DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Action is responsive to Applicant’s response filed on 06/04/2026. All claims are still pending
in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
During prosecution, claim scope not solely on the basis of claim language, but also on giving claims their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim.”). Additionally, “[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In regards to Argument(s) III. A, Applicant(s) state(s) that, “Claims 1 and 15: Wittmann + NHTSA Do Not Render the Claims Obvious”, therefore, the rejection of 35 U.S.C. 103 should be removed, (Emphasis added, Remarks, page(s) 15).
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant characterizes Wittmann as merely a physical tire-condition monitoring system directed to parameters such as tread wear, sidewall damage, overheating, and tire pressure. While Wittmann certainly discloses such tire-condition monitoring embodiments, Applicant's characterization does not account for Wittmann's additional tire-identification and asset-management teachings. In particular, Wittmann discloses identifying individual tires by computer vision, including OCR of tire sidewall markings to obtain a unique or close-to-unique identifying string (Paragraph [0027]), and further discloses a computerized tire-management method in which unique tire identifiers are associated with vehicle identifiers such that each tire is associated with a specific vehicle, after which the computer compares the tire identifiers and their associated vehicles for a match (Paragraph [0068] and Paragraph [0177]).
Wittmann additionally discloses identifying a vehicle using, inter alia, license-plate recognition, communicating with an online server having vehicle information stored in a database, and providing the server with the vehicle identifier and tire information including OCR-readable letters, numbers, and characters on the tire (Paragraph [0135]). Wittmann further teaches using OCR to identify tires by comparing tire sidewall data, including manufacture-date information, with data stored in a database (Paragraph [0175]). Accordingly, Applicant's assertion that Wittmann is “simply a condition monitor” does not accurately characterize Wittmann's disclosure. Wittmann already provides tire identification from sidewall information, tire-to-vehicle association, vehicle identification, database comparison, and networked data-processing functionality.
Applicant further emphasizes that the Office Action stated that Wittmann does not itself teach compiling the recited tire safety information database, comparing a scanned tire identifier with tire identifiers assigned to tires having safety issues, and communicating the claimed warning upon determining a match. This observation does not establish nonobviousness because the rejection is not based upon Wittmann alone, but upon the combined teachings of Wittmann and NHTSA under 35 U.S.C. 103. Wittmann is relied upon for the underlying tire-imaging, OCR-based tire-identification, tire-to-vehicle association, vehicle-identification, and database architecture, while NHTSA is relied upon for the additional tire-safety/recall database, comparison, and safety-alert teachings. Thus, the proposed combination does not require transforming Wittmann into a fundamentally different system, and Applicant's characterization of the additional limitations as the “core inventive concept” does not alter the obviousness inquiry based on the claimed subject matter as a whole and the combined teachings of the prior art.
As a result, the argued features are written such that they read upon the cited references. Therefore, the previous rejection still applies.
In regards to Argument(s) III. B, Applicant(s) state(s) that, “The NHTSA Study Does Not Teach a Working Technical Implementation”, therefore, the rejection of 35 U.S.C. 103 should be removed, (Emphasis added, Remarks, page(s) 16).
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant characterizes the NHTSA Electronic Tire Identification Study as merely a policy or feasibility document lacking technical implementation. That characterization does not account for the Study's actual technical disclosures. NHTSA evaluated electronic tire-identification technologies that were already in use or being explored by industry according to technical capabilities, limitations, robustness, availability, and current market use, and concluded that RFID and 2D-barcode technologies were technologically feasible for electronic tire identification. The Study further describes concrete implementation details, including machine-readable tire identifiers, database-based identifier lookup, scanners used by tire sellers and service personnel, and computer access to recall databases. For example, NHTSA explains that mounted tires may be checked for recall by obtaining the TIN and entering it into a computer accessing a recall database, and that service personnel equipped with electronic-identification scanners may scan tires when vehicles are brought in for service.
Applicant's reliance on the word “could” in the cited TIA passage also does not persuasively distinguish the claimed subject matter when the NHTSA Study is considered as a whole. The Study expressly reports that electronic tire identification may be used to identify recalled tires during regular vehicle service, and that when a tire is scanned the scanner may alert the user if the tire is recalled or aged. More specifically, Safety Research & Strategies states that service providers and consumers should be able to determine whether a tire is recalled by a scan connected to a recall database, and that tire dealers and service providers may scan tires to check them against a recalled-tire database and alert the user when a tire is recalled. Thus, the Office does not rely merely on an abstract statement that recall checking would be desirable; NHTSA expressly describes the functional sequence of electronically identifying a tire, checking that tire against recall information, and providing an alert based on the recall determination.
Applicant's further assertion that NHTSA provides only a statutory mandate for a recall database likewise overlooks additional disclosures in the Study. NHTSA discusses integrating machine-readable tire identification with manufacturer and NHTSA recall databases, including use of a consistent data format allowing different tag technologies to access such databases. The CARFAX discussion additionally describes a TIN (or EPC/UII) to VIN relationship, acquisition of VIN or license-plate information during vehicle service, integration of electronic tire identification into an existing vehicle information database, identification of whether tires associated with a vehicle VIN are subject to recall, and continuous checking of tire-recall data with an alert when an associated tire is recalled. Accordingly, Applicant's characterization of NHTSA as providing no technical teaching or suggestion of the claimed tire-identification, database-checking, and recall-alert functionality is not supported by the reference when considered as a whole.
As a result, the argued features are written such that they read upon the cited references. Therefore, the previous rejection still applies.
In regards to Argument(s) III. C, Applicant(s) state(s) that, “The Examiner's Mapping of Wittmann §§ [0047] and [0024] Is Incorrect”, therefore, the rejection of 35 U.S.C. 103 should be removed, (Emphasis added, Remarks, page(s) 17).
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, Applicant's argument is persuasive to the extent that Wittmann Paragraph [0047] and Paragraph [0024] were not the most pertinent citations for the identified claim limitations, and the rejection is clarified accordingly. With respect to “associating each said scanned tire identifier with a said vehicle identifier”, Wittmann expressly discloses this relationship elsewhere. Specifically, Wittmann discloses in Paragraph [0068] and Paragraph [0177], associating a unique tire identifier/fingerprint with a vehicle and storing tire identifiers in association with vehicle identifiers such that each tire is associated with a specific vehicle; See also in Paragraph [0027] and Paragraph [0135], wherein Wittmann discloses identifying an individual tire by OCR of tire-sidewall markings to obtain a unique or close-to-unique string and receiving at online server 1310 both the vehicle ID and tire information including tire markings comprising letters, numbers, and characters readable by OCR. Accordingly, Wittmann Paragraph [0027], Paragraph [0068], Paragraph [0135], and Paragraph [0177], rather than Paragraph [0047], are relied upon for this limitation.
With respect to “associating each said vehicle identifier to a said dealer or a said vehicle service provider for each said vehicle,” the rejection is clarified based on the combined teachings of Wittmann and NHTSA. Wittmann teaches in Paragraph [0016], identifying a vehicle within a database using, inter alia, license-plate recognition, while Paragraph [0024] teaches transmitting tire data over a network to a servicing company or fleet-management entity. NHTSA further expressly discloses that CARFAX-affiliated service providers consistently capture vehicle VINs during vehicle service by scanning doorplates or entering the VIN or license-plate number, and that CARFAX integrates electronic tire identification into its vehicle information database such that tires are associated with the vehicle's VIN and checked for recall status. Thus, the cited combination expressly places the VIN/license-plate-based vehicle identification and associated tire information within the vehicle-service-provider context relied upon in the rejection.
In regards to Argument(s) III. D, Applicant(s) state(s) that, “No Adequate Motivation to Combine Wittmann and NHTSA Is Articulated”, therefore, the rejection of 35 U.S.C. 103 should be removed, (Emphasis added, Remarks, page(s) 18-19).
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. While the prior Office Action stated that the results of the combination would have been predictable, the rationale for combining Wittmann and NHTSA is further clarified as follows. Wittmann is not limited to real-time physical tire-condition monitoring as Applicant contends. Wittmann expressly teaches an asset-management system that identifies individual tires from tire-sidewall markings using OCR (Paragraph [0027]), associates uniquely identified tires with particular vehicles, and subsequently identifies and compares both the tire and its associated vehicle (Paragraph [0068] and Paragraph [0177]). Wittmann further teaches networked database functionality and transmission of tire information to a servicing company or fleet-management entity so that corrective action may be taken. Thus, Wittmann already provides a technical architecture for identifying a tire, associating the tire with a vehicle, processing tire information using computerized databases, and communicating tire-related information to servicing entities; the proposed combination does not require replacing Wittmann's principle of operation.
NHTSA provides an express reason for applying recall information to precisely this type of electronically identified tire. NHTSA explains that electronic tire identification, together with the statutory tire-registration and recall-database requirements, would address deficiencies in existing tire registration and recall processes and “has the potential to increase the efficiency and efficacy of the tire registration and recall processes.” Indeed, the Study specifically contemplates scanning tires during vehicle service and checking electronically identified tires for recall status. NHTSA's CARFAX discussion further describes a TIN-to-VIN connection, VIN capture during vehicle service, integration of electronic tire identification into an existing vehicle-information database, association of tires with a vehicle VIN, and checking whether such tires are subject to recall. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply NHTSA's tire-recall database and recall-checking teachings to Wittmann's electronically identified, vehicle-associated tires in order to permit the tire information already acquired and processed by Wittmann to additionally identify tires subject to safety recalls and thereby improve tire-safety identification and corrective action.
The proposed modification also would not render Wittmann unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or require a change in its principle of operation. Wittmann would continue to image and electronically identify tires, associate the identified tires with vehicles, process tire-related information, and communicate relevant tire information; the NHTSA teachings would provide an additional safety information comparison using the tire identifier already obtained by the system. NHTSA itself contemplates incorporating electronic tire identification into existing vehicle-information databases and using the resulting tire-to-vehicle association for recall checking. Thus, rather than “grafting” an unrelated policy function onto Wittmann, as Applicant contends, the proposed combination predictably uses Wittmann's existing tire-identification and vehicle-association capabilities with NHTSA's recall information teachings to provide an additional tire-safety determination.
As a result, the argued features are written such that they read upon the cited references. Therefore, the previous rejection still applies.
In regards to Argument(s) IV, Applicant(s) state(s) that, “Claim 2: The NHTSA Study Does Not Teach Continuously Searching Multiple Sources”, therefore, the rejection of 35 U.S.C. 103 should be removed, (Emphasis added, Remarks, page 19).
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection in view of Wittmann et al (US 2017/0124784 A1) in view of NHTSA et al (Electronic Tire Identification Study), further in view of Abreu (US 2001/0056359 A1).
In regards to Argument(s) V, Applicant(s) state(s) that, “Claims 3 and 4: The NHTSA Study Does Not Teach Warning a Vehicle Servicer, Manufacturer, or Owner”, therefore, the rejection of 35 U.S.C. 103 should be removed, (Emphasis added, Remarks, page(s) 19-20).
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's characterization of NHTSA as disclosing only an aspirational point of sale alert does not account for the study as a whole. NHTSA expressly discusses identifying recalled tires not only at the point of sale, but also during regular vehicle service, and states that when tires are scanned during service the reader may alert the user if the tires are recalled or aged. More specifically, Safety Research & Strategies explains that tire dealers and service providers may scan tires to check them against a recalled-tire database and, if a tire is recalled, the scanner may alert the user. CARFAX further describes associating tires with a vehicle VIN, checking whether tires associated with that VIN are subject to recall, continuously checking tire-recall data, and alerting the user when an associated tire is recalled. Thus, NHTSA teaches communicating a warning based upon a recall determination in both vehicle-service and vehicle-associated contexts, rather than merely providing an abstract point-of-sale suggestion.
Applicant's further assertion that Claim(s) 3 and 4 require a “VIN-linked, post-scan, targeted multi-party notification architecture” reads limitations into the claims that are not recited. Claim(s) 3 and 4 require communicating the warning to “any of a servicer, manufacturer or owner of said vehicle,” rather than simultaneously notifying all such parties or requiring a particular multi-party notification architecture. NHTSA expressly teaches recall alerts in the service-provider context and CARFAX expressly teaches alerts concerning recalled tires associated with a vehicle VIN. Accordingly, when NHTSA is considered for its actual disclosure and in combination with the tire-to-vehicle identification teachings relied upon in the rejection, Applicant's argument does not distinguish the additional warning limitation of Claim(s) 3 and 4.
As a result, the argued features are written such that they read upon the cited references. Therefore, the previous rejection still applies.
In regards to Argument(s) VI, Applicant(s) state(s) that, “Claims 5 and 6: Wittmann's In-Vehicle Alert Module Is Not the Claimed In-Vehicle Safety Warning”, therefore, the rejection of 35 U.S.C. 103 should be removed, (Emphasis added, Remarks, page(s) 20-21).
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive because it improperly requires Wittmann alone to provide the tire-safety-database matching function already supplied by the underlying combination. Claim(s) 5 and 6 depend from the claims containing the tire-identifier comparison and resulting warning limitations, and Wittmann Paragraph [0021] and Paragraph [0139] are relied upon for the additional limitation concerning the manner in which that warning is presented in the vehicle. Wittmann Paragraph [0021] expressly teaches an alert module that alerts the driver when a tire is determined to be unsafe, including by an “audible alarm” or “visual display.” Thus, Wittmann teaches the claimed vehicle-side visual and/or audible warning mechanism. The fact that Wittmann illustrates this warning mechanism in connection with tire-condition determinations does not negate its teaching of communicating tire-safety information to the driver through an in-vehicle visual or audible alert.
The rejection does not rely upon Wittmann's threshold determination as the claimed trigger for the warning. Rather, the tire-safety-database comparison and resulting recall/safety determination are supplied by the Wittmann and NHTSA combination discussed with respect to the parent claims, while Wittmann is relied upon for the additional known manner of presenting the resulting tire-safety warning to the vehicle owner. Accordingly, the proposed combination does not equate Wittmann's threshold determination with NHTSA's recall determination, as Applicant contends; it applies Wittmann's expressly disclosed in-vehicle visual/audible warning mechanism to the safety determination resulting from the combined teachings. Applicant's argument therefore attacks Wittmann individually for a function for which it is not relied upon and does not distinguish the claimed combination.
As a result, the argued features are written such that they read upon the cited references. Therefore, the previous rejection still applies.
In regards to Argument(s) VII, Applicant(s) state(s) that, “Claim 14: Wittmann § [0123] Does Not Teach Continuously Re-Transmitting a Warning Until Acknowledged”, therefore, the rejection of 35 U.S.C. 103 should be removed, (Emphasis added, Remarks, page 21).
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection in view of Wittmann et al (US 2017/0124784 A1) in view of NHTSA et al (Electronic Tire Identification Study), further in view of Beyer, JR (US 2009/0075685 A1).
In regards to Argument(s) VIII. A, Applicant(s) state(s) that, “Claims 7-13: The Three-Reference Combination (Wittmann+ NHTSA + Laperle) Is Not Adequately Motivated”, therefore, the rejection of 35 U.S.C. 103 should be removed, (Emphasis added, Remarks, page 22).
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant characterizes Laperle as merely using a drone to detect debris, damage, or general tire condition. That characterization overlooks Laperle's express tire-identification teachings. Laperle discloses in Paragraph [0098], determining a tire serial number from an image of the tire by capturing an image of an embossed serial number on the tire surface, determining the specific characters of that serial number, and cross-referencing the resulting identifier with a database to determine tire information such as model and date of manufacture. Laperle further expressly teaches in Paragraph [0099], performing the serial-number analysis using optical character recognition (OCR), including image preprocessing such as de-skewing, layout analysis, and binarization. Thus, Laperle is not limited to generic physical-condition inspection, but expressly teaches image-based recognition of alphanumeric tire identifiers and use of those identifiers with database information.
Laperle also expressly teaches a drone-based tire-imaging platform. Paragraph [0155] – Paragraph [0156] disclose receiving image data from a drone for inspecting tires and arranging the drone to move around or follow the vehicle and capture and analyze images of each tire. Moreover, Laperle further states in Paragraph [0167] that features of one disclosed embodiment may be combined with features of other embodiments. Accordingly, Applicant's assertion that Laperle is materially unrelated to tire-sidewall identification is not supported by the reference as a whole. The rejection relies on Laperle for the additional known use of a drone-based imaging platform to obtain tire image data within the tire-identification system otherwise supplied by Wittmann and NHTSA; Laperle is not required to independently disclose the entire recall-database and vehicle-notification architecture of the underlying combination.
As a result, the argued features are written such that they read upon the cited references. Therefore, the previous rejection still applies.
In regards to Argument(s) VIII. B, Applicant(s) state(s) that, “No Adequate Motivation to Add Laperle to Wittmann+ NHTSA”, therefore, the rejection of 35 U.S.C. 103 should be removed, (Emphasis added, Remarks, page(s) 22-23).
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. Although the prior Office Action stated that the results of the combination would have been predictable, the rationale for incorporating Laperle's drone-based imaging teachings is further clarified. Laperle is not merely directed to a general “debris-detection drone,” as Applicant contends. Laperle expressly teaches determining a tire serial number from an image by capturing an image of an embossed serial number on the tire surface, determining the specific characters thereof, and cross-referencing the resulting identifier with a database (Paragraph [0098]), as well as performing such serial-number analysis using OCR and image preprocessing including de-skewing, layout analysis, and binarization (Paragraph [0099]). Laperle further teaches a drone that moves around or follows a vehicle and captures and analyzes images of each tire (Paragraph [0155] and Paragraph [0156]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to employ Laperle's mobile drone-based tire-imaging platform in the Wittmann and NHTSA tire-identification system as an additional means for acquiring tire images, thereby permitting tire image acquisition without requiring a stationary imaging arrangement while retaining the tire-identification, vehicle-association, and safety-information processing functions of the underlying combination.
Applicant's asserted technical obstacles likewise do not demonstrate that the proposed combination is based on hindsight. Laperle itself addresses several of the identified implementation considerations: its drone is expressly configured to move around or follow a vehicle and capture and analyze images of each tire, while its tire-identification disclosure expressly addresses recognition of embossed tire serial numbers and OCR image preprocessing. Laperle further expressly states that features of its disclosed embodiments may be combined with features of other embodiments. Thus, the proposed modification does not arise merely from knowledge of Applicant's invention, but from Laperle's own teachings of mobile drone-based tire imaging together with image-based recognition of embossed tire identifiers. The combination therefore represents the application of Laperle's known tire-imaging technique to the tire-identification architecture of Wittmann and NHTSA for the known purpose of obtaining tire image data.
As a result, the argued features are written such that they read upon the cited references. Therefore, the previous rejection still applies.
In regards to Argument(s) VIII. C, Applicant(s) state(s) that, “The Three-Reference Combination Requires a Fundamental Redesign of Each Reference”, therefore, the rejection of 35 U.S.C. 103 should be removed, (Emphasis added, Remarks, page(s) 24).
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. The asserted “fundamental redesign” is based on an unduly narrow characterization of the cited references. Wittmann is not limited to real-time physical-condition sensing, but expressly teaches OCR-based tire identification, tire-to-vehicle association, database processing, and communication of tire information. NHTSA is not merely a policy statement, but describes concrete electronic tire-identification, recall-database checking, VIN-linked tire information, and recall-alert functionality. Laperle is likewise not limited to debris detection, but expressly teaches capturing an image of an embossed tire serial number, determining the characters thereof using OCR and image preprocessing, cross-referencing the resulting identifier with a database, and using a drone that moves around or follows a vehicle to capture and analyze images of each tire. Thus, the combined teachings do not require creating the claimed architecture from unrelated references “from scratch,” as Applicant contends.
Nor does the proposed combination change the principle of operation of Wittmann or render any reference unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Wittmann would continue to image and identify tires, associate tire information with vehicles, process tire-related information, and communicate safety information; NHTSA supplies the additional known use of electronically identified tire information for recall/safety-database checking; and Laperle supplies a known mobile tire-imaging platform for acquiring tire image data. Laperle additionally states that features of its disclosed embodiments may be combined with features of other embodiments. Accordingly, the rejection does not depend on hindsight reconstruction of a wholly new system, but on combining complementary tire-identification, safety information, and tire-imaging teachings that are expressly disclosed in the cited prior art.
In regards to the rejection of claim(s) 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more, is hereby withdrawn. Upon consideration of Applicant's amendment to claim 1, including the recitation of at least one digital imager configured to capture digital images of individual tire sidewalls, and upon reconsideration of the claims as a whole, claim(s) 1-15 are no longer considered to be directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Office Action Summary
Claim(s) 15 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittmann et al (US 2017/0124784 A1) in view of NHTSA et al (Electronic Tire Identification Study).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittmann et al (US 2017/0124784 A1) in view of NHTSA et al (Electronic Tire Identification Study), further in view of Abreu (US 2001/0056359 A1).
Claim(s) 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittmann in view of NHTSA, further in view of Laperle et al (US 2021/0197625 A1).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittmann et al (US 2017/0124784 A1) in view of NHTSA et al (Electronic Tire Identification Study), further in view of Beyer, JR (US 2009/0075685 A1).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittmann et al (US 2017/0124784 A1) in view of NHTSA et al (Electronic Tire Identification Study) and Abreu (US 2001/0056359 A1), further in view of Adams et al (US 2007/0214095 A1).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittmann et al (US 2017/0124784 A1) in view of NHTSA et al (Electronic Tire Identification Study), further in view of Levin (US 2021/0224971 A1).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittmann et al (US 2017/0124784 A1) in view of NHTSA et al (Electronic Tire Identification Study) and Gibbs et al (US 2021/0081685 A1), further in view of Laperle et al (US 2021/0197625 A1).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittmann et al (US 2017/0124784 A1) in view of NHTSA et al (Electronic Tire Identification Study) and Beyer, JR (US 2009/0075685 A1), further in view of Berven (US 2014/0253323 A1).
Claim(s) 19 is/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 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittmann et al (US 2017/0124784 A1) in view of NHTSA et al (Electronic Tire Identification Study).
Regarding claim(s) 1, Wittmann teaches a system for tire identification and notification of defects therewith, comprising:
one or more computer processors having memory communicably coupled thereto (Paragraph [0122]: “The Central Processing Unit (CPU) 56 is formed of one or more processors”; and Paragraph [0121]: “These machine executable instructions are stored, for example, in the storage/memory 57, associated with the CPU 56. The storage/memory 57 is any conventional storage media”);
at least one digital imager configured to capture digital images of individual tire sidewalls of tires mounted upon individual vehicles visiting vehicle dealers or vehicle service providers, wherein said digital imager comprises one or more of a digital camera or an imaging scanner (Figure 5; Figure 6; Paragraph [0014]: “This apparatus may be installed in a gas station or a service station, where corrective action, if needed, can be easily applied”; and Paragraph [0054]: “the sensor data corresponding to at least one image of the tire is obtained from sensors, including at least one camera”);
a computer program product tangibly embodied in a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, including instructions that, when executed by said one or more computer processors (Paragraph [0122]; and Paragraph [0121), cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of:
capturing, by said at least one digital imager, digital images of individual tire sidewalls of tires mounted upon individual vehicles visiting vehicle dealers or vehicle service providers (Figure 5; Figure 6; Paragraph [0014]: “This apparatus may be installed in a gas station or a service station, where corrective action, if needed, can be easily applied”; and Paragraph [0054]: “the sensor data corresponding to at least one image of the tire is obtained from sensors, including at least one camera”);
assigning a vehicle identifier to each said individual vehicle based on a VIN number or license plate of said individual vehicle (Paragraph [0016]: “to employ computers and databases to recognize the type and make of the vehicle via license plate recognition […] Identifying the vehicle within the database enables embodiments of the present invention to use unique vehicle parameters […]”);
associating each said vehicle identifier to a said dealer or a said vehicle service provider for each said vehicle (Paragraph [0016]: “to employ computers and databases to recognize the type and make of the vehicle via license plate recognition […] Identifying the vehicle within the database enables embodiments of the present invention to use unique vehicle parameters […]”; Paragraph [0024]: “the tire data is sent (via Internet or other wireless/wired links) to a servicing company or fleet management body, who can notify the driver or assist with corrective action”; and Paragraph [0026]: “The system then issues warnings to, for example, the driver, fleet management or service provider, of the faulty or punctured tire”; See NHTSA further discloses; and Examiner’s Note: the combined teachings identify each serviced vehicle using its VIN or license-plate-based vehicle identifier, associate tire information with the identified vehicle, and maintain such vehicle-identification information in the service-provider context, thereby rendering obvious the claimed association of the vehicle identifier with the dealer or vehicle service provider servicing the vehicle);
from said digital images of individual tire sidewalls, discerning a scanned tire identifier from alphanumeric characters within said digital images (Paragraph [0027]: “system may be used for "asset management" or "asset tracking." This involves identifying each singular wheel and/or tire by way of computer vision: OCR (Optical character reader) of tire sidewall markings to get a unique or close to unique string, wheel and/or tire image "fingerprint" comparison, or identifying unique markings on the wheel and/or tire in form of writings, paintings, branding, injections, stickers and marking; in a way visible or invisible to human eyes”);
associating each said scanned tire identifier with a said vehicle identifier (Paragraph [0027]; Paragraph [0068]: “creating a fingerprint defining a unique identifier for a tire from physical characteristics of the tire, at a first time, and associating the fingerprint with a vehicle, by a computer […] identifying the vehicle associated with the tire that was imaged […] checking for a match of the fingerprints and checking for a match of the vehicles associated with each of the fingerprints”; Paragraph [0077]: “the identifying the vehicle from at least one image of the vehicle includes identifying at least one identifier of the vehicle, including license plate, make of the vehicle, model of the vehicle, and marks on the vehicle”; and Paragraph [0135]: “the online server 1310 receives the vehicle ID and tire information, which may include footprint length, tire sidewall height, wheel radius, tread depth, wheel image for asset tracking, footprint angle, sidewall height and tire temperature for each of the vehicle tires, and markings on the tire, such as letters, numbers, and characters, readable, for example, by an OCR”).
Wittmann fails to teach compiling a tire safety information database with tire identifiers assigned to tires having safety issues; comparing each said scanned tire identifier with said tire identifiers assigned to tires having safety issues for a match; and upon discerning a said match, communicating a warning to said dealer or service provider associated with said vehicle identifier having said match of said scanned tire identifier with said tire identifiers assigned to tires having safety issues.
However, NHTSA teaches to compiling a tire safety information database with tire identifiers assigned to tires having safety issues (Page 1, 5th Paragraph: “Section 24333, “Tire Registration by Independent Sellers,” requires independent tire dealers to maintain records of purchasers and to use electronic submission when sending tire registration information to the manufacturer. Section 24335, “Tire Recall Database,” requires NHTSA to establish a publicly available, searchable, electronic database of tire recall information. The Act specifies that this recall database be searchable by “Tire Identification Number (TIN) or any other criteria that assists consumers in determining if a tire is subject to a recall””);
associating each said vehicle identifier to a said dealer or a said vehicle service provider for each said vehicle (Page 47, 4th Paragraph: “CARFAX to initiate consistent VIN capturing during vehicle service […] such as scanning the doorplates or entering the VIN or license plate number […] This is done fairly consistently at all the CARFAX-affiliated service providers […] integrating electronic tire identification into their existing vehicle information database. CARFAX vehicle history reports, which already provide vehicle recall information, would also indicate if the tires associated with that vehicle’s VIN are subject to a recall; See Wittmann further discloses; and Examiner’s Note: the combined teachings identify each serviced vehicle using its VIN or license-plate-based vehicle identifier, associate tire information with the identified vehicle, and maintain such vehicle-identification information in the service-provider context, thereby rendering obvious the claimed association of the vehicle identifier with the dealer or vehicle service provider servicing the vehicle);
comparing each said scanned tire identifier with said tire identifiers assigned to tires having safety issues for a match (Page 31, 8th Paragraph: “They think RFID tags embedded into the tires being a feasible option for electronic tire identification. They point to TPMS as an example of how the technology could work, would love to see a single scanner capable of servicing TPMS and to scan tire RFID tags. When registering tires, the seller could simply scan all the tires and transfer that data into the computer when entering the customer’s information”; and Page 34, 2nd Paragraph: “Tire dealers and service providers could scan the tires to check the tires against a recalled tire database, if recalled, the scanner could alert the user”); and
upon discerning a said match, communicating a warning to said dealer or service provider associated with said vehicle identifier having said match of said scanned tire identifier with said tire identifiers assigned to tires having safety issues (Page 31-32, 8th Paragraph – 1st Paragraph: “When tires are scanned at point of sale or during service the reader could alert if the tires are recalled or aged”; and Page 34, 2nd Paragraph: “Tire dealers and service providers could scan the tires to check the tires against a recalled tire database, if recalled, the scanner could alert the user”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tire identification and monitoring system of Wittmann to incorporate the electronic tire recall identification teachings of NHTSA, including electronically identifying tires, associating the identified tires with identified vehicles, comparing the electronically obtained tire identification information with tire recall information, and providing an alert when an identified tire is subject to a recall. The motivation for the combination would have been to improve the efficiency and efficacy of tire registration and recall processes and to facilitate the identification and removal from service of recalled or defective tires. NHTSA expressly recognizes that electronic tire identification would improve tire registration and recall processes and further teaches that tire dealers and service providers could scan tires against a recalled-tire database and alert the user when a recalled tire is identified. Applying such recall-identification functionality to Wittmann's existing camera-based tire imaging, OCR tire identification, vehicle identification, tire-to-vehicle association, network communication, and service-provider notification system would have predictably provided vehicle-specific identification and notification of tires subject to safety recalls. This motivation for the combination of Wittmann and NHTSA is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim(s) 3 and 4, Wittmann as modified by NHTSA teaches the system for tire identification and notification of defects therewith of claim 1, where NHTSA teaches additionally comprising the step of:
upon said discerning of a said match, communicating a warning to any of a servicer of said vehicle, a manufacturer of said vehicle or an owner of said vehicle (Page 31, 8th Paragraph: “When registering tires, the seller could simply scan all the tires and transfer that data into the computer when entering the customer’s information”; Page 31-32, 8th Paragraph – 1st Paragraph: “When tires are scanned at point of sale or during service the reader could alert if the tires are recalled or aged”; and Page 34, 2nd Paragraph: “Tire dealers and service providers could scan the tires to check the tires against a recalled tire database, if recalled, the scanner could alert the user”).
Regarding claim(s) 5 and 6, Wittmann as modified by NHTSA teaches the system for tire identification and notification of defects therewith of claim 3, where Wittmann teaches additionally comprising the step of:
communicating said warning to said owner of said vehicle in the form of one or both of an electronic message communicated to said vehicle of said owner which is depicted on a graphic display in said vehicle or audibly announced in said vehicle (Paragraph [0021]: “The alert module functions to alert the driver should a tire be determined to be unsafe or beyond set thresholds for the measured parameters. The alert module can be in the form of warning lights, light emitting diode (LED) displays, audio warning or other commercially available solutions”; and Paragraph [0139]: “the controller 1000 will display the inspection results on the alert module 1320 by sending the results via the communication module 1300. In one embodiment of the present invention, the controller 1000 is connected to a weight sensor so that estimated pressure may be derived from the equivalent pressure of each wheel and such a result can be displayed on the alert module 1320”).
Regarding claim(s) 16, Wittmann teaches a computerized system for automated tire safety monitoring and notification, comprising:
a network-connected computing device having one or more processors and memory communicably coupled thereto (Figure 4; Paragraph [0119]: “tire characteristics are obtained by the sensor units […] which are linked […] either directly or over a network 50, for example, the Internet or other wide area or public network, to a central server 52, which functions as a central computer for the system”; Paragraph [0122]: “The Central Processing Unit (CPU) 56 is formed of one or more processors”; and Paragraph [0121]: “These machine executable instructions are stored, for example, in the storage/memory 57, associated with the CPU 56. The storage/memory 57 is any conventional storage media”);
at least one digital imager configured to capture digital images of indicia on tire sidewalls, wherein said digital imager comprises one or more of a digital camera, an imaging scanner, or a drone-mounted digital imaging device (Figure 5; Figure 6; Paragraph [0054]: “the sensor data corresponding to at least one image of the tire is obtained from sensors, including at least one camera”; and Paragraph [0135]: “the online server 1310 receives the vehicle ID and tire information, which may include footprint length, tire sidewall height, wheel radius, tread depth, wheel image for asset tracking, footprint angle, sidewall height and tire temperature for each of the vehicle tires, and markings on the tire, such as letters, numbers, and characters, readable, for example, by an OCR”);
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by said one or more processors (Paragraph [0122]; and Paragraph [0121), cause said computing device to:
receive digital images of individual tire sidewalls of tires mounted upon individual vehicles, said digital images captured by said at least one digital imager at vehicle dealers or vehicle service providers (Figure 5; Figure 6; Paragraph [0014]: “This apparatus may be installed in a gas station or a service station, where corrective action, if needed, can be easily applied”; Paragraph [0054]: “the sensor data corresponding to at least one image of the tire is obtained from sensors, including at least one camera”; and Paragraph [0116]: “The sensor units 32, 34 […] collect data regarding the automobile 30 (e.g., vehicle identification, such as license plate or images of the exact vehicle, including vehicle type, make and model) and the tires 10, upload the measured data from the sensor units 32, 34 to a computer server 52 that analyzes the data”);
apply optical character recognition to said digital images to discern, from alphanumeric characters within said digital images, a scanned tire identifier for each respective tire (Paragraph [0027]: “This involves identifying each singular wheel and/or tire by way of computer vision: OCR (Optical character reader) of tire sidewall markings to get a unique or close to unique string, wheel and/or tire image "fingerprint" comparison, or identifying unique markings on the wheel and/or tire in form of writings, paintings, branding, injections, stickers and marking; in a way visible or invisible to human eyes”; and Paragraph [0135]: “the online server 1310 receives the vehicle ID and tire information, which may include footprint length, tire sidewall height, wheel radius, tread depth, wheel image for asset tracking, footprint angle, sidewall height and tire temperature for each of the vehicle tires, and markings on the tire, such as letters, numbers, and characters, readable, for example, by an OCR”);
associate each said scanned tire identifier with a vehicle identifier assigned to the vehicle upon which the respective tire is mounted, said vehicle identifier being based upon a VIN number or license plate number of said vehicle (Paragraph [0027]; Paragraph [0068]: “creating a fingerprint defining a unique identifier for a tire from physical characteristics of the tire, at a first time, and associating the fingerprint with a vehicle, by a computer […] identifying the vehicle associated with the tire that was imaged […] checking for a match of the fingerprints and checking for a match of the vehicles associated with each of the fingerprints”; Paragraph [0077]: “the identifying the vehicle from at least one image of the vehicle includes identifying at least one identifier of the vehicle, including license plate, make of the vehicle, model of the vehicle, and marks on the vehicle”; and Paragraph [0135]);
associate each said vehicle identifier with a corresponding vehicle dealer or vehicle service provider in said electronic memory (Paragraph [0016]: “to employ computers and databases to recognize the type and make of the vehicle via license plate recognition […] Identifying the vehicle within the database enables embodiments of the present invention to use unique vehicle parameters […]”; Paragraph [0024]: “the tire data is sent (via Internet or other wireless/wired links) to a servicing company or fleet management body, who can notify the driver or assist with corrective action”; and Paragraph [0026]: “The system then issues warnings to, for example, the driver, fleet management or service provider, of the faulty or punctured tire”; See NHTSA further discloses; and Examiner’s Note: the combined teachings identify each serviced vehicle using its VIN or license-plate-based vehicle identifier, associate tire information with the identified vehicle, and maintain such vehicle-identification information in the service-provider context, thereby rendering obvious the claimed association of the vehicle identifier with the dealer or vehicle service provider servicing the vehicle);
Wittmann fails to teach maintain a tire safety information database in electronic memory, said tire safety information database storing tire identifiers respectively assigned to individual tires having known safety issues, wherein said tire identifiers are derived from alphanumeric indicia embossed upon tire sidewalls; compare each said scanned tire identifier against said tire identifiers stored in said tire safety information database to determine a match; and upon determining said match, automatically transmit an electronic safety warning to the vehicle dealer or vehicle service provider associated with said vehicle identifier of the vehicle upon which the matching tire is mounted.
However, NHTSA teaches maintain a tire safety information database in electronic memory, said tire safety information database storing tire identifiers respectively assigned to individual tires having known safety issues, wherein said tire identifiers are derived from alphanumeric indicia embossed upon tire sidewalls (Page 1, 5th Paragraph: “Section 24333, “Tire Registration by Independent Sellers,” requires independent tire dealers to maintain records of purchasers and to use electronic submission when sending tire registration information to the manufacturer. Section 24335, “Tire Recall Database,” requires NHTSA to establish a publicly available, searchable, electronic database of tire recall information. The Act specifies that this recall database be searchable by “Tire Identification Number (TIN) or any other criteria that assists consumers in determining if a tire is subject to a recall””; and Page 5, 1st Paragraph: “A tire identification number (TIN) is a string of letters and numbers marked on the sidewall of a tire that contains information about the tire including the manufacturer, the plant where the tire was manufactured, the week/year of manufacture, and characteristics of the tire such as the size and model. Beyond providing information about the tire, TINs are used to register tires and facilitate tire recalls in the United States”);
associate each said vehicle identifier with a corresponding vehicle dealer or vehicle service provider in said electronic memory (Page 47, 4th Paragraph: “CARFAX to initiate consistent VIN capturing during vehicle service […] such as scanning the doorplates or entering the VIN or license plate number […] This is done fairly consistently at all the CARFAX-affiliated service providers […] integrating electronic tire identification into their existing vehicle information database. CARFAX vehicle history reports, which already provide vehicle recall information, would also indicate if the tires associated with that vehicle’s VIN are subject to a recall; See Wittmann further discloses; and Examiner’s Note: the combined teachings identify each serviced vehicle using its VIN or license-plate-based vehicle identifier, associate tire information with the identified vehicle, and maintain such vehicle-identification information in the service-provider context, thereby rendering obvious the claimed association of the vehicle identifier with the dealer or vehicle service provider servicing the vehicle);
compare each said scanned tire identifier against said tire identifiers stored in said tire safety information database to determine a match (Page 31, 8th Paragraph: “They think RFID tags embedded into the tires being a feasible option for electronic tire identification. They point to TPMS as an example of how the technology could work, would love to see a single scanner capable of servicing TPMS and to scan tire RFID tags. When registering tires, the seller could simply scan all the tires and transfer that data into the computer when entering the customer’s information”; and Page 34, 2nd Paragraph: “Tire dealers and service providers could scan the tires to check the tires against a recalled tire database, if recalled, the scanner could alert the user”); and
upon determining said match, automatically transmit an electronic safety warning to the vehicle dealer or vehicle service provider associated with said vehicle identifier of the vehicle upon which the matching tire is mounted (Page 31-32, 8th Paragraph – 1st Paragraph: “When tires are scanned at point of sale or during service the reader could alert if the tires are recalled or aged”; and Page 34, 2nd Paragraph: “Tire dealers and service providers could scan the tires to check the tires against a recalled tire database, if recalled, the scanner could alert the user”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the computerized tire-identification and monitoring system of Wittmann to incorporate the electronic tire-recall identification and database teachings of NHTSA. Wittmann already teaches camera-based tire imaging, OCR-based tire identification, vehicle identification, tire-to-vehicle association, network communication, and transmission of tire information and warnings to servicing entities. NHTSA teaches using sidewall-derived tire identifiers such as TINs in connection with a tire-recall database, associating electronically identified tires with vehicle VINs, scanning tires during vehicle service, determining whether scanned tires are recalled, and providing an alert. The motivation for the combination would have been to improve the efficiency and efficacy of identifying recalled or otherwise unsafe tires during vehicle service and to communicate vehicle-specific tire-safety information to the servicing entity responsible for the identified vehicle. This motivation for the combination of Wittmann and NHTSA is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittmann et al (US 2017/0124784 A1) in view of NHTSA et al (Electronic Tire Identification Study), further in view of Abreu (US 2001/0056359 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 2, Wittmann as modified by NHTSA teaches the system for tire identification and notification of defects therewith of claim 1, where NHTSA teaches additionally comprising the steps of: assigning a new said tire identifier to each of said newly identified tires having said safety issues (Page 1, 5th Paragraph: “Section 24333, “Tire Registration by Independent Sellers,” requires independent tire dealers to maintain records of purchasers and to use electronic submission when sending tire registration information to the manufacturer. Section 24335, “Tire Recall Database,” requires NHTSA to establish a publicly available, searchable, electronic database of tire recall information. The Act specifies that this recall database be searchable by “Tire Identification Number (TIN) or any other criteria that assists consumers in determining if a tire is subject to a recall””).
Wittmann and NHTSA fails to teach continuously searching government, industry and private sources of tire safety information for newly identified tires having safety issues; and adding each said new tire identifier as a said tire identifier to said tire safety information database. However, Abreu teaches continuously searching government, industry and private sources of tire safety information for newly identified tires having safety issues (Paragraph [0121]: “The search of the RIS 60 can be performed using automated processors […] which applications interact with and search the Internet 100 and remote computers 20 according to the product identifier”; Paragraph [0123] – Paragraph [0124]: “RIS (“Recall and Information Sources”) include government, industry/manufacturer, and private sources, including governmental agencies such as the U.S. Department of Transportation, manufacturers/distributors, medical institutions, and research facilities […] the central server 10 (or GPI acquiring up-to-the-minute updates on the products stored in the central server 10 database from the institutions and agencies described above as RIS 60”; Paragraph [0048]: “a system that is continuously updated with the latest product-related information available to the users of potentially harmful products”; and Paragraph [0136]: “The central server 10 (or GPI) can be continuously updated [...] by government agencies such as the FDA 130, the manufacturer 148 [...]”); and
assigning a new said tire identifier to each of said newly identified tires having said safety issues (Paragraph [0150]: “new product identifier of the present invention encodes information about the name and characteristics of the drug, date of manufacturing, plant location, serial number, and lot number, into what will be called hereinafter BarCodeData (BCD) or unique product identifier (UPI)”; and Paragraph [0293]: “the remote computer 60 transfers product identifiers with associated "new warning information," which can be a recall warning, harmful warning levels 1 to 5, or a beneficial notice according to the new data acquired by the government agency”, Examiner’s Note: NHTSA teaches the tire identifier; Abreu teaches associating the appropriate product identifier with newly acquired recall/harmful-warning information); and
adding each said new tire identifier as a said tire identifier to said tire safety information database (Paragraph [0293]: “At step 2420, the remote computer 60 transfers product identifiers with associated "new warning information," which can be a recall warning, harmful warning levels 1 to 5 […] Step 2430 then stores product identifiers and "new warning information" in alert database 790”; and Paragraph [0260]: “The alert database […] in a similar structure as the product information database 760 but with the information being related to recall and harmful/beneficial effects and derived primarily from government and regulatory RIS 60”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tire safety information database of Wittmann and NHTSA to incorporate the automated multi-source safety information acquisition and database update teachings of Abreu in order to keep the tire safety information database current with newly available recall and safety information and thereby improve the identification and notification of newly recalled or unsafe tires. This motivation for the combination of Wittmann, NHTSA, and Abreu is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Claim(s) 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittmann et al (US 2017/0124784 A1) in view of NHTSA et al (Electronic Tire Identification Study), further in view of Laperle et al (US 2021/0197625 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 7-13, Wittmann as modified by NHTSA, teaches the system for tire identification and notification of defects therewith of claim 1, where Wittmann teaches additionally comprising the steps of: discerning said VIN number or said license plate number of said individual vehicle from a digital image (Paragraph [0016]: “to employ computers and databases to recognize the type and make of the vehicle via license plate recognition, computer vision based methods, RFID and/or other commercially available devices and methods. Identifying the vehicle within the database enables embodiments of the present invention to use unique vehicle parameters, including, but not limited to wheel configuration, weights, load balancing, and specific adjustments”).
Wittmann and NHTSA fail to teach employing a drone having a digital imager thereon for capturing said digital images of said individual tire sidewalls of tires mounted upon said individual vehicles visiting said vehicle dealers or said vehicle service providers. However, Laperle teaches employing a drone having a digital imager thereon for capturing said digital images of said individual tire sidewalls of tires mounted upon said individual vehicles visiting said vehicle dealers or said vehicle service providers (Figure 30; Figure 31; Paragraph [0098]: “determining a tire serial number from an image of the tire by capturing an image of an embossed serial number on the tire surface, determining the specific characters of that serial number, and cross-referencing the resulting identifier with a database to determine tire information such as model and date of manufacture”; Paragraph [0099]: “Serial number analysis […] performed using techniques such as optical character recognition (OCR) […] These techniques may include preprocessing of an image in order to improve the ability to analyze the target components, such as de-skewing, layout analysis, and binarization”; and Paragraph [0155]: “the system server 1142 may receive image data from a drone 3201 for inspecting the tire 34 and/or other components of each of the wheels 201 to 204 and/or their environment (e.g., detecting the presence of debris, etc.), so that information derived from the drone 3210 may be relayed to the operator of the vehicle 10 and/or another remote device or person”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify an employing a drone having a digital imager section of Wittmann and NHTSA to incorporate the use of an employing a drone having a digital imager section of Laperle and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One could look to Laperle to include an employing a drone for inspecting the tire and/or other components of each of the wheels and/or their environment (e.g., detecting the presence of debris, etc.), so that information derived from the drone may be relayed to the operator of the vehicle and/or another remote device or person.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittmann et al (US 2017/0124784 A1) in view of NHTSA et al (Electronic Tire Identification Study), further in view of Beyer, JR (US 2009/0075685 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 14, Wittmann as modified by NHTSA teaches the system for tire identification and notification of defects therewith of claim 6, but do not specifically teach additionally comprising the step of: continuously communicating said warning until a response is received acknowledging receipt of said warning.
However, Beyer teaches continuously communicating said warning until a response is received acknowledging receipt of said warning (Figure 3B; Paragraph [0009]: “periodically resend the message to the recipient PCs and PDA/cell phones that have not sent an acknowledgement until an acknowledgement is received from every recipient PC and PDA/cell phone”; and Paragraph [0039] - Paragraph [0041]: “the sender PC or PDA/cell phone provides an indication of which of the PC or PDA/cell phone that the forced message alert was sent to have acknowledged receipt and which of the PC or PDA/cell phone that the forced message alert was sent to have not acknowledged receipt on its display. The sender PC or PDA/cell phone will then periodically resend the forced message alert to the PC or PDA/cell phone that have not acknowledged receipt […] If no acknowledgement is received, the sender PC or PDA/cell phone continues to transmit the forced alert at a predefined rate until acknowledged”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Beyer’s acknowledgment-based repeated-alert technique into the warning system of Wittmann and NHTSA in order to increase the likelihood that a tire-safety warning is actually received by its intended recipient and to avoid discontinuing the warning before receipt has been confirmed. This motivation for the combination of Wittmann, NHTSA, and Beyer is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittmann et al (US 2017/0124784 A1) in view of NHTSA et al (Electronic Tire Identification Study) and Abreu (US 2001/0056359 A1), further in view of Adams et al (US 2007/0214095 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 17, Wittmann as modified by NHTSA teaches the system of claim 16, wherein said instructions further cause said computing device to:
derive a new tire identifier from alphanumeric indicia associated with each said newly identified tire (where NHTSA teaches in Page 1, 5th Paragraph: “Section 24333, “Tire Registration by Independent Sellers,” requires independent tire dealers to maintain records of purchasers and to use electronic submission when sending tire registration information to the manufacturer. Section 24335, “Tire Recall Database,” requires NHTSA to establish a publicly available, searchable, electronic database of tire recall information. The Act specifies that this recall database be searchable by “Tire Identification Number (TIN) or any other criteria that assists consumers in determining if a tire is subject to a recall””; and where Wittmann teaches in Paragraph [0027]: “system may be used for "asset management" or "asset tracking." This involves identifying each singular wheel and/or tire by way of computer vision: OCR (Optical character reader) of tire sidewall markings to get a unique or close to unique string, wheel and/or tire image "fingerprint" comparison, or identifying unique markings on the wheel and/or tire in form of writings, paintings, branding, injections, stickers and marking; in a way visible or invisible to human eyes”).
However, Wittmann and NHTSA fail to teach autonomously and continuously search, over said computer network, a plurality of tire safety information sources comprising government agency databases, tire manufacturer databases, industry publications, and litigation records, for newly identified tires having safety issues; and add each said new tire identifier to said tire safety information database such that said tire safety information database is continuously updated for each new tire safety issue identified.
However, Abreu teaches autonomously and continuously search, over said computer network, a plurality of tire safety information sources comprising government agency databases, tire manufacturer databases, industry publications, and (Paragraph [0121]: “The search of the RIS 60 can be performed using automated processors […] which applications interact with and search the Internet 100 and remote computers 20 according to the product identifier”; Paragraph [0048]: “a system that is continuously updated with the latest product-related information available to the users of potentially harmful products”; and Paragraph [0136]: “The central server 10 (or GPI) can be continuously updated [...] by government agencies such as the FDA 130, the manufacturer 148 [...]”); and
add each said new tire identifier to said tire safety information database such that said tire safety information database is continuously updated for each new tire safety issue identified (Paragraph [0293]: “At step 2420, the remote computer 60 transfers product identifiers with associated "new warning information," which can be a recall warning, harmful warning levels 1 to 5 […] Step 2430 then stores product identifiers and "new warning information" in alert database 790”; and Paragraph [0260]: “The alert database […] in a similar structure as the product information database 760 but with the information being related to recall and harmful/beneficial effects and derived primarily from government and regulatory RIS 60”).
Therefore, , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the tire identification and safety-notification system of Wittmann and NHTSA to incorporate the automated information-searching and database-updating techniques taught by Abreu. Abreu teaches using automated processors to search network-accessible remote information sources for product-related information and continuously updating a product information database with newly obtained warning and recall information associated with product identifiers. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to automate the acquisition and updating of newly available tire-safety information so that the tire-safety database remains current and can identify newly reported safety issues without requiring repeated manual updating. Such a modification would have predictably resulted in a more current and comprehensive tire-safety database while allowing the tire-identification, comparison, and warning functions of Wittmann and NHTSA to operate using newly obtained safety information. This motivation for the combination of Wittmann, NHTSA, and Abreu is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Wittmann, NHTSA, and Abreu fails to teach litigation records. However, Adam teaches litigation records (Figure 2; Paragraph [0021]: “a computer-implemented monitoring module monitors multiple Internet-based litigation sources, including legal-news publications concerning class actions […] claims administrators’ Web sites, plaintiffs' bar Web sites […] automated news tracking sources, and expressly court Web sites, such as the PACER litigation tracking system”; Paragraph [0023]: “the criteria can be configured as search terms and applied to the data using a search capability of the monitoring module 170. The search capability can be a search engine internal to module 170, a third party engine or an external engine accessed by the module 170 […] Other possible methods for applying criteria include using data mining techniques known in the art”; Paragraph [0025]: “each database record corresponds to a particular class action and contains the following fields: summary, class action short name, class action type, case name, defendant(s), settlement amount, product or service, deadline type(s), deadline date(s), class definition, and documents”; and Paragraph [0027]: “the monitoring module 170 can include a data mining functionality to at least partially automate the process for uploading data meeting the criteria into the database 102”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the tire identification and safety-notification system of Wittmann and NHTSA to incorporate the automated information-searching and database-updating techniques taught by Abreu and the litigation-source monitoring techniques taught by Adams. Adams further teaches electronically monitoring, searching, and data-mining litigation-related information sources, including Internet-based legal publications and court websites such as the PACER litigation tracking system, and storing product-associated litigation information in a database. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to broaden and automate the acquisition of newly available tire-safety information from multiple network-accessible sources, including litigation-related sources, thereby maintaining a more current and comprehensive tire-safety database for identifying tires having newly reported safety issues. This motivation for the combination of Wittmann, NHTSA, Abreu, and Adams is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittmann et al (US 2017/0124784 A1) in view of NHTSA et al (Electronic Tire Identification Study), further in view of Levin (US 2021/0224971 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 18, Wittmann as modified by NHTSA teaches the system of claim 16, where NHTSA teaches wherein said instructions further cause said computing device to:
extract, from said scanned tire identifier derived by said optical character recognition, a date of manufacture encoded within alphanumeric characters on said tire sidewall (Page 5, 1st Paragraph: “A tire identification number (TIN) is a string of letters and numbers marked on the sidewall of a tire that contains information about the tire including the manufacturer, the plant where the tire was manufactured, the week/year of manufacture, and characteristics of the tire such as the size and model. Beyond providing information about the tire, TINs are used to register tires and facilitate tire recalls in the United States”);
upon determining that said (Page 31-32, 8th Paragraph – 1st Paragraph: “When tires are scanned at point of sale or during service the reader could alert if the tires are recalled or aged”; and Page 34, 2nd Paragraph: “Tire dealers and service providers could scan the tires to check the tires against a recalled tire database, if recalled, the scanner could alert the user”).
Wittmann and NHTSA fails to teach compute a tire age by comparing said extracted date of manufacture to a current date; and upon determining that said computed tire age exceeds a predetermined age threshold, classify said tire as having a safety issue.
However, Levin teaches extract, from said scanned tire identifier derived by said optical character recognition, a date of manufacture encoded within alphanumeric characters on said tire sidewall (Paragraph [0074]: “The image processing code can identify tire type by a DOT code and reference a tread and training set […] optical character recognition (OCR) methods recognize tire codes using three-dimensional imaging and edge detection […]”; and Paragraph [0075]: “[…] An additional aspect is the recognition of date tire codes for expiration dates”);
compute a tire age by comparing said extracted date of manufacture to a current date (Paragraph [0075]: “An additional aspect is the recognition of date tire codes for expiration dates. Industry and safety standards define tire aging and tire replacement. Date codes can trigger display warnings […]”; and Paragraph [0067]: “the system uses pattern matching, storing information of both the good and the bad tires, comparing, and contrasting the captured tire pattern versus stored patterns, Feature matching by calculating stereo disparity, identifies the range or depth including visual edges in the stereo image pair”); and
upon determining that said computed tire age exceeds a predetermined age threshold, classify said tire as having a safety issue (Paragraph [0075]: “the image recognition of tire codes for accessing manufacture recalls listed in online databases. The manufacture recall may trigger display warnings to replace tires […] An additional aspect is the recognition of date tire codes for expiration dates. Industry and safety standards define tire aging and tire replacement. Date codes can trigger display warnings […]”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the tire identification and safety-notification system of Wittmann and NHTSA to incorporate the tire-age and expiration-determination techniques taught by Levin. Levin teaches recognizing tire codes, including DOT codes, using optical character recognition, recognizing tire date codes for determining expiration dates, determining whether a tire date code is expired according to tire-aging and replacement standards, and generating a warning based on the date code. Levin further teaches storing tire-age information associated with the tire date code. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to identify tires presenting an age-related safety concern by using manufacture-date information encoded in the tire identifier to determine whether a tire has exceeded an applicable safe-age criterion, thereby enabling an appropriate safety warning to be generated for an over-age tire. This motivation for the combination of Wittmann, NHTSA, and Levin is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittmann et al (US 2017/0124784 A1) in view of NHTSA et al (Electronic Tire Identification Study) and Gibbs et al (US 2021/0081685 A1), further in view of Laperle et al (US 2021/0197625 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 20, Wittmann as modified by NHTSA teaches the system of claim 16, but do not specifically teach wherein said at least one digital imager comprises an autonomous drone having a digital imaging device mounted thereon, and wherein said instructions further cause said computing device to: transmit navigation instructions to said autonomous drone causing said drone to traverse a vehicle dealer lot and sequentially position said digital imaging device to capture said digital images of tire sidewalls of each tire mounted upon each vehicle present on said lot; cause said drone to additionally capture a digital image of a VIN number or license plate number of each said vehicle; and apply optical character recognition to said digital image of said VIN number or license plate number to derive said vehicle identifier for each said vehicle.
However, Gibbs transmit navigation instructions to said autonomous drone causing said drone to traverse a vehicle dealer lot and sequentially position said digital imaging device to capture said digital images of (Figure 1; Figure 2; Paragraph [0023]: “The autonomous vehicle 10 may be an automobile as shown, or it may be any mobile vehicle such as a truck, cart, scooter, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) or other mobile robotic device”; Paragraph [0024]: “autonomous vehicle's transport system to move the autonomous vehicle along a route that includes one or more parking zones”; and Paragraph [0028]: “[…] The enforcement route will include a parking zone […] The autonomous vehicle may detect that it enters a parking zone (step 202) based on image processing and recognition, GPS data, or other methods. Upon entering the parking zone, the vehicle's image capture device will capture images of license plates of parked vehicles in the parking zone (step 203)”);
cause said drone to additionally capture a digital image of a VIN number or license plate number of each said vehicle (Figure 1; Figure 2; Paragraph [0023]: “The autonomous vehicle 10 may be an automobile as shown, or it may be any mobile vehicle such as a truck, cart, scooter, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) or other mobile robotic device”; and Paragraph [0028]: “[…] the vehicle's image capture device will capture images of license plates of parked vehicles in the parking zone (step 203)”); and
apply optical character recognition to said digital image of said VIN number or license plate number to derive said vehicle identifier for each said vehicle (Paragraph [0030]: “process the images of license plates and extract a set of license plate numbers from the images (step 204). The system may do this using any suitable automated number plate recognition (ANPR) process […] (i) plate localization […] (ii) plate orientation and sizing […] (iii) normalization […] (iv) character segmentation […] (v) optical character recognition to identify each character […]”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Wittmann as modified by NHTSA, to incorporate the autonomous vehicle inspection teachings of Gibbs, including an autonomous vehicle having an image capture device and programming instructions for causing the autonomous vehicle to traverse a parking area containing multiple parked vehicles, capture digital images of license plates of the parked vehicles, and apply optical character recognition to the captured images to extract the license plate numbers. The motivation for this combination would have been to automate the acquisition of vehicle-identifying information from multiple vehicles while reducing the need for manual vehicle inspection and data entry, thereby improving the efficiency and accuracy of associating vehicle identification information with the tire inspection and recall information of Wittmann as modified by NHTSA. This motivation for the combination of Wittmann, NHTSA, and Gibbs is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Wittmann, NHTSA, and Gibbs fails to teach transmit navigation instructions to said autonomous drone causing said drone to Laperle teaches transmit navigation instructions to said autonomous drone causing said drone to (Figure 30; Figure 31; Paragraph [0155]: “the system server 1142 may receive image data from a drone 3201 for inspecting the tire 34 and/or other components of each of the wheels 201 to 204 and/or their environment (e.g., detecting the presence of debris, etc.), so that information derived from the drone 3210 may be relayed to the operator of the vehicle 10 and/or another remote device or person”; and Paragraph [0156]: “the drone 3201 is arranged to follow the vehicle, capture and analyze images of each of the tires 341 to 344 and their environment. In other embodiments, the drone 3201 is equipped with a laser line scanner for scanning the tires 341 to 344 and their environment”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Wittmann, as modified by NHTSA and Gibbs, to incorporate the drone-based tire inspection teachings of Laperle, including employing a drone having a digital imaging device to move about a vehicle and capture and analyze images of each of the vehicle's tires. The motivation for this combination would have been to enable the autonomous imaging system of Gibbs to obtain tire specific image information from each tire of the vehicles being inspected, thereby extending the automated vehicle identification and inspection process to the individual tires associated with each identified vehicle and facilitating automated tire inspection without requiring manual positioning of an imaging device at each tire. This motivation for the combination of Wittmann, NHTSA, Gibbs, and Laperle is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittmann et al (US 2017/0124784 A1) in view of NHTSA et al (Electronic Tire Identification Study) and Beyer, JR (US 2009/0075685 A1), further in view of Berven (US 2014/0253323 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 21, Wittmann as modified by NHTSA teaches the system of claim 16, where Wittmann teaches wherein said instructions further cause said computing device to:
upon further failure to receive acknowledgment, transmit said warning for presentation to an operator of said vehicle via one or both of:
a graphic display within said vehicle, or an audible announcement within said vehicle, by routing said warning to said vehicle's onboard electronic communication system using said vehicle identifier (Paragraph [0016]: “to employ computers and databases to recognize the type and make of the vehicle via license plate recognition, computer vision based methods, RFID and/or other commercially available devices and methods. Identifying the vehicle within the database enables embodiments of the present invention to use unique vehicle parameters […]”; Paragraph [0021]: “The alert module functions to alert the driver should a tire be determined to be unsafe or beyond set thresholds for the measured parameters. The alert module can be in the form of warning lights, light emitting diode (LED) displays, audio warning or other commercially available solutions”; and Paragraph [0139]: “the controller 1000 will display the inspection results on the alert module 1320 by sending the results via the communication module 1300”).
Wittmann and NHTSA fails to teach following said automatic transmission of said electronic safety warning to said vehicle dealer or vehicle service provider, monitor for an electronic acknowledgment response confirming receipt of said warning; upon failure to receive said acknowledgment response within a predetermined time period, escalate said electronic safety warning by transmitting said warning to one or more of: a servicer of said vehicle, a manufacturer of said vehicle, or an owner of said vehicle; upon further failure to receive acknowledgment, transmit said warning for presentation to an operator of said vehicle via one or both of: continue transmitting said electronic safety warning on a recurring schedule until said acknowledgment response is received and stored in said electronic memory, whereupon transmission of said warnings ceases.
However, Beyer teaches following said automatic transmission of said electronic safety warning to said vehicle dealer or vehicle service provider, monitor for an electronic acknowledgment response confirming receipt of said warning (Paragraph [0009]: “(b) automatically transmit an acknowledgement of receipt from said recipient PCs and PDA/cell phones to the sender PCs or PDA/cell phones upon receipt of the forced message alert by the recipient PCs and PDA/cell phones; (c) periodically resend the message to the recipient PCs and PDA/cell phones that have not sent an acknowledgement until an acknowledgement is received from every recipient PC and PDA/cell phone”);
upon further failure to receive acknowledgment, transmit said warning for presentation to an operator of said vehicle via one or both of: continue transmitting said electronic safety warning on a recurring schedule until said acknowledgment response is received and stored in said electronic memory, whereupon transmission of said warnings ceases (Paragraph [0009]: “(c) periodically resend the message to the recipient PCs and PDA/cell phones that have not sent an acknowledgement until an acknowledgement is received from every recipient PC and PDA/cell phone; (d) provide an indication on the display of the sender PC or PDA/cell phone of which recipient PCs and PDA/cell phones have acknowledged the forced message alert”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the tire identification and safety-notification system of Wittmann and NHTSA to incorporate the acknowledgment-tracking and repeated-notification techniques taught by Beyer. Beyer teaches automatically transmitting an acknowledgment of receipt upon receipt of an electronic message alert, identifying which recipients have and have not acknowledged the alert, and periodically resending the alert to recipients that have not acknowledged it until an acknowledgment is received. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Beyer’s acknowledgment and retransmission techniques to the electronic tire-safety warnings of Wittmann and NHTSA in order to verify receipt of safety-critical notifications and to continue notifying intended recipients when receipt has not been confirmed. Such a modification would have predictably improved the reliability of the tire-safety notification process by reducing the likelihood that a safety warning would remain unacknowledged or unnoticed. This motivation for the combination of Wittmann, NHTSA, and Beyer is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Wittmann, NHTSA, and Beyer fails to teach upon failure to receive said acknowledgment response within a predetermined time period, escalate said electronic safety warning by transmitting said warning to one or more of: a servicer of said vehicle, a manufacturer of said vehicle, or an owner of said vehicle.
However, Berven teaches upon failure to receive said acknowledgment response within a predetermined time period, escalate said electronic safety warning by transmitting said warning to one or more of: a servicer of said vehicle, a manufacturer of said vehicle, or an owner of said vehicle (Paragraph [0034]: “The stored list of reception devices may also include a predetermined delay time or response time interval corresponding to each reception device […] if an acknowledgment is not received from a reception device within its respective delay time, the notification device will automatically transmit the alert message to the next device in the list and similarly await an acknowledgment signal within its corresponding delay time”; and Paragraph [0035]: “the processing unit that the next communication device listed in the table should receive an alert signal or command in five minutes if no acknowledgment is received at the notification device from the pager in that time. Further communication devices in the notification sequence are similarly notified.”)
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Wittmann, NHTSA, and Beyer to incorporate the predetermined response interval and sequential escalation techniques taught by Berven. Berven teaches associating a predetermined delay time or response time interval with a recipient device and, when an acknowledgment is not received within that interval, automatically transmitting the alert message to the next device in a notification sequence and awaiting acknowledgment from that device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Berven’s timed escalation technique into the acknowledgment-based notification system of Wittmann, NHTSA, and Beyer so that, when an initial tire-safety warning is not acknowledged within a defined response period, the warning can automatically be escalated to additional recipients rather than merely continuing indefinitely to a single recipient. Such a modification would have predictably increased the likelihood that a safety-critical warning would reach and be acted upon by an appropriate recipient in a timely manner. This motivation for the combination of Wittmann, NHTSA, Beyer, and Berven is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Claim(s) 19 is/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.
Regarding claim(s) 19, the prior art of record fails to teach/suggest the combination of capturing tire-sidewall images using two or more of the recited, “combine images captured across said multiple imaging bands using digital image-combining software to produce a composite image in which alphanumeric indicia embossed upon said tire sidewall are rendered discernible; and apply said optical character recognition to said composite image to discern said scanned tire identifier”. While tire-sidewall imaging, optical character recognition, and multiband imaging techniques may have been separately known, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest their combination in the particular manner recited in claim 19.
Relevant Prior Art Directed to State of Art
Ledoux et al (US 2020/0126323 A1) is/are relevant prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Ledoux discloses determining an identifier of the vehicle and/or of a tire of the vehicle, when the vehicle passes a road infrastructure equipped with a system for assessing the condition of the vehicle; at the same time, determining at least one parameter representative of the condition of the vehicle and/or of the tire;
transmitting the determined data to a remote data server; from the identification data, retrieving external data concerning the vehicle and/or the tire and/or running conditions; combining the determined information with the external data such as to determine a relevant indicator concerning the condition and/or the behavior of the vehicle; and transmitting the relevant indicator to a provider of a service linked to the condition and/or to the behavior of a vehicle and/or of the tire.
Kintscher et al (US 2020/0189327 A1) is/are relevant prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Kintscher discloses at least one tire supporting a vehicle; a processor, at least one sensor mounted on the tire and in electronic communication with the processor, the at least one sensor measuring a temperature and a pressure of the at least one tire; a memory for storing tire identification information, the memory being in electronic communication with the processor; tire wear state means for generating at least one of a measurement and an estimate of a wear state of the at least one tire, the tire wear state means being in electronic communication with the processor; tire wear rate estimation means for generating an estimate of a wear rate of the least one tire, the tire wear rate estimation means being in electronic communication with the processor; transmission means for transmitting the temperature, the pressure, the identification information, the at least one of a measurement and an estimate of a wear state, and the wear rate estimation of the at least one tire to a display device accessible to a user of the vehicle; and the display device including indicators for showing the temperature, the pressure, the identification information, the at least one of a measurement and an estimate of a wear state, and the wear rate estimation of the at least one tire to the user.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JONGBONG NAH whose telephone number is (571)272-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, ONEAL MISTRY can be reached at 313-446-4912. 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.
/JONGBONG NAH/Examiner, Art Unit 2674
/ONEAL R MISTRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Prosecution Insights