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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-14 of copending Application No. 19/474474 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of copending application 19/474474 show each and every limitation set forth by the claims of the instant application.
19/474465
19/474474
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Araya [JP 2014231337 A].
As for claim 1, Araya discloses a computer-implemented method for automatic detection of the mounting position of a tire on a vehicle equipped with two or more tires (Figure 1), the method comprising:
transmitting, by a tire mounted sensor (3) mounted on the tire, one or more signals at each of a plurality of predetermined angular positions during at least one rotation of the tire (paragraphs 0031-0032);
receiving, by a receiving unit, the transmitted one or more signals (paragraphs 0031-0032);
processing, by a processing unit (33), the received one or more signals by:
measuring the relative signal strength indicator (RSSI) value of each of the one or more signals transmitted at each of the plurality of predetermined angular positions (paragraph 0025);
associating, based on the measured RSSI values, a derived angular RSSI value to each of the plurality of predetermined angular positions (paragraphs 0025-0029);
grouping the derived angular RSSI values into a group of angular RSSI values forming an RSSI code associated to the tire (paragraphs 0025-0030);
evaluating the difference of the group of angular RSSI values associated to the tire with respect to each code in a predetermined set of reference RSSI codes, wherein each code of said predetermined set of reference RSSI codes is associated to a known tire mounting position on the vehicle (paragraphs 0031-0037); and
determining the mounting position of the tire on the vehicle based on the evaluated difference of the group of angular RSSI values associated to the tire with respect to each of the predetermined reference RSSI codes (paragraphs 0031-0037).
As for claim 2, Araya discloses wherein associating, based on the measured RSSI values, a derived angular RSSI value to each of the plurality of predetermined angular positions comprises:
selecting the measured RSSI value of any of the one or more signals transmitted at the predetermined angular position as the derived angular RSSI value associated to the predetermined angular position (see claim 1 above; paragraphs 0031-0037).
Claim 3 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above.
As for claim 4, Araya discloses a preliminary learning phase for each tire mounted on the vehicle in a known mounting position comprising the following steps:
forming an RSSI code associated to the tire based on the group of angular RSSI values according to any of the preceding claims; saving the obtained RSSI code as the reference RSSI code in association to the corresponding known mounting position of the tire on the vehicle (paragraph 0034).
Claims 6-7 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above.
Claim 8 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above.
Claim 9 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 2 above.
Claim 10 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 3 above.
Claim 11 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 4 above.
Claim 12 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 6 above.
Claim 14 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claims 1 and 8 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araya as applied to the claims above.
As for claim 5, Araya does not specifically disclose that the plurality of angular positions are selected from the upper half of the tire arc. However, Araya discloses that the predetermined angular positions are selected from the tire arc (paragraphs 0025-0028). Having each of the references on hand, the skilled artisan would have recognized that the predetermined angular positions could be set for different points along the arc of the tire. The selection of the predetermined positions is viewed as a matter of engineering preference. The skilled artisan would have had good reason to try different positions in an effort to yield the most desirable results.
Claim 13 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 5 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of the cited references discloses tire position determining systems and methods that were known in the art at the time of filing the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M BLOUNT whose telephone number is (571)272-2973. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a - 5:30p.
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 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.
ERIC M. BLOUNT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
/Eric Blount/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
