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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 230 and 355. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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:
Page 2 line 19 reads “more safe” which appears to be a conjugation error and should read “safer” to improve clarity.
Page 7 line 5 reads “wheel slip and tyre force is” which appears to be a conjugation error and should read “wheel slip and tyre force are” to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4, 7, 9-12, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1 of claims 2, 7, and 9-12 reads "The method according to claim 1, comprising" which appears to be a continuity error since the comprising method steps have already been detailed in claim 1. This should read "The method according to claim 1, further comprising" to improve clarity and continuity.
Lines 3-4 of claim 2 read "based which subsets… that generate a declared error" which appears to be a typographical error and should read "based on which subsets… generate a declared error" or "based on subsets… that generate a declared error" to improve clarity.
Line 1 of claim 8 reads "The method according to claim 1, determining" which appears to be a typographical error and should read "The method according to claim 1, further comprising determining" to improve clarity and continuity.
Lines 1-3 of claim 17 read "a processor device configured to monitor… where the processor device is configured to [new line] select" which appears to be a continuity error since the configuration of the processor device has already been disclosed. This should read "a processor device configured to [new line] monitor… [new line] select" to improve clarity and continuity. (Examiner’s note: bracketed new line indicates the start of a new line and is not literal text included in the claims.)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for performing calculations using two or more wheels, does not reasonably provide enablement for performing calculations using one wheel. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The independent claims provide a system/method that “monitor[s] tyre radius data associated with one or more wheels” and “select[s] at least a subset of the one or more wheels”. However, the tire radius data from the one or more wheels is required in determining tire radii quotients. The same applies for the wheel speeds from the one or more wheels which is required in determining wheel speed quotients. If the specification was properly enabling for “one or more”, the calculation of tire radii quotients and wheel speed quotients should only require the data that has been monitored/obtained from one wheel such that the all options in “one or more” are enabled. However, the quotients throughout the specification (see page 14 line 14 to page 15 line 8, for example) explicitly require the data from at least two wheels to be known. This is further reflected, for example, with claims 8-9 which require at least an i-th and j-th wheel. It is abundantly clear from the specification that it is unreasonable to interpret the quotients as only containing data from one tire/wheel. However, the claims are written as if only knowing the tire radius data and wheel speed of only one wheel speed is applicable such that the claims are presented with undue breadth incommensurate with the nature of the invention as disclosed in the specification. Thus, the specification is not enabling for this aspect of the invention as claimed. Instead, one of ordinary skill in the art would be forced to perform undue experimentation in order to obtain a possible quotient equation utilizing only data from one tire/wheel.
This problem can be remedied with a slight rewording of the claims. For example, “one or more wheels” can be replaced with “two or more wheels” and/or the selection and data obtaining/monitoring steps can be reworded such that data is obtained from additional tires/wheels that are not included in the selected subset(s) of tire(s)/wheel(s). The latter change would allow the claims to be commensurate in scope with the specification while still allowing selection of only one tire/wheel.
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 1-17 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.
Claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: obtaining/monitoring tire radius data. In claim 1, the limitation “for monitoring tyre radius data”, although parallel to the limitation in claim 17, does not actually impose patentable weight unlike in claim 17. Instead, the limitation in claim 1 is a mere recitation of intended use of the method. See MPEP 211.02(II). Examiner recommends rewording and moving this limitation into the body of the claim following “comprising” such that it is a positively recited method step.
Claims 1 and 17 recite the limitation "the wheels in the selected subset of wheels" in line 5-6 and line 5 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation (i.e. a plurality of wheels) in the claims if only one wheel is selected.
Claims 1 and 17 recite the limitations of determining tire radii quotients and wheel speed quotients based on tire radii data and wheel speeds respectively. As detailed regarding enablement above, reasonable interpretation in light of the specification requires data from at least two wheels, but an option of obtaining/monitoring data of only one wheel is possible with the current claim wording. It is thus not definite how the quotients are supposed to be determined when data from only one wheel is known.
Regarding claims 1 and 17, claim limitations "obtaining, by the processor device" and "processor device configured to monitor" have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is unclear if “processor” is meant to be merely descriptive of the device or if it meant to be a structure of the device. A review of the specification reveals a plurality of conventional processors or processing circuitry are potential structure for the processor device (see page 19 lines 16-26), but other hardware solutions are also recited. Thus, it is unclear if “processor device” was claimed as a means to indicate significantly more than a mere processor as the comprising components of the device or if “processor” is meant to be a structural definition of the device. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purpose of examination, “processor device” will NOT be under 112(f) and instead will be interpreted as a processor as well known in the art.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim(s) 2-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claims 8-9 recite the limitation "i-th and j-th wheel" in line 4 and lines 4-5 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims if only one wheel is selected/monitored. Further, it is unclear if the i-th and j-th wheels are wheels within the subset or outside of the subset or both.
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 1-10 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations:
monitor tyre radius data associated with one or more wheel of a heavy-duty vehicle…
select at least a subset of the one or more wheels of the heavy-duty vehicle,
obtain respective wheel speeds for the wheels in the selected subset of wheels,
determine relative tyre radii quotients based on the tyre radius data and
corresponding wheel speed quotients based on the wheel speeds, respectively, and
declare an error if a difference between the relative tyre radii quotients and the corresponding wheel speed quotients fails to satisfy a difference acceptance criterion.
The limitations (b and d-f) recited above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and using mathematical equations but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a processor device, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind or using mathematical equations. For example, regarding performance of the method in the mind, a person can easily choose a tire of a vehicle to examine (b). The person can then, mentally or with pen and paper, calculate ratios between the radii of the selected tire and all the other tires on the vehicle (d). Similarly, the person can calculate ratios between the wheel speeds of the selected tire and all the other tires on the vehicle (e). The person can then determine that corresponding wheel speed and radii ratios differ beyond a satisfactory margin, indicating an error has occurred (f). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. For another example, regarding performance of the method with mathematical equations, the claimed invention is a mere description of performing basic division between known, selected values to obtain quotients (b and d-e) and using a Boolean operator to compare a difference between the calculated quotients and a threshold value to return a true or false answer representing whether a problem has occurred or not (f). Evidence of these equations can be found within the specification (see at least page 3 line 13 to page 4 line 2). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation using mathematical equations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the processor device is/are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using (a) generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The monitoring and obtaining steps (a and c) are insignificant extra pre-solution activities of mere data gathering. Mere data gathering cannot form an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processor device is generically claimed as detailed above. A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity in the field. The limitation of monitoring and obtaining data (a and c) is a WURC activity because Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 indicated that the storage and retrieval of data from memory is a WURC function. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). If instead these steps are interpreted as being performed via data transmission, the limitation of monitoring and obtaining data (a and c) is a WURC activity because BuySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) indicated that the transmission and reception of data is a WURC function. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-10 and 12-16 do(es) not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible.
Claims 2-6, and 8-9 detail further aspects of the abstract idea.
Claim 7 claims sensors. Hall effect sensors and rotary encoders is/are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using (a) generic vehicle component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic vehicle component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 10 details an insignificant extra post solution activity of mere display and/or data transmission. The limitation of triggering generation of a notification and/or warning message is a WURC activity because OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) indicated that the transmission of messages over a network is a WURC function and Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d 1553, 1559-60 (Fed. Cir. 2018) indicated that the display of data without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result is a WURC function. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(a)(I). Hence, the claims are not patent eligible. Alternatively, generation of a notification and/or warning message may be interpreted as part of the mental process since only generation of the notification/message is required. Display or communication of the message is not explicitly claimed.
Claims 12-13 detail further data gathering steps and further aspects of the abstract idea.
Claim 14 reframes the invention as being in a vehicle. The vehicle is generically claimed such that it merely generally links the abstract idea to be onboard a generic vehicle.
Claim 15 reframes the invention as being program code. This acts as a mere recitation to perform the method with a computer. The recitation of an abstract idea applied to a computer does not prohibit the idea from being performed mentally as detailed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) and the court cases cited therein.
Claim 16 reframes the invention as being a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (hereinafter CRM). The CRM is/are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using (a) generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim(s) 11 recite(s) further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible.
Claim 11 details real vehicle control in response to the result of the abstract idea which integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner recommends amending the limitations of claim 11 into the independent claims to overcome the 101 rejection of record.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it claims software per se. If applicant wishes to claim a computer program product (hereinafter CPP) comprising program code, the CPP should also at least comprise a CRM comprising the program code. The claim, as written, only claims executable code. The processor which can execute the code is not part of the claimed CPP. Examiner recommends cancellation of claim 15 as adding a CRM to the CPP would result in a substantially duplicate claim of claim 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112(a), 112(b), and 101 rejections of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art teaches or suggests the following limitation:
declare an error if a difference between the relative tyre radii quotients and the corresponding wheel speed quotients fails to satisfy a difference acceptance criterion.
Lavoie US 20160282226 A1 (hereinafter Lavoie) appears to be the closest prior art. Lavoie teaches, using an unreasonable interpretation,
determining relative tyre radii quotients based on the tyre radius data (¶ 0046 discloses estimating tire radii based on a ratio including at least tire radii data) and corresponding wheel speed quotients based on the wheel speeds (¶ 0046 discloses estimating tire radii based on a ratio including at least angular velocity of tires), respectively, and
declaring an error if a difference between the relative tyre radii quotients and the corresponding wheel speed quotients fails to satisfy a difference acceptance criterion (¶ 0047-0048 discloses determining that a difference between the two radii estimates is beyond a threshold indicating the use of a spare tire and, if the vehicle is travelling above a set speed, determining that the spare tire is being used beyond its recommended limit).
This appears to teach the claimed invention until one looks into the specification to understand the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). A review of the specification (see page 14 line 14 to page 15 line 8, for example) indicates that the tire radii quotients and wheel speed quotients should be a ratio of two distinct radii and wheel speeds respectively, wherein one value should be on the numerator and one value should be on the denominator. That means that it is only reasonable to understand the quotients as at least containing a ratio of data as detailed. Any additional aspects of the equation one of ordinary skill in the art could think of would be acceptable under BRI as long as a ratio of tire radii data and wheel speeds respectively is clearly recited. Lavoie does teach a ratio of wheel speeds to estimate tire radii (see equation 3), but does not teach a clear recitation of a ratio of radii. Instead, equation 2 only indicates a ratio wherein one radii value is in the numerator. Therefore, even if equations 2 and 3 are used together as taught in ¶ 0046, Lavoie does not clearly teach a ratio of tire radii. Logically, it would not make sense to create a ratio including a value of the variable one wishes to solve such that both sides of the equation contain the to-be-solved-for variable, so a mere substitution using art teaching a ratio of radii is not logical since the difference equation of Lavoie must be a difference of tire radii estimates. Therefore, the claimed invention appears to be novel and non-obvious in light of the prior art of record.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Griesser et al. US-6691059-B1 discloses comparing a tire radii ratio to a threshold to detect a pressure loss event.
Kurata et al. US-20100114428-A1 discloses determining a tire diameter ratio (which is equivalent to a wheel speed ratio) and subtracting the ratio from a reference value to determine a tire diameter difference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights