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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed April 23, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-9 are withdrawn
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montoy (US 2023/0392995) in view of Tixier et al. (US 2021/0262776), further in view of Macecek et al. (US 5,095,744).
Regarding claims 10, 11, Montoy discloses that, as illustrated Figs. 1, 2, an apparatus for measuring a depth of each tread layer (item 101 in Fig. 1) of a tire tread having at least two tread layers (items 11, 12 as shown in Figs. 1, 2) comprising:
a bridge table (item 102 in Fig. 1 ([0050], line 1-3)) having an upper surface for conveying the tire tread thereon and a plurality of support legs (as shown in Fig. 1) to support the bridge table,
a first sensor (item 103 in Fig. 1 ([0050], lines 5-6)) and a second sensor (i.e., a frame comprising at least one terahertz sensor ([0014])).
It is noticed that, in the teachings of Montoy, at least the thicknesses of the layer 11 and 12 (of the product 101 ([0050])) are determined by measuring the time lags among peak 1, peak 2, and peak 3 ([0056], lines 8-12; as shown in Fig. 3).
It is also noticed that, in the teachings of Montoy, the multiple layers product may comprise metal or textile reinforcing elements ([0032], lines 1-2 from bottom).
However, Montoy does not explicitly disclose that, the first sensor is connected being mounted to an upper rail located above the upper surface of the bridge table for translating the first sensor across a width of the upper surface of the bridge table, wherein the first sensor is rigidly connected to the second sensor by a translating support frame, and wherein the translating support frame and the second sensor being located below the upper surface of the bridge table translate with the first sensor.
In the same field of endeavor, non-contacting thickness measurement, Tixier discloses that, Fig. 3 illustrates a scanning sensor system 60 wherein upper and lower scanner heads 64 and 66 (related to claim 11) are mounted on the elongated upper 63 and lower 65 arms or members, respectively, of a C-frame 62. The rigid members are parallel to each other. The frame 62 is equipped with a translation mechanism 69 which is configured as a linear slide to which the C-frame is movably secured. The upper head 64 incorporates the first optical displacement sensor 10 and coil 18 and lower head 66 incorporates the second optical displacement sensor 14 and dual magnetic sensors 20, 22 as shown in Fig. 1. The measurement channel between the heads accommodates the sheet of material being. The heads move back and forth along the cross direction (C) as the sheet is monitored ([0047]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Montoy to incorporate the teachings of Tixier to provide that, the first sensor is connected being mounted to an upper rail located above the upper surface of the bridge table for translating the first sensor across a width of the upper surface of the bridge table, wherein the first sensor is rigidly connected to the second sensor by a translating support frame, and wherein the translating support frame and the second sensor being located below the upper surface of the bridge table translate with the first sensor. Doing so would be possible to provide an accurate and repeatable technique for measuring the thickness and related coatings and films that are formed on continuous, traveling non-uniform webs made of metal containing materials, as recognized by Tixier ([0003], [0004]).
However, both Montoy and Tixier do not disclose that the driving mechanism for the movement of sensors is a step motor.
In the same field of endeavor, tire testing method and apparatus, Macecek discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, a stepper motor 108, included in the mechanical diver 106, energizes it for extending the receiver array 102 toward the inner surface 72 of the tire 34 and for retracting the array 102 away from the inner surface 72 (col. 7, lines 14-18).
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of both Montoy and Tixier to have measuring system for the tire as Macecek teaches that it is known to have the step motor to control the movements of the sensors. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 12, in the teachings of Montoy, the multiple layers product may comprise metal or textile reinforcing elements ([0032], lines 1-2 from bottom). Thus, at least Montoy discloses that, the tire tread has a first tread layer formed of a conductive compound (i.e., metal component) and a second treat layer formed of a non-conductive compound ([0032], lines 1-3 (e.g., rubber material)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to select the first tread layer formed of a conductive compound and the second treat layer formed of a non-conductive compound.
Regarding claim 13, Montoy does not explicitly disclose that, the first and second sensors are separated by a fixed distance D by the translating support frame. As illustrated in Fig. 3 or 4 in the teachings of Tixier, Fig. 3 illustrates a scanning sensor system 60 wherein upper and lower scanner heads 64 and 66 are mounted on the elongated supper 63 and lower 65 arms or members, respectively, of a C-frame 62. The rigid members are parallel to each other ([0047], lines 1-4). Thus, Tixier discloses that, the first and second sensors are separated by a fixed distance D by the translating support frame.
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Montoy to have the measuring system for the tire as Tixier teaches that it is known to have the first and second sensors are separated by a fixed distance D by the translating support frame. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 14, Montoy discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 3, at least the first sensor 103 is a frequency modulated (or boxed) continuous wave terahertz sensor ([0014], [0016], [0021]).
Regarding claim 15, Montoy discloses that, under a frame, at least there is one terahertz sensor. Thus, these sensors can be a same one or a different one.
Regarding claim 16, Montoy discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, when the incident THz pulse 14 passes through an interface, a fraction of the pulse is reflected. Thus, when the THz pulse propagates in the multilayer product, a series of pulses 15 is reflected. Thus, at least the first sensor can be considered as a pulsed terahertz sensor.
Regarding claim 17, Montoy discloses that, in one advantageous embodiment, the acquisition rate of the terahertz sensor is greater than 100 Hz ([0036]) (overlapping the claimed range of 50 to 200 Hz).
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Montoy overlaps the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Montoy (US 2023/0392995), Tixier et al. (US 2021/0262776), and Macecek et al. (US 5,095,744) as applied to claim 14 above, further in view of Huber (US 2016/0047753).
Regarding claim 18, the combination does not disclose that, the second sensor is pulsed frequency sensor having a frequency range of one of 50 GHz to 2.2 THz and 50 GHz to 400 GHz.
In the same field of endeavor, testing a tire, Huber discloses, as illustrated in Figs. 6, 7, a radiation source for electromagnetic radiation in the THz frequency range and with a receiving device for receiving the radiation that has passed through a tire ([0033], [0034]). Huber discloses that, the frequency of the radiation may be, for example, between 0.1 to 2.0 THz ([0009], lines 1-2) (at least overlapping the claimed range of 50 GHz to 2.2 THz).
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Huber overlaps the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of the combination to have the measuring system for the tire as Huber teaches that it is known to have the second sensor is pulsed frequency sensor having a frequency range of 50 GHz to 2.2 THz. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/2026 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments in claim 10 that the cited references of Montoy, Tixier, and Macecek do not establish sufficient motivation for a person of ordinary skilled in the art to combine them in the manner required to arrive at the claimed invention, it is not persuasive.
Basically, the base reference Montoy discloses the concepts of the apparatus for measuring a depth of each tread layer. Tixier discloses the detailed arrangements of the sensors for conducting the measurement. Further, Macecek points out that a stepper motor 108 can be applied to drive the movement of the measuring mechanism.
It is noticed that, all cited art is about to measure the thickness of the multiple layers including conductive elements such as metal components.
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of both Montoy and Tixier to have measuring system for the tire as Macecek teaches that it is known to have the step motor to control the movements of the sensors. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding arguments in claim 1 that the refence Tixier fails to disclose at least (ii) a step motor, and thus, no first sensor to connect to a step motor and no step motor to mount to an upper rail, (iii) an upper rail located above the upper surface of the bridge table for translating the first sensor across a width of the upper surface of the bridge table, (iv) a first sensor being rigidly connected to a second sensor as there is no second sensor and no translating support frame, or (v) a translating support frame and the second sensor translating with the first sensor as there is no translating support frame or second sensor. To be sure, the system of Tixier does not permit translation of the upper and lower scanner heads. Tixer only explains translation of the C-frame. These are not found persuasive.
As mentioned above, the reference Macecek is relied on to teach the concept of the step motor.
Tixier discloses that, Fig. 3 illustrates a scanning sensor system 60 wherein upper and lower scanner heads 64 and 66 are mounted on the elongated upper 63 and lower 65 arms or members, respectively, of a C-frame 62. The rigid members are parallel to each other. The frame 62 is equipped with a translation mechanism 69 which is configured as a linear slide to which the C-frame is movably secured. The upper head 64 incorporates the first optical displacement sensor 10 and coil 18 and lower head 66 incorporates the second optical displacement sensor 14 and dual magnetic sensors 20, 22 as shown in Fig. 1. The measurement channel between the heads accommodates the sheet of material being. The heads move back and forth along the cross direction (C) as the sheet is monitored ([0047]).
Here, the first optical displacement sensor 10 and the second optical displacement sensor 14 can be explained that these sensors are movable related to their arms 63 and 65, respectively.
This is further explained/demonstrated in Fig. 4 (another embodiment). It is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 4, the upper head 80 and lower head 82 are supported by two transverse beams 72 and 74, respectively ([0050], lines 6-8). Upper head 80 incorporates the first optical displacement sensor 10 and coil 18 and lower head 82 incorporates the second optical displacement sensor 14 and dual magnetic sensors 20, 22 as shown in Fig. 1. The cross directional movement of the dual scanner heads is synchronized with respect to speed and direction so that they are aligned with each other ([0050], lines 1-1-7 from bottom).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shibin Liang whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on (571)270 7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights