DETAILED ACTION
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 Status
Claims 1-12 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/10/2026 have been fully considered.
In response to the “Rejection Under 35 USC 112”, the rejection has been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
In response to the “Rejection Under 35 USC 103” on pages 5 and 6, Applicant argues that Katou fails to teach the limitation “computing the voltage drop based on said acquired load voltage; and transmitting said computed voltage drop” in claim 1. Specifically, Applicant asserts that Katou merely determines whether the voltage drops below a lowest operating voltage V1 rather than “computing the voltage drop” as required by the claim.
However, Katou discloses the challenged features in the following paragraphs:
[0009]:
“If the value of the voltage detected by the voltage sensor is lowered to a lowest operation voltage of the transmitter during the transmission preparation process, the electricity control circuit limits the supply of electricity to the transmission circuit from the battery.”,
[0035]:
“Then, while monitoring signals from the voltage sensor 32, the electricity control circuit 34 gradually increases the supplied current value. As the supplied current is increased, the voltage of the battery 37 is lowered.” (emphasis underlined), and
[0042],
“The transmitter 3 transmits the voltage data representing that the voltage of the battery 37 has reached the lowest operation voltage V1. Accordingly, occupants are informed that the voltage of the battery 37 has been lowered.”.
The cited paragraphs clearly teach the electricity control circuit 34 is configured to monitor the voltage of the battery using the voltage sensor. If the battery voltage is detected to be lowered from peak voltage V, obtained during time t2 - t3, to lowest operating voltage V1, as shown in Fig. 5 during time t3 - t4, then the control circuit transmits a signal that indicates about the voltage drop. Contrary to the Applicant’s argument that Katou merely detects the lowest operating voltage V1 without any computation, Katou explicitly teaches the detection of the voltage is “lowered”. In other words, computations are performed by the control circuit to determine the lowering of the voltage and as depicted in Fig. 5, where the control circuit monitors voltage drops from time t3 to t4.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that Katou’s tire sensor 3 fails to transmit the voltage drop, paragraph [0042] of Katou clearly discloses that the transmitter transmits a signal that indicates the battery voltage has lowered to the lowest operating voltage. Applicant’s argument that requires Katou’s transmission to indicate “the magnitude of the voltage decrease between the initial voltage and a subsequent voltage” is narrower than the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation. Specifically, the claim limitation does not expressly or inherently require transmission or computation of the exact magnitude of the voltage drop. In this case, a mere indication of the voltage drop is sufficient.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained based on the disclosure of Katou.
As noted, claims 3-5, 7-9 and 12 that are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katou (Pub. No.: US 2004/0069056 A1) in view of Okada (Pub. No.: US 11,298,990 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Katou teaches a method for acquiring the value of a voltage drop of a power supply battery of a sensor of a tire pressure monitoring system (Fig. 1 – 6, Abstract, “A transmitter has a tire condition sensor, a transmission circuit, a voltage sensor and an electricity control circuit. The tire condition sensor detects the condition of a tire. The voltage sensor detects a voltage of the battery. During a period from when the tire condition sensor detects the condition of the tire to when the transmission circuit starts transmitting the data, the electricity control circuit performs a transmission preparation process to gradually increase electricity supplied to the transmission circuit from a battery, thereby gradually increasing a radio wave output of the transmission circuit. If the value of the voltage detected by the voltage sensor is lowered to a lowest operation voltage of the transmitter during the transmission preparation process, the electricity control circuit limits the supply of electricity to the transmission circuit from the battery.”. The tire condition monitoring apparatus 1 includes at least one tire transmitter 3 that determines a voltage drop of the battery of the transmitter 3 during data transmission.), said sensor being designed to detect an anomaly in a wheel unit of a motor vehicle (Fig. 3, tire pressure sensor 30, and para [0045], “The number of data frames shown in FIG. 4 is not limited to three. For example, when the detection value (the internal pressure of the tire 2) detected by the pressure sensor 30 is equal to or less than predetermined value,”. The tire transmitter 3 includes a pressure sensor 30 that detects the pressure of the tire 2 to indicate whether the tire pressure is equal to or less than a predetermined value.) said method comprising:
acquiring the load voltage of said power supply battery when said sensor transmits data (Fig. 5, the voltage sensor 32 measures the load voltage of the transmitter 3 as shown in Fig. 5);
computing the voltage drop based on said acquired load voltage (Fig. 5, para [0035] “Specifically, at time t3, the electricity control circuit 34 starts activating the transmission circuit 35. In a first stage, the electricity control circuit 34 starts activating the transmission circuit 35 by sending a small current to the transmission circuit 35. Then, while monitoring signals from the voltage sensor 32, the electricity control circuit 34 gradually increases the supplied current value. As the supplied current is increased, the voltage of the battery 37 is lowered. As the voltage of the battery 37 obtained by the voltage sensor 32 approaches the lowest operation voltage V1, the electricity control circuit 34 stops increasing the current. From time t4, the electricity control circuit 34 maintains a constant output. The electricity control circuit 34 lowest operation voltage data in the transmission controller 33. The lowest operation voltage represents that the voltage of the battery 37 has reached the lowest operation voltage V1.”. The control circuit 3 determines the voltage of the battery has dropped from an initial voltage V at time t3 to the lowest operation voltage V1 at time t4 based on the acquired load voltage); and
transmitting said computed voltage drop (para [0042], “The transmitter 3 transmits the voltage data representing that the voltage of the battery 37 has reached the lowest operation voltage V1. Accordingly, occupants are informed that the voltage of the battery 37 has been lowered.”. The transmitter transmits the voltage V1 to indicate of the determined voltage drop).
Katou fails to expressly teach the transmitter 3 comprising an ultra-high-frequency two-way communication device.
However, in the same field of tire pressure monitoring, Okada teaches tire sensors 2 that include UHF transceiver for communication with the vehicle system 3. See Col. 3 line 62 – Col. 4 line 6, “As shown in FIG. 1, the sensor transceiver 2 (i.e., each of the sensor transceivers 2) is attached one by one to each of the wheels 4a to 4d of the vehicle 1. The sensor transceiver 2 functions primarily as a transmitter; the transmitter detects a tire pressure of a tire attached to each of the wheels 4a to 4d and an inside temperature of the tire while the vehicle 1 is traveling, and the transmitter then transmits a frame that stores the data of a detection signal indicating a detection result. In addition, the sensor transceiver 2 also functions as a receiver which receives RF waves that include UHF (Ultra High Frequency) waves transmitted from the vehicle-body system 3 as described later.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Katou’s tire transmitter 3 with a UHF transceiver to improve signal penetration.
Regarding claim 2, Katou teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step of acquiring the load voltage of said power supply battery when said sensor transmits data is performed on a first transmission frame (Fig. 5, the transmitter determines voltage drop during time frame t3-t4) and the step of transmitting said computed voltage drop is performed on a second transmission frame following said first transmission frame (Fig. 5, paras [0034] - [0042], the transmitter transmits the lowest operation voltage V1 during the time frame t4-t5.).
Regarding claim 6, Katou teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step of acquiring the load voltage of said power supply battery when said sensor transmits data and the step of transmitting said computed voltage drop are performed on the same first transmission frame (Fig. 5 and paras [0034] - [0042], the transmitter determines the voltage drop and transmits the lowest operation voltage V1 during the same transmission time frame t3-t5).
Regarding claim 10, Katou teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step of computing the voltage drop based on said acquired load voltage is carried out by measuring a no-load voltage of said power supply battery (Fig. 5, the control circuit 3 determines the voltage of the battery has dropped based on an initial no-transmission-load voltage V at time t3).
Regarding claim 11, Katou teaches a sensor for a tire pressure monitoring system of a motor vehicle, wherein the sensor comprises hardware and/or software means for implementing the method as claimed in claim 1 (Fig. 1 – Fig 2, show the structure of the tire transmitter 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7-9 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHEN Y WU whose telephone number is (571)272-5711. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM, 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 supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/ZHEN Y WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights