DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on May 6, 2025. Claims 1 – 9, 11, 13 and 15 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they include rectangular boxes without appropriate legends. For example, element numbers drawn within ellipses and within rectangular, square and diamond shaped boxes in FIGS. 1 – 6 and 8 need appropriate legends. Empty or unlabeled boxes in a circuit are not descriptive, and therefore incomplete. See 37 CFR 1.83(a) and 1.84(o).
Suitable descriptive legends are required by the examiner as necessary for understanding of the drawing. They should contain as few words as possible. See 37 CFR 1.84(o). Corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. No new matter should be entered. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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 pre-AIA 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by cited U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0253243 A1 to Dudar et al. (herein after "Dudar et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
One aspect of the Dudar et al. publication is determining whether a spare tire has been installed on an autonomous vehicle. (See FIGS. 3 – 4, Abstract, ¶1 and ¶¶ 6 – 7.)
As to claims 1, 2, 13 and 15,
the Dudar et al. publication discloses a control system (100, 101, 105, 120, 125, 130, 300) for an advanced driver assistance system, ADAS, of a vehicle (101)(see FIGS. 1 and 3 and ¶¶ 6 – 7 for a control system 100 used for controlling the operation of an “autonomous vehicle”, which are fundamentally known to employ an Advanced Driver Assistance System or ADAS, especially for vehicles who operate up to driving automation level 2), the control system comprising one or more controllers (see ¶9 and ¶12, where “computing device 105 [of system 100] may transmit messages to various devices in a vehicle and/or receive messages from the various devices, e.g., controllers . . .”), the control system configured to:
receive a space-saver wheel signal, wherein the space-saver wheel signal is indicative of a space-saver wheel being operatively fitted to the vehicle (see ¶24, where “computing device 105 compares the two pressure readings and determines whether the spare tire is in use. For example, if the second pressure reading is greater than the first pressure reading by more than a predetermined threshold, then the pressure in the spare tire may be increasing, indicating that the spare tire is in use”);
determine, in dependence on the space-saver wheel signal, an operating parameter range of the vehicle (see ¶26, where “the computing device 105 determines operating parameters for the vehicle 101 . . . the term ‘operating parameter’ refers to a measurable quantity of a vehicle 101 component”); and
output an operating parameter range signal to the ADAS to cause the ADAS to control the operation of the vehicle to be within the operating parameter range (see FIG. 3, Box 355 “Take action based on determined parameters”; see also ¶28).
As to claim 4,
the Dudar et al. publication discloses the space-saver wheel signal indicative of a predetermined speed limit within which the vehicle is to operate according to an operating capability of the space-saver wheel. (See ¶36.)
As to claim 7,
the Dudar et al. publication discloses receiving a space-saver wheel tyre pressure signal, indicative of a tyre pressure of the space-saver wheel, from the transmitter (110) of the space-saver wheel (see ¶12);
determine whether the tyre pressure of the space-saver wheel is within a predetermined space-saver wheel tyre pressure operating range (see ¶17); and
output an indication of whether the tyre pressure of the space-saver wheel is within or outside the space-saver wheel tyre pressure operating range. (See ¶17.)
As to claim 9,
the Dudar et al. publication discloses the control system (100) being configured to receive tyre-pressure monitoring system, TPMS, signals from the vehicle wheels (see ¶6 for “Tire pressure monitoring systems (TMPS)” and ¶12, where “the TMPS may measure an internal pressure of a vehicle 101 tire”), and the space-saver wheel signal is received from a TPMS valve fitted in the space-saver wheel. (See ¶36.)
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 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.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Dudar et al. publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0005384 A1 to Ding et al. (herein after “Ding et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 5,
the Dudar et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including “a speed limiter subsystem 107 . . . [that] limits the speed of the propulsion subsystem 107 to below a speed threshold.” (See ¶36.) The Dudar et al. publication does not specifically disclose
the control system (100) being . . . configured to: in response to determining that the current vehicle speed exceeds the predetermined speed limit according to an operating capability of the space-saver wheel, disable an automated driving function of the ADAS.
Automated driving functions associated with an ADAS and operatively reliant on vehicle speed are old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Ding et al. publication who discloses that “ADAS features may need to be turned off” when the “autonomous vehicle” moves at predetermined speeds. (See ¶3 and ¶23)(Emphasis added.)
Such disclosure suggests the control system 100 being configured to, in response to determining that the current vehicle speed exceeds the predetermined speed limit according to an operating capability of the space-saver wheel, disable an automated driving function of the ADAS based on movement information of the vehicle.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Dudar et al. publication so that the control system is configured to, in response to determining that the current vehicle speed exceeds the predetermined speed limit according to an operating capability of the space-saver wheel, disable an automated driving function of the ADAS, as suggested by the Ding et al. publication, based on the movement information of the vehicle.
As to claim 6,
the Dudar et al. publication discloses that speed limiter subsystem 107 limits the speed of the propulsion subsystem 107 to below a speed threshold.” (See ¶36.) Accordingly, the Dudar et al. publication is considered to disclose the control system 100 being further configured to: cause the ADAS to control the speed of the vehicle 101 to be within the predetermined speed limit.
As to claim 8,
the Dudar et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including “a speed limiter subsystem 107 . . . [that] limits the speed of the propulsion subsystem 107 to below a speed threshold.” (See ¶36.) The Dudar et al. publication does not specifically disclose
the control system (100) being further configured to, in dependence on the determination that the tyre pressure of the space-saver wheel is outside a predetermined space- saver wheel tyre pressure operating range, disable an automated driving function of the ADAS.
Automated driving functions associated with an ADAS and operatively reliant on wheel data are old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Ding et al. publication who discloses that “ADAS features may need to be turned off” when the “autonomous vehicle” moves at predetermined speeds. (See ¶3 and ¶23)(Emphasis added.)
Such disclosure suggests the control system 100 being configured to, in dependence on the determination that the tyre pressure of the space-saver wheel is outside a predetermined space- saver wheel tyre pressure operating range, disable an automated driving function of the ADAS.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Dudar et al. publication so that the control system is configured to, in dependence on the determination that the tyre pressure of the space-saver wheel is outside a predetermined space- saver wheel tyre pressure operating range, disable an automated driving function of the ADAS, as suggested by the Ding et al. publication, based on the movement information of the vehicle.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Dudar et al. publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0059551 A1 to Juzswik et al. (herein after “Juzswik et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 3,
the Dudar et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed,
except for
receiving a rotation signal from a transmitter of the space-saver wheel, wherein the rotation signal is indicative that the space-saver wheel is operatively fitted to the vehicle in motion.
Receiving a rotation signal from a transmitter of a vehicle wheel to determine a position of a tire on the vehicle is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Juzswik et al. publication. (See Abstract and ¶7; see also ¶19, where “[t]he tire-based sensor assembly 15 may include a transmitter for transmitting signals indicative of sensed parameters”.)
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Dudar et al. publication to receive a rotation signal from a transmitter of the space-saver wheel, wherein the rotation signal is indicative that the space-saver wheel is operatively fitted to the vehicle in motion, as suggested by the Ding et al. publication, based on movement information of the vehicle.
As to claim 11,
the Dudar et al. publication discloses a system (100, 101, 105, 120, 125, 130, 300), comprising: a control system according to claim 3; and one or more of the ADAS (see FIGS. 1 and 3 and ¶¶ 6 – 7 for a control system 100 used for controlling the operation of an “autonomous vehicle”, which are fundamentally known to employ an Advanced Driver Assistance System or ADAS, especially for vehicles who operate up to driving automation level 2; and the space-saver wheel comprising the transmitter (110)(see ¶12, where “pressure sensor 110 in the TMPS may measure an internal pressure of a vehicle 101 tire”).
Conclusion
Examiner's Note(s): 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. 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 Preda, 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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights