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 .
Response to Arguments
102 Rejection
Applicant argues Yan merely discusses “initiating a scan when the depth measurements fall within a predefined range.” Yan, para. 0036. However, Yan nowhere teaches detection of boundary traversal based on determining a match to a predetermined pattern, as presently claimed.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the word “boundary”; defined as: a real or imaginary line, limit, or edge that separates two areas, entities, or concepts, defining where one thing ends and another begins; Yan teaches collecting a set of successive representations, i.e. depth representations, and comparing them against a predetermined pattern to indicate whether the device 100 has traversed a boundary indicating when scans can or cannot occur. When the device 100 has traversed the limit defining the boundary, reflected by falling within the predefined range, an affirmative response triggers scanning, see [0036-0037], thereby indicating a boundary has been traversed. Therefore, insofar as how applicant has structurally defined a “boundary”, Yan teaches the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-13 and 15-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yuan et al. (2020/0096325).
With respect to claim 1, Yuan et al. teaches a method, comprising: monitoring sensor data (i.e. data collected from sensor 100) including one or more representations of a treaded surface (Abstract) captured by a device (100); detecting, based on the sensor data (specifically data based on reflection data and from a motion sensor of the device 100), that the device has traversed a boundary of the treaded surface (as the reflection data 128-1 128-2 indicates a start and the motion sensor data indicates the end of a scan when the device deviates from a travel direction S behold a threshold; [0037]); in response to detecting that the device (100) has traversed the boundary (i.e. an affirmative response at 310 indicating the device 100 has crossed a boundary and is ready to activate emitters) by comparing a set of successive representations (as [0036] teaches collecting depth measurements for continuous data points defining a 3D representation of the tire) to a predetermined pattern (i.e. a predefined range; [0036]) and determining that the set of representations matches (i.e. as when a match occurs between the set of successive representations falling within the predefined range, i.e. a boundary has been traversed and scanning is to be initiated; [0036]) the predetermined pattern (for correct positioning for that scan), determining a scan trigger point (i.e. the beginning of the scan) within the one or more representations (via the reflections 128-1 and 128-2); and generating a profile (at s 315) of the treaded surface from the one or more representations based on the scan trigger point [0038].
With respect to claim 2, Yuan et al. teaches the method wherein detecting that the device (100) has traversed the boundary includes comparing a depth derived from a representation to a threshold depth (as Yuan et al. teaches at s310 includes collecting depth measurements and initiating a scan when the depth measurements fall within a predefined range, i.e. threshold, indicating that the device 100 has been placed against an object such as the tire 104, and a boundary has been traversed to indicate the generation of the tread profile).
With respect to claim 4, Yuan et al. teaches the method wherein the sensor data (i.e. rejections) further includes motion data (as sensed via 226), and wherein detecting that the device (100) has traversed the boundary (based on the data from device 100) includes determining, based on the motion data (sensed via 226), that an orientation of the device (100) matches a predetermined scan orientation (as Yuan teaches in [0037], the device 100 can terminate the scan if, for example, the motion sensor 226 indicates movement of the device that deviates from the travel direction S beyond a threshold. For example, if the angular orientation of the device 100 changes (indicating that the device is pitching, yawing and/or rolling during traversal of the tire 104) by more than a predetermined threshold).
With respect to claim 5, Yuan et al. teaches the method wherein the boundary of the treaded surface is (capable of being) a leading boundary (i.e. a beginning boundary so that the tread profile can be determined), and wherein the determined scan trigger point corresponds to a start of the profile (i.e. as the start of the scan occurs at a boundary of the tire indicating a scan is to begin according to a determined depth as a trigger point for the tread pattern detection process).
With respect to claim 6, Yuan et al. teaches the method wherein the boundary of the treaded surface is (capable of being) a trailing boundary (i.e. a boundary signified by the motion data), and wherein the determined scan trigger point corresponds to an end of the profile (as indicated by the motion data; [0037]).
With respect to claim 7, Yuan et al. teaches the method further comprising: prior to the detecting, receiving a scan command [0036] at an input of the device (216), wherein the capture command corresponds to a beginning of the profile [0036].
With respect to claim 8, Yuan et al. teaches the method further comprising: in response to generating the profile, terminating monitoring of the sensor data (as would be indicated by the motion data S being larger than the threshold, indicated the termination of monitoring the senor data; [0037]).
With respect to claim 9, Yuan et al. teaches the method further comprising: in response to generating the profile, monitoring the sensor data to detect, based on the sensor data, that the device has traversed a further boundary of a further treaded surface (as the method of Yuan et al. monitors the motion data of the device 100 to determine the device 100 traversing all boundaries of a treaded surface; thereby reading on the claimed invention; insofar as how “based on” is structurally defined).
With respect to claim 10, Yuan et al. teaches the method wherein the sensor data is captured by a sensor (120), and wherein the one or more representations (Fig. 5A) depict reflections (128-1 and 128-2) of a beam (124-2) of light emitted by a device (116) configured to traverse a treaded surface (as seen in Fig. 1C).
With respect to claim 11, Yuan et al. teaches the method wherein the one or more representations (Fig. 5A) of the treaded surface (seen in Fig. 2B) includes one or more images of the treaded surface [0039].
With respect to claim 12, Yuan et al. teaches a computing device (100; [0064]), comprising: an emitter; a sensor (120/226); and a processor [0064] configured to: monitor sensor data (data collected from sensors 120/226 of device 100) including one or more representations of a treaded surface captured by the sensor (through repeated performance of s315; [0038]); detect, based on the sensor data (as collected from sensors 120/226 of the device), that the device (100) has traversed a boundary of the treaded surface by comparing a set of successive representations (as [0036] teaches collecting depth measurements for continuous data points defining a 3D representation of the tire) to a predetermined pattern (i.e. a predefined range; [0036]) and determining that the set of representations matches (i.e. as when a match occurs between the set of successive representations falling within the predefined range, i.e. a boundary has been traversed and scanning is to be initiated; [0036]) the predetermined pattern (for correct positioning for that scan); in response to detecting that the device (100) has traversed the boundary, determine a scan trigger point (a beginning of a scan based on depth) within the one or more representations (via the reflections 128-1 and 128-2 and image data 500); and generate a profile (at s 315) of the treaded surface from the one or more representations based on the scan trigger point [0038].
With respect to claim 13, Yuan et al. teaches the computing device (100; [0064]) wherein the processor [0064] is configure to detect that the device (100) has traversed the boundary includes comparing a depth derived from a representation to a threshold depth (as Yuan et al. teaches at s310 includes collecting depth measurements and initiating a scan when the depth measurements fall within a predefined range, i.e. threshold, indicating that the device 100 has been placed against an object such as the tire 104, and a boundary has been traversed to indicate the generation of the tread profile).
With respect to claim 15, Yuan et al. teaches the computing device (100; [0064]) wherein the sensor data (i.e. rejections) further includes motion data (as sensed via 226), and wherein the processor [0064] is configured to detect that the device (100) has traversed the boundary (based on the data from device 100) includes determining, based on the motion data (sensed via 226), that an orientation of the device (100) matches a predetermined scan orientation (as Yuan teaches in [0037], the device 100 can terminate the scan if, for example, the motion sensor 226 indicates movement of the device that deviates from the travel direction S beyond a threshold. For example, if the angular orientation of the device 100 changes (indicating that the device is pitching, yawing and/or rolling during traversal of the tire 104) by more than a predetermined threshold).
With respect to claim 16, Yuan et al. teaches the computing device [0064] wherein the boundary of the treaded surface is (capable of being) a leading boundary (i.e. a beginning boundary so that the tread profile can be determined), and wherein the determined scan trigger point corresponds to a start of the profile (i.e. as the start of the scan occurs at a boundary of the tire indicating a scan is to begin according to a determined depth as a trigger point for the tread pattern detection process).
With respect to claim 17, Yuan et al. teaches the computing device [0064] wherein the boundary of the treaded surface is (capable of being) a trailing boundary (i.e. a boundary signified by the motion data), and wherein the determined scan trigger point corresponds to an end of the profile (as indicated by the motion data; [0037]).
With respect to claim 18, Yuan et al. teaches the computing device [0064] wherein the processor [0064] is further configured to: prior to the detecting, receiving a scan command [0036] at an input of the device (216), wherein the capture command corresponds to a beginning of the profile [0036].
With respect to claim 19, Yuan et al. teaches the computing device [0064] wherein the processor [0064] is further configured to: in response to generating the profile, terminating monitoring of the sensor data (as would be indicated by the motion data S being larger than the threshold, indicated the termination of monitoring the senor data; [0037]).
With respect to claim 20, Yuan et al. teaches the computing device [0064] wherein the processor [0064] is further configured to: in response to generating the profile, monitoring the sensor data to detect, based on the sensor data, that the device has traversed a further boundary of a further treaded surface (as the method of Yuan et al. monitors the motion data of the device 100 to determine the device 100 traversing all boundaries of a treaded surface; thereby reading on the claimed invention; insofar as how “based on” is structurally defined).
With respect to claim 21, Yuan et al. teaches the computing device [0064] wherein the one or more representations (Fig. 5A) depict reflections (128-1 and 128-2) of a beam (124-2) of light emitted by a device (116) configured to traverse a treaded surface (as seen in Fig. 1C).
With respect to claim 22, Yuan et al. teaches the computing device [0064] wherein the one or more representations (Fig. 5A) of the treaded surface (seen in Fig. 2B) includes one or more images of the treaded surface [0039].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tenkasi Shankar et al. (2020/0302624) which teaches scanning a tire profile to determine tread measurements.
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 MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights