DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 10, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8, 16, 29-31 and 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoken et al. (US 2014/0104398, hereafter Zoken) in view of Fujieda et al. (US 2010/0232681, hereafter Fujieda)
With respect to claim 1, Zoken teaches an external tire reader (system 10) configured to read a tire tread, the external tire reader comprising: an offset structure (guidance dolly 14) configured to be applied to a position on the tire tread; a camera system coupled to the offset structure, the camera system comprising: a camera (digital imaging device 12) configured to generate an image of the portion of the tire tread while the offset structure is applied to the position on the tire tread, wherein the offset structure is configured to provide a fixed distance between the camera system and the tire tread while the offset structure is applied to the position on the tire tread; and a controller (computing device 16) coupled with the camera system, wherein the controller is configured to determine information about the tire tread based on the image. (par. 40-41, Figs. 1-2)
Zoken does not teach the camera system is fixedly coupled to the offset structure, or the camera system comprises a first camera configured to generate a first image of a portion of the tire tread while the offset structure is applied to the position on the tire tread or a second camera configured to generate a second image of the portion of the tire tread while the offset structure is applied to the position on the tire tread.
However, it is well known to use a plurality of fixed cameras to evaluate a surface. For example, Fujieda teaches a camera system (stereo camera 1) for evaluating a surface comprising: a first camera (camera A) in a fixed position and configured to generate a first image of a portion of a surface (transfer line 101), a second camera (camera B or C) in a fixed position and configured to generate a second image of the portion of the surface (transfer line 101); and a controller (recognition processing apparatus 2) coupled with the camera system and configured to determine information about the surface based on the first image and the second image. (par. 47-48, Fig.1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the structure of Zoken to include first and second fixedly coupled cameras, as taught by Fujieda, in order to evaluate the tire tread without having to change the position of the cameras so that the structure has fewer moving parts.
With respect to claim 2, Zoken, as modified by Fujieda, teaches the offset structure (guidance dolly 14) is configured to provide the fixed distance between the camera system and the tire tread so that the tire tread is within a focal length of the camera system when the offset structure is applied to the position on the tire tread. (Zoken, par. 40-41, Figs. 1-2)
With respect to claim 3, Zoken, as modified by Fujieda, teaches at least one alignment fiducial (reference object) is provided on the offset structure and is in a field of view of the camera system. (Zoken, par. 70, Fig. 4)
With respect to claim 5, Zoken, as modified by Fujieda, teaches the offset structure includes a frame configured to be applied to the tire tread and a frame support coupled between the frame and the camera system, and wherein the camera system is configured to generate the image of a portion of the tire tread that is surrounded by the frame while the frame is applied to the tire tread. (Zoken, par. 40-41)
With respect to claim 8, Zoken, as modified by Fujieda, teaches a first alignment fiducial (reference object) and a second alignment fiducial are provided on the offset structure wherein the first alignment fiducial and the second alignment fiducial define an axis and wherein the first camera and the second camera are spaced apart in a direction that is at least one of parallel with respect to the axis and orthogonal with respect to the axis. Note this would have been obvious based on the combination of the alignment fiducial of Zoken with the dual cameras of Fujieda.
With respect to claim 16, Zoken, as modified by Fujieda, teaches the camera system is configured to generate the first image and the second image responsive to user input. (Zoken, par. 29)
With respect to claim 29, Zoken teaches a method of operating an external tire reader (system 10) configured to read a tire tread, the method comprising: positioning, via an offset structure (guidance dolly 14) of the external tire reader, the external tire reader at a position relative to the tire such that a camera system of the external tire reader is at a fixed posed relative to the tire tread and at a fixed distance from the tire tread; projecting, via a light source (light source 55), light onto the tire tread while the offset structure of the external tire reader is applied to the tire tread at the position; generating, via a camera (digital imaging device 12) of the camera system, an image of a portion of the tire tread including a the light projected onto the tire tread while the offset structure of the external tire reader is applied to the tire tread at the position; and determining, via a controller (computing device 16) of the external tire reader, information about the tire tread based on the image. (par. 40-41, Figs. 1-2)
Zoken does not teach generating a first image via a first camera including a first portion of the light projected onto the tire tread and generating a second image via a second camera including a second portion of the light projected onto the tire tread, such that the determining is based on the first image and the second image.
However, it is well known to use a plurality of fixed cameras to evaluate a surface. For example, Fujieda teaches a using a camera system (stereo camera 1) and generating a first image via a first camera (camera A) of a portion of a surface (transfer line 101), generating a second image via a second camera (camera B or C) of the portion of the surface (transfer line 101); and determining, via a controller (recognition processing apparatus 2) coupled with the camera system information about the surface based on the first image and the second image. (par. 47-48, Fig.1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Zoken to include generating first and second images, as taught by Fujieda, in order to evaluate the tire tread without having to change the position of the cameras so that the structure has fewer moving parts.
With respect to claim 30, Zoken teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored therein that are executable by processing circuitry of an external tire reader to cause the external tire reader to perform operations comprising: projecting, via a camera system, light onto a tire tread while an offset structure of the external tire reader is applied to a position on the tire tread; generating by the camera system, an image of a portion of the tire tread, including the light projected onto the tire tread, while the offset structure of the external tire reader is applied to the position on the tire tread, and determining information about the tire tread based on the image of the tire. (par. 40-41, Figs. 1-2)
Zoken does not teach the camera system is fixedly coupled to the offset structure, or generating a first image including a first portion of the light projected onto the tire tread and generating a second image including a second portion of the light projected onto the tire tread, such that the determining is based on the first image and the second image.
However, it is well known to use a plurality of fixed cameras to evaluate a surface. For example, Fujieda teaches a using a camera system (stereo camera 1) and generating a first image via a first camera (camera A) of a portion of a surface (transfer line 101), generating a second image via a second camera (camera B or C) of the portion of the surface (transfer line 101); and determining, via a controller (recognition processing apparatus 2) coupled with the camera system information about the surface based on the first image and the second image. (par. 47-48, Fig.1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Zoken to include generating first and second images, as taught by Fujieda, in order to evaluate the tire tread without having to change the position of the cameras so that the structure has fewer moving parts.
With respect to claim 31, Zoken, as modified by Fujieda, teaches the offset structure (guidance dolly 14) is configured to provide the fixed distance between the camera system and the tire tread so that the tire tread is within a focal length of the camera system when the offset structure is applied to the tire tread. (Zoken, par. 40-41, Figs. 1-2)
With respect to claim 36, Zoken, as modified by Fujieda, teaches wherein the camera system is further configured to capture the first image of tire tread and the second image of the tire tread at a same time and without moving the offset structure. (Fujieda, par. 47-48, Fig.1)
With respect to claim 37, Zoken, as modified by Fujieda, teaches the camera system further comprises: a light source (light source 55) configured to project light on the tire tread while the offset structure is applied to the position on the tire tread, wherein the first camera is further configured to generate the first image including a first portion of the light projected onto the tire tread, and wherein the second camera is further configured to generate the second image including a second portion of the light projected onto the tire tread. (Zoken, par. 40-41, Figs. 1-2; Fujieda, par. 47-48, Fig. 1)
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoken in view of Fujieda as applied above, and further in view of Grau. (US 2015/0178412)
With respect to claim 38, Zoken, as modified by Fujieda, teaches all that is claimed, as in the above rejection, except wherein the light source is an infrared (“IR”) radiation source configured to project IR radiation on the tire tread while the offset structure is applied to the position on the tire tread, wherein the first camera is a first IR camera configured to capture the first image including IR radiation from the IR source, and wherein the second camera is a second IR camera configured to capture the second image including IR radiation from the IR source.
However, the use of infrared radiation for evaluating surfaces is well known. Grau teaches a camera system for evaluating a surface comprising: an infrared (“IR”) radiation source (projector 28) configured to project IR radiation on the surface; a first IR camera (first camera 24) configured to generate a first image of a portion of surface including IR radiation from the IR source projected onto the surface or a second IR camera (second camera 26) configured to generate a second image of the portion of the surface, including IR radiation from the IR source projected onto the surface; and a controller (controller 50) coupled with the camera system and configured to determine information about the surface based on the first image and the second image. (par. 32, 40, Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify the structure of Zoken to include IR radiation and a first and second IR cameras, as taught by Grau, in order to evaluate the tire tread in a wider variety of environments such as where visible light may be less effective.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 11-13, 16, 19, 21-22, 29-31 and 34-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pryce et al. (US 2012/0008148, hereafter Pryce) in view of Fujieda et al. (US 2010/0232681, hereafter Fujieda)
With respect to claim 1, Pryce teaches an external tire reader (portable sensor unit 2) configured to read a tire tread, the external tire reader comprising: an offset structure (body 6, rollers 8) configured to be applied to a position on the tire tread; a camera system (imaging modules, camera 32) fixedly coupled to the offset structure, the camera system comprising: a first camera (camera 32) configured to generate a first image of a portion of the tire tread while the offset structure is applied to the position on the tire tread; a second camera (camera 132) configured to generate a second image of a portion of the tire tread while the offset structure is applied to the position on the tire tread; wherein the offset structure is configured to provide a fixed distance between the camera system and the tire tread while the offset structure is applied to the position on the tire tread; and a controller (controller unit 12) coupled with the camera system, wherein the controller is configured to determine information about the tire tread based on the first image and the second image. (par. 9-12, 131-133, 139-140, Figs. 1-5)
Pryce does not teach the first and second cameras are configured to generate images of the same portion of the tire tread.
However, it is well known to use a plurality of cameras to evaluate a surface. For example, Fujieda teaches a camera system (stereo camera 1) for evaluating a surface comprising: a first camera (camera A) in a fixed position and configured to generate a first image of a portion of a surface (transfer line 101), a second camera (camera B or C) in a fixed position and configured to generate a second image of the portion of the surface (transfer line 101); and a controller (recognition processing apparatus 2) coupled with the camera system and configured to determine information about the surface based on the first image and the second image. (par. 47-48, Fig.1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the structure of Pryce to include overlapping first and second cameras, as taught by Fujieda, in order to use stereo camera principles to evaluate the tire tread.
With respect to claim 2, Pryce, as modified by Fujieda, teaches the offset structure (body 6, rollers 8) is configured to provide the fixed distance between the camera system and the tire tread so that the tire tread is within a focal length of the camera system when the offset structure is applied to the position on the tire tread. (Pryce, par. 131-133, 139-140, Figs. 1-5)
With respect to claim 5, Pryce, as modified by Fujieda, teaches the offset structure includes a frame configured to be applied to the tire tread and a frame support coupled between the frame and the camera system, and wherein the camera system is configured to generate the first image and the second image of the portion of the tire tread that is surrounded by the frame while the frame is applied to the portion of the tire tread. (Pryce, par. 131-133, 139-140, Figs. 1-5)
With respect to claim 11, Pryce, as modified by Fujieda, teaches the controller is configured to process the first image and the second image by generating three-dimensional (3D) point cloud information based on the first image and the second image. (Pryce, par. 61)
With respect to claim 12, Pryce, as modified by Fujieda, teaches the controller is configured to crop the first image and the second image and to generate the 3D point cloud based on cropping the first image and the second image. (Pryce, par. 61, cropping is a basic image processing function)
With respect to claim 13, Pryce, as modified by Fujieda, teaches a display (graphical display 16) coupled with the controller (controller unit 12), wherein the controller is configured to perform at least one of: transmit the 3D point cloud information to a remote processing entity, to receive tread measurement information based on the 3D point cloud information, and to render the tread measurement information on the display; and generate tread measurement information based on the 3D point cloud information, and to render the tread measurement information on the display, and wherein the controller is configured to render an image output from the camera system on the display before generating the first image and the second image. (Pryce, par. 9-12, 61, 135, Fig. 1)
With respect to claim 16, Pryce, as modified by Fujieda, teaches the camera system is configured to generate the first image and the second image responsive to user input. (par. 135)
With respect to claim 19, Pryce, as modified by Fujieda, teaches a handle (4) coupled with the offset structure and/or the camera system. (Pryce, par. 131, Fig. 2) Although Pryce, as modified by Fujieda, does not teach wherein the handle is a pistol grip handle with a trigger configured to accept user input, and wherein the camera system is configured to generate the image of the tire tread responsive to user input received through the trigger, this is a common arrangement for implementing a handheld sensor system and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to implement a pistol grip and trigger with the modified system of Pryce in order to easily control the camera system in a well understood manner.
With respect to claim 21, Pryce, as modified by Fujieda, teaches an extension (wire 14) coupled with the camera system and/or the offset structure; and a display (graphical display 16) coupled with the extension and with the controller, so that the extension is between the camera system and the display, and so that the display is spaced apart from the camera system and the offset structure. (Pryce, par. 131-135, Fig. 1)
With respect to claim 22, Pryce, as modified by Fujieda, teaches the display spaced apart from the camera system. (Fig. 1) Although Pryce, as modified by Fujieda, does not explicitly teach wherein the display is spaced apart from the camera system by at least 1 foot, the exact distance would not appear to have a significant impact on the operation of the system and therefore the optimum distance could readily be determined by one having ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation.
With respect to claim 29, Pryce teaches a method of operating an external tire reader (portable sensor unit 2) configured to read a tire tread, the method comprising: positioning, via an offset structure (body 6, rollers 8) of the external tire reader, the external tire reader at a position relative to the tire such that a camera system (imaging modules, camera 32) of the external tire reader is at a fixed pose relative to the tire tread and a fixed distance from the tire tread; projecting, via a light source of the camera system, light onto the tire tread while the offset structure of the external tire reader is applied to the tire tread at the position, generating, via a first camera of the camera system, a first image of a portion of the tire tread including a first portion of the light projected onto the tire tread, while the offset structure of the external tire reader is applied to the tire tread at the position; generating, via a second camera of the camera system, a second image of a portion of the tire tread including a second portion of the light projected onto the tire tread while the offset structure of the external tire reader is applied to the tire tread at the position; and determining, via a controller (controller unit 12) of the external tire reader, information about the tire tread based on the first image and the second image. (par. 9-12, 131-133, 139-140, Figs. 1-5)
Pryce does not teach the first and second cameras are configured to generate images of the same portion of the tire tread.
However, it is well known to use a plurality of cameras to evaluate a surface. For example, Fujieda teaches method of operating a camera system (stereo camera 1) to evaluate a surface comprising: generating, via a first camera (camera A) in a fixed position and, a first image of a portion of a surface (transfer line 101), generating, via a second camera (camera B or C) in a fixed position, a second image of the portion of the surface (transfer line 101); and determining, via a controller (recognition processing apparatus 2) coupled with the camera system, information about the surface based on the first image and the second image. (par. 47-48, Fig.1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Pryce to use overlapping first and second cameras, as taught by Fujieda, in order to use stereo camera principles to evaluate the tire tread.
With respect to claim 30, Pryce teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored therein that are executable by processing circuitry of an external tire reader to cause the external tire reader to perform operations comprising: projecting, via a camera system, light onto a tire tread while an offset structure of the external tire reader is applied to a position on the tire tread, the camera system being fixedly coupled to the offset structure; generating, by the camera system, a first image of a portion of the tire tread including a first portion of the light projected onto the tire tread while the offset structure is applied to the position on the tire tread; generating, by the camera system, a second image of a portion of the tire tread including a second portion of the light projected onto the tire tread while the offset structure of the external tire reader is applied to the position on the tire tread, and determining information about the tire tread based on the first image and the second image. (par. 9-12, 131-133, 139-140, Figs. 1-5)
Pryce does not teach the first and second cameras are configured to generate images of the same portion of the tire tread.
However, it is well known to use a plurality of cameras to evaluate a surface. For example, Fujieda teaches method of operating a camera system (stereo camera 1) to evaluate a surface comprising: generating, via a first camera (camera A) in a fixed position and, a first image of a portion of a surface (transfer line 101), generating, via a second camera (camera B or C) in a fixed position, a second image of the portion of the surface (transfer line 101); and determining, via a controller (recognition processing apparatus 2) coupled with the camera system, information about the surface based on the first image and the second image. (par. 47-48, Fig.1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Pryce to use overlapping first and second cameras, as taught by Fujieda, in order to use stereo camera principles to evaluate the tire tread.
With respect to claim 31, Pryce, as modified by Fujieda, teaches the offset structure (body 6, rollers 8) is configured to provide the fixed distance between the camera system and the tire tread so that the tire tread is within a focal length of the camera system when the offset structure is applied to the tire tread. (Pryce, par. 131-133, 139-140, Figs. 1-5)
With respect to claim 34, Pryce, as modified by Fujieda, teaches the controller is configured to process the first image and the second image by generating three-dimensional (3D) point cloud information based on the first image and the second image. (Pryce, par. 61)
With respect to claim 35, Pryce, as modified by Fujieda, teaches the controller is configured to crop the first image and the second image and to generate the 3D point cloud based on cropping the first image and the second image. (Pryce, par. 61, cropping is a basic image processing function)
With respect to claim 36, Pryce, as modified by Fujieda, teaches the camera system is further configured to capture the first image of tire tread and the second image of the tire tread at a same time and without moving the offset structure. (Fujieda, par. 47-48, Fig.1)
With respect to claim 37, Pryce, as modified by Fujieda, teaches the camera system further comprises: a light source (laser line generator 34) configured to project light on the tire tread while the offset structure is applied to the position on the tire tread, wherein the first camera is further configured to generate the first image including a first portion of the light projected onto the tire tread, and wherein the second camera is further configured to generate the second image including a second portion of the light projected onto the tire tread. (Pryce, par. 9-12, 131-133, 139-140, Figs. 1-5); Fujieda, par. 47-48, Fig. 1)
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pryce in view of Fujieda, as applied above, and further in view of Grau. (US 2015/0178412)
With respect to claim 38, Pryce, as modified by Fujieda, teaches all that is claimed, as in the above rejection, except wherein the light source is an infrared (“IR”) radiation source configured to project IR radiation on the tire tread while the offset structure is applied to the position on the tire tread, wherein the first camera is a first IR camera configured to capture the first image including IR radiation from the IR source, and wherein the second camera is a second IR camera configured to capture the second image including IR radiation from the IR source.
However, the use of infrared radiation for evaluating surfaces is well known. Grau teaches a camera system for evaluating a surface comprising: an infrared (“IR”) radiation source (projector 28) configured to project IR radiation on the surface; a first IR camera (first camera 24) configured to generate a first image of a portion of surface including IR radiation from the IR source projected onto the surface or a second IR camera (second camera 26) configured to generate a second image of the portion of the surface, including IR radiation from the IR source projected onto the surface; and a controller (controller 50) coupled with the camera system and configured to determine information about the surface based on the first image and the second image. (par. 32, 40, Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify the structure of Pryce to include IR radiation and a first and second IR cameras, as taught by Grau, in order to evaluate the tire tread in a wider variety of environments such as where visible light may be less effective.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With respect to the rejection of Zoken, in view of Fujieda, applicant argues that Zoken does not teach a camera system fixedly attached to an offset structure. Applicant also argues that Fujieda fails to teach fixing cameras to an offset structure. Both of these things are true. The rejection is based on the combination of the references, applying the fixed cameras of Fujieda to the offset structure of Zoken in order to achieve a 3-D image, as taught by Fujieda, in a tire inspection apparatus such as that taught by Zoken.
Applicant also argues that it would not be obvious to combine the features of Zoken and Fujieda because they each recite independent mechanisms for an imaging system that would each not be needed if the other was used. In fact, the substitution of one imaging system for another is the entire point of combining the references, as Zoken teaches the advantages of the use of an offset structure and Fujieda teaches the advantages of a fixed camera system and a combination of the references allows one of ordinary skill in the art to realize all of these advantages.
Applicant’s further arguments that Zoken fails to teach or suggest any offset structure other than the guidance dolly and fails to teach or suggest that the guidance dolly offers any advantage other than that quoted, and that Zoken fails to teach or suggest an offset structure that a person having ordinary skill in the art would find obvious to use with a fixed camera system are not persuasive. Zoken teaches that the guidance dolly is a structure that offsets the cameras a particular distance from the tire. It guides the cameras along a particular path, but it also locates the cameras at a specific distance from the surface of the tire, as can be seen from the disclosure and the drawings. Accordingly, it would be obvious to use a similar structure with the fixed cameras of Fujieda to locate the cameras in a known position near the tire for consistency of images from one tire to the next.
Applicant is reminded that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
With respect to the rejection of Pryce, in view of Fujieda, applicant argues that the cameras of Pryce are spread across the width of the tire’s surface and that Fujieda fails to teach an offset structure. Again, both of these statements are accurate. The rejection is based on the combination of the references, applying the overlapping cameras of Fujieda to the offset structure of Pryce.
Applicant also argues that it would not be obvious to combine the features of Pryce and Fujieda, but as with the above combination, the substitution of one imaging system for another is the entire point of combining the references, as Pryce teaches the advantages of the use of an offset structure and Fujieda teaches the advantages of a fixed camera system with overlapping views and a combination of the references allows one of ordinary skill in the art to realize all of these advantages.
Applicant further argues that Pryce fails to teach or suggest an offset structure that would allow a camera system to be fixedly attached and generate multiple images of the same portion of a tire tread. As discussed above, Pryce is not solely relied upon to teach this combination because one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the advantages of the combination of the housing and offset structure of Pryce with the stereoscopic cameras of Fujieda, which provide a 3-D image of a particular location, providing a user with more detailed images.
Applicant’s assertion that “Pryce fails to teach or suggest a structure configured to provide a fixed distance between a position on a tire tread and a fixed camera system that includes multiple cameras” is confusing because that appears to be exactly what Pryce teaches. As discussed above, the combination of Pryce with the different camera arrangement taught by Fujieda allows multiple cameras to image the same location to provide different results, while using the offset structure of Pryce to provide a particular and consistent field of vision for the cameras with respect to the tire tread.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 Jill E Culler whose telephone number is (571)272-2159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/JILL E CULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853