DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-16 are pending.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claim limitations, i.e. claim 10, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
It is noted that it appears none of the drawings show all of the features recited in claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim, i.e. claim 10, recited features that are not clear when reviewing the descriptive portion of the specification in juxtaposition with the drawings. As is, the metes and bounds of the claims may not be ascertained.
6. 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.
Claim 10 is 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 1, line 6, the limitation “at each time step” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The phrase “a plurality of time steps” from line 4 does not cure this matter.
Claim 19, line 8, the limitation “at each time step” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The phrase “a plurality of time steps” from line 6 does not cure this matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
8. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muthukumar, US 9,296,263.
It is noted the terms “tire objective model” and “tire objective” and “tire property” and “tire control signal” and “objective metric” are extremely broad scope and content and basically render the claims with very little substantive limitations.
Muthukumar does not specifically disclose the term “a tire objectives model” as recited from claims 1 and 11. However, Muthukumar does disclose an objective of his invention, e.g. cols. 2-3, lines 64-6.
Regardless, Muthukumar discloses in Figures 1-6A and related text, a vehicle control system, e.g. Fig. 3-5, cols. 12-13, lines 28-42, that actuates tire pressure and temperature to control traction and rolling resistance during critical driving situations. The limitations of pressure, temperature, traction, rolling resistance, and the interaction/interrelation thereof of each, fully encompass the metes and bounds of a "tire objective". Pressure is controlled "according to changes in
temperature" as noted above. Memory is disclosed, e.g. claim 3.
Regarding claim 2, hydroplaning and roll-over situations are disclosed, e.g. col. 4, lines 38-45.
Regarding claim 3-5 and 7, these limitations are disclosed from the Summary, e.g. cols.3-6.
Regarding claim 6, tire pressure control is disclosed, e.g. col. 4, lines 38-45.
Regarding claims 8-12, actuators, driving mode and traction are disclosed, e.g. cols. 12-13, lines 28-42
Regarding claim 13, the disclosure of a vehicle is evident from Fig. 1.
Regarding claims 14-16, the disclosure of circuitry for the tire pressure system for a vehicle is evident from Fig. 1.
To have provided Muthukumar “a tire objectives”, with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as to modify Muthukumar to include these features for the tire pressure system would result with such an objective. The motivation for doing such is to provide an efficient and safe operation of a vehicle that operates in a safe manner when encountering various conditions
9. Pertinent references of interest are noted on the attached PTO-892.
10. Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted May 21, 2025 has been reviewed. Note the attached IDS.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JOSEPH RUDY whose telephone number is
571-272-6789. The examiner can generally be reached on Monday thru Friday from about 10am-6pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey Jabr, can be reached on 571-272-1516. 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.
/ANDREW JOSEPH RUDY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
571-272-6789
Prosecution Insights