 1 recites,
A system for monitoring wheel performance of a vehicle, the vehicle including a plurality of wheels and a plurality of tires mounted on the plurality of wheels, the system comprising:
a plurality of sensors on the plurality of wheels;
a controller operatively connected to the plurality of sensors, the controller including at least one processor configured to:
receive measurements from the plurality of sensors on the plurality of wheels;
determine, for each wheel of the plurality of wheels, based on the measurements from a sensor of the plurality of sensors on that wheel, an angular acceleration of that wheel; (A person of ordinary skill in the art can calculate with the aid of a pen and paper an angular acceleration of a wheel based on collected data. Thus, this limitation is constructed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. The limitation also recites that a calculation is done to calculate the angular acceleration of that wheel. Therefore, a mathematical calculation is applied to sensor data from each wheel. Thus, this limitation is constructed to be directed to the abstract idea of mathematical concepts.)
calculate, for each wheel of the plurality of wheels, based on the angular acceleration of that wheel, an angular jerk of that wheel; (A person of ordinary skill in the art can calculate with the aid of a pen and paper angular jerk of a wheel based on collected data. Thus, this limitation is constructed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. The limitation also recites that a calculation is done to calculate an angular jerk of a wheel. Therefore, a mathematical calculation is applied to sensor data from each wheel. Thus, this limitation is constructed to be directed to the abstract idea of mathematical concepts.)
determine, for each wheel of the plurality of wheels, based on the angular jerk of that wheel, an amount of tire slip for that wheel; (A person of ordinary skill in the art can calculate with the aid of a pen and paper an amount of tire slip of a wheel based on collected data. Thus, this limitation is constructed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. The limitation also recites that a calculation is done to calculate a amount of tire slip of that wheel. Therefore, a mathematical calculation is applied to sensor data from each wheel. Thus, this limitation is constructed to be directed to the abstract idea of mathematical concepts.)
and perform at least one of the following: (i) control a display to display the amount of tire slip of at least one wheel of the plurality of wheels, (ii) control a central tire inflation system of the vehicle to inflate or deflate at least one tire of the plurality of tires mounted on the at least one wheel based on the amount of tire slip of the at least one wheel, or any combination thereof.
Claim 8 and 15 recites similar language and thus has a similar analysis to claim 1, as shown above.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 recites,
A system for monitoring wheel performance of a vehicle, the vehicle including a plurality of wheels and a plurality of tires mounted on the plurality of wheels, the system comprising:
a plurality of sensors on the plurality of wheels; (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
a controller operatively connected to the plurality of sensors, the controller including at least one processor configured to: (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
receive, for each wheel of the plurality of wheels, from a sensor of the plurality of sensors on that wheel, a strain measurement associated with that wheel; (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
determine, for each wheel of the plurality of wheels, based on the measurements from a sensor of the plurality of sensors on that wheel, an angular acceleration of that wheel;
calculate, for each wheel of the plurality of wheels, based on the angular acceleration of that wheel, an angular jerk of that wheel;
determine, for each wheel of the plurality of wheels, based on the angular jerk of that wheel, an amount of tire slip for that wheel;
and perform at least one of the following: (i) control a display to display the amount of tire slip of at least one wheel of the plurality of wheels, (ii) control a central tire inflation system of the vehicle to inflate or deflate at least one tire of the plurality of tires mounted on the at least one wheel based on the amount of tire slip of the at least one wheel, or any combination thereof. (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The claim recites performing at least one of the following “display..” or “control..”. If the display limitation is being performed, this is merely post-solution activity. This is merely just displaying collected data and is not generating a vehicle-controlled response to the collected data. Instantly this appears to be mere process based of the mental process. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)). If however, applicant performs solely the “control..” limitation, this would overcome the 101 as it is controlling the vehicle to inflate/deflate at least one tire.)
Claim 8 and 15 recites similar language and thus has a similar analysis to claim 1, as shown above.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1, 10 and 15 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element discussed above, appears to be mere data gathering and transmitting of information which can be analyzed by an abstract mental process. And as discussed above, the additional limitations which are underlined above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Showcasing a controlling element for the vehicle, such as performing “control a central tire inflation system of the vehicle to inflate or deflate at least one tire of the plurality of tires mounted on the at least one wheel based on the amount of tire slip of the at least one wheel” is utilizing the information and would overcome the 101 rejections for Claims 1, 8 and 15.
Claim(s) 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The US reference (20220063638) discloses the vehicle including a plurality of wheels and a plurality of tires mounted on the plurality of wheels, the system comprising: a plurality of sensors on the plurality of wheels, and discloses a controller operatively connected to the plurality of sensors, the controller including at least one processor configured to receive, for each wheel of the plurality of wheels, from a sensor of the plurality of sensors on that wheel, an angular acceleration associated with that wheel. However, none of the documents discloses the feature of, among other limitations, “calculate, for each wheel of the plurality of wheels, based on the angular acceleration of that wheel, an angular jerk of that wheel” or “determine, for each wheel of the plurality of wheels, based on the angular jerk of that wheel, an amount of tire slip for that wheel” and does not disclose performing “control a display to display the amount of tire slip of at least one wheel of the plurality of wheels” or “control a central tire inflation system of the vehicle to inflate or deflate at least one tire of the plurality of tires mounted on the at least one wheel based on the amount of tire slip of the at least one wheel” of the invention as set forth in claims 1, 8 and 15.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2007125033– A measuring device for measuring the speed of a vehicle running on wheels has more than one sensor. The sensors are arranged on the same wheel of a vehicle and rotate with this wheel. Both sensors are arranged in such a way that they measure forces which are each perpendicular to the axis of the wheel and at an angle to one another.
WO 2009070063– There is provided a module operable to monitor at least a pressure within a tyre of a wheel, said module being operatively mounted to said wheel, said module includes: a pressure sensor for measuring said pressure and generating a corresponding pressure signal; and an associated data memory including a data field containing data relevant to the functional status of the tyre
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI whose telephone number is (571) 272-2052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 8AM-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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights