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
Applicant's arguments filed 20 April 2026, have been fully considered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 7-9 and 13-16 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 18, and 20 have been amended.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amended limitations, and notes that the examiner stated in a previous Office action that "Asano does not disclose using a pressure comparison as a gatekeeper prior to initiating mechanical rotation for diagnostic sensing," and agreed that Darolfi does not disclose conditioning an operation on comparing sensed air pressure to a threshold.
Applicant argues that the examiner's reasoning in the previous Office action is directed to bringing the analyzed tire's pressure to a standard pressure before further analysis, which is not what the amended claims recite. Rather, the amended claims recite using the robotic device to determine that the air pressure exceeds the threshold level, and subsequently rotating the tire.
The examiner notes that the amendments have been newly introduced, therefore there is no expectation for the previous Office action to have addressed them.
Applicant argues that the examiner's combination in view of Jones, Asano, and Darolfi requires multiple inferential leaps: that tread depth profiles are pressure-dependent; that one would wish to standardize pressure before analysis; that standardizing the tire under analysis would require a conditional checking step; and that a tire-changing robot would be repurposed to perform this diagnostic sequence. Applicant asserts that the chain of reasoning appears to use the claims as a blueprint.
These arguments apply to the newly amended claims, not the claims addressed in the previous Office action. However, the asserted inferential leaps are well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art. For example, in addition to Asano’s teaching, it is well-known that overinflated tires wear in the center and underinflated tires wear on the shoulder (as may be found in car owner’s manuals or USDOT safety information, for example), which implies that tire shape as a whole is a function of pressure. Therefore, one scanning a tire’s surface and comparing the scan data to a model would be interested in ensuring that the tire scanned is at the pressure or range of pressures so that its shape is comparable with the model. Carrying this out would require inflating the tire and comparing it with a threshold as a stopping condition. Finally, while not recited in the previous set of claims, it would have been obvious to use the tire-changing robot to do this because it has a tire inflator which can inflate a tire to a chosen pressure (see ¶153 of Darolfi).
Nevertheless, new grounds of rejection have been given. See 103 rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 10, 12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neau (US 20160121671 A1) in view of Darolfi (US 20210114408 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Neau discloses a method for automatic condition analysis of a vehicle tire (Abstract: "systems and methods for analyzing tread surface data to assess tire tread parameters, such as irregular wear characteristics of a tire tread, are provided"; ¶35: a computing device 110 can "implement [a] laser mapping process" to analyze the tire's tread surface), the method comprising:
rotating, by a device (Fig. 2, exemplary system 100) using a mechanical manipulator, the vehicle tire in a first direction (Fig. 2 and ¶33: tire 50 is rotated using a rotator device 140);
obtaining, by the device and from a second sensor (Fig. 2, laser probe 130), sensor data representing an outer surface of the vehicle tire during rotation of the vehicle tire (¶33: the laser probe 130 "can collect data associated with tread height…using a laser mapping process by impinging the surface of the tread 52 with a laser beam as the tire 50 is rotated");
performing a second comparison between sensor data ("tread surface data"; see below) representing the outer surface of the vehicle tire and a model ("convex hull"; see below) for the vehicle tire (Abstract: the tread surface data is compared to a convex hull which is used as a reference for analyzing the tread surface data. This enables irregular wear zones in the tire tread to be determined.); and
based on the second comparison, generating, by the device, a diagnostic output that represents a condition of the vehicle tire (¶7: "The method further includes determining, with the computing device, a relative tread depth map based at least in part on the tread surface map and the convex hull and analyzing the relative tread depth map to assess one or more parameters of the tread of the tire." See Figs. 7-8 depicting relative tread depth maps).
Neau does not explicitly disclose:
that its device (exemplary system 100) is a robotic device;
obtaining, by the device and from a first sensor, air pressure data corresponding to the vehicle tire;
based on the air pressure data, performing a first comparison between an air pressure level of the vehicle tire and a threshold air pressure level;
determining, by the device and based on the first comparison, that the air pressure level of the vehicle tire exceeds the threshold air pressure level; and
performing the rotating step in response to determining that the air pressure level of the vehicle tire exceeds the threshold air pressure level.
Darolfi teaches a system and apparatus which can be used to automatically remove and replace vehicle tires (Abstract). The apparatus is robotic (Abstract; see also at least Fig. 1). The apparatus can have a tire deflation/inflation apparatus which can monitor air pressure from a tire's valve stem (¶153). Darolfi also teaches setting tires to a desired pressure value (¶153: a tire can be deflated to a pressure range prior to being removed; ¶154: the deflation/inflation apparatus can discharge gas into a valve step and cease when pressure has reached a desired psi value, which may be based on a vehicle type and/or tire type).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Darolfi with the invention of Neau by causing Neau's device to include Darolfi's robotic device in order to provide more functionality to the automatic condition analysis system.
Furthermore, vehicle tires are often associated with a standard operating pressure. The above limitations not explicitly disclosed by Neau are met by using the robotic apparatus of Darolfi to inflate the vehicle tire until it reaches its standard operating pressure (defining the "threshold air pressure level" to be a value just below standard operating pressure) before performing the tread analysis. Doing so would have been obvious in order to analyze the tire at the pressure at which its use is recommended.
For the above reasons, then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Neau in view of Darolfi to:
obtain, by the robotic device and from a first sensor, air pressure data corresponding to the vehicle tire;
based on the air pressure data, performing a first comparison between an air pressure level of the vehicle tire and a threshold air pressure level;
determining, by the robotic device and based on the first comparison, that the air pressure level of the vehicle tire exceeds the threshold air pressure level; and
perform the rotating step in response to determining that the air pressure level of the vehicle tire exceeds the threshold air pressure level.
Regarding claim 2, Neau in view of Darolfi teaches the limitations of claim 1. Darolfi further teaches that the robotic apparatus may have sensors for detecting a position of a vehicle tire (¶123: "The robotic apparatus for example may have lasers or other types of sensors that the robotic apparatus 150 may use to determine distances, and/or proximity, of the robotic apparatus to a vehicle's wheel. The robotic apparatus 150 may determine a plane and/or orientation of the vehicle's wheel in a three-dimensional space."). Darolfi also teaches that the robotic apparatus may have a digital camera (¶197: “The robotic apparatus may include different types of sensors for the inspection of a vehicle's wheel, these may include proximity sensors, video or still image cameras”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Darolfi with the invention of Neau in view of Darolfi by detecting a position of the vehicle tire using a camera; and coupling the mechanical manipulator to the vehicle tire based on the position of the vehicle tire; and wherein rotating the vehicle tire in the first direction comprises: rotating the vehicle tire in the first direction responsive to coupling the mechanical manipulator to the vehicle tire. Doing so would enable one to use visual sensors to aid the robotic device to successfully attach and move the tire.
Regarding claim 3, Neau in view of Darolfi teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Darolfi teaches that a tire's brand and model may be determined from a database (¶76), and Darolfi teaches obtaining the desired air pressure to inflate the tire from a database, where the pressure may be associated with a vehicle type and/or tire type (¶154).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Darolfi with the invention of Neau in view of Darolfi by determining a tire type corresponding to the vehicle tire, wherein the tire type comprises one or more of a brand for the vehicle tire, an estimated distance that the vehicle tire has traveled on a vehicle, and the air pressure level of the vehicle tire; and obtaining the threshold air pressure level for the vehicle tire from one or more computing devices based on the tire type corresponding to the vehicle tire.
Doing so would enable one to inflate the tire under analysis to its standard operating pressure.
Regarding claim 4, Neau in view of Darolfi teaches the limitations of claim 1. Darolfi further discloses that the robotic apparatus may include a tire gripper (¶209: “The robotic apparatus 150 may include one or more tire grippers”). The tire gripper may have fingers that grip a tire and which fingers can be equipped with rollers to rotate the tire (¶213: “the tire gripper 2100 includes either 2, 3 or 4 fingers 2112, 2122 that are equipped with adjustable grippers 2110, 2120 that grip width of the tire. These fingers can be equipped with rollers to rotate the tire for placement adjustment.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Darolfi with the invention of Neau in view of Darolfi by causing rotating the vehicle tire in the first direction to comprise rotating the vehicle tire by a rolling manipulator. Doing so would enable one to use the functions of Darolfi’s robotic apparatus to perform rotation.
Regarding claim 5, Neau in view of Darolfi teaches the limitations of claim 1. Darolfi further teaches that a sensor coupled to its robotic apparatus receives sensor data representing a distance and an orientation of a vehicle tire relative to the robotic device (¶123: "The robotic apparatus for example may have lasers or other types of sensors that the robotic apparatus 150 may use to determine distances, and/or proximity, of the robotic apparatus to a vehicle's wheel. The robotic apparatus 150 may determine a plane and/or orientation of the vehicle's wheel in a three-dimensional space."). Darolfi teaches that the robotic apparatus uses computer vision to guide its movement to grip onto the tire (¶144: "The robotic apparatus 150 may use sensors, such as a computer vision system, to detect the perimeter of the tire, and guide the gripping arms onto the tire."). While Darolfi does not explicitly recite that the computer vision system is a trained neural network, Darolfi teaches usage of a trained neural network to identify lug nut patterns from images by a digital camera coupled to the robotic apparatus (¶224: an image may be obtained from “a digital camera coupled to the robotic apparatus 150…The system 100 may process the obtained image via the trained neural network as a data input, and an image classifier may then determine the particular lug nut pattern type.”). It would have been obvious train a neural network as part of the computer vision system as well, to take advantage of the benefits of neural networks such as the ability to learn from growing amounts of training data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Darolfi with the invention of Neau in view of Darolfi by receiving, by the robotic device and from a sensor coupled to the robotic device, sensor data representing a distance and an orientation of the vehicle tire relative to the robotic device; providing the sensor data representing the distance and the orientation of the vehicle tire as an input to a neural network, wherein the neural network is trained to provide movement instructions for the mechanical manipulator based on the distance and the orientation of the vehicle tire; and coupling the mechanical manipulator to the vehicle tire based on control instructions output by the neural network. Doing so would enable one to take advantage of the robotic device’s sensor data as well as a robust method of computer learning in order to successfully connect to and move the vehicle tire.
Regarding claim 6, Neau in view of Darolfi teaches the limitations of claim 5, and Darolfi further teaches that the tire is coupled to a vehicle (see at least Fig. 1) and that vehicles are associated with a vehicle make identifier and a vehicle model identifier (see at least Fig. 6). Furthermore, Darolfi teaches inclusion of a table with information for automating vehicle wheel removal/replacement, where the table may include a make and model of a given vehicle (¶84; see also Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Darolfi with the invention of Neau in view of Darolfi by causing providing the sensor data representing the distance and the orientation of the vehicle tire as the input to the neural network further to further comprise: providing an indication of the vehicle make identifier and the vehicle model identifier as a second input to the neural network, and by training the neural network to provide movement instructions for the mechanical manipulator based on the vehicle make identifier and the vehicle model identifier. Doing so would enable the model to tailor its movement instructions to the specifications of a given vehicle.
Regarding claim 10, Neau in view of Darolfi teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches that obtaining sensor data representing the outer surface of the vehicle tire during rotation of the vehicle tire comprises:
receiving depth measurements of the outer surface of the vehicle tire from a photo-electronic sensor (¶33: the laser probe 130 "can collect data associated with tread height…using a laser mapping process by impinging the surface of the tread 52 with a laser beam as the tire 50 is rotated"); and
determining, based on the depth measurements, a tread mapping of the outer surface of the vehicle tire (¶33: the laser acquires tread heights along the circumference and at various lateral positions of the tire to map tread heights of the entire tire); and
wherein performing the second comparison comprises:
performing the second comparison between the tread mapping of the outer surface of the vehicle tire and a model tread mapping (the "convex hull"), wherein the model tread mapping depends on the air pressure level of the vehicle tire (the convex hull was generated from the data of the very tire being analyzed and therefore depends on that tire's air pressure level); and
determining, based on the second comparison, one or more differences between the tread mapping of the outer surface of the vehicle tire and the model tread mapping (¶29: "areas of irregular wear can be distinguished from the grooves, for instance, by identifying points in the relative tread depth map corresponding to depths of less than a threshold depth (e.g. 2 mm) below the reference." The relative tread depth map is determined by comparing the convex hull with the tread surface data; see rejection of claim 1 and ¶7 of Neau).
Regarding claim 12, Neau in view of Darolfi teaches the limitations of claim 10, and further teaches identifying an irregularity in tread depth of the vehicle tire based on the second comparison (Neau, ¶26: "the present disclosure is directed to systems and methods for analyzing tread surface data to assess tire tread parameters, such as irregular wear characteristics of a tire tread."; see rejection of claim 10); and estimating a position of the irregularity in tread depth of the vehicle tire (See rejection of claim 1 and at least Figs. 7-8 and ¶7 of Neau), wherein generating the diagnostic output comprises:
generating a visual representation of the vehicle tire (see at least Fig. 8 of Neau) based on the estimated position of the irregularity in tread depth of the vehicle tire (Fig. 8 depicts irregularities and is therefore based on their estimated positions).
Neau in view of Darolfi does not explicitly disclose estimating a position of the irregularity in tread depth relative to a fill valve on the vehicle tire, and generating a visual representation of the vehicle tire comprising a reference point.
Darolfi teaches that tires have fill valves (see at least ¶153 discussing valve stems).
Tires have approximate axial symmetry, however the fill valve breaks that symmetry and is therefore a natural reference point for giving the location of features on the tire.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Neau in view of Darolfi to estimate a position of the irregularity in tread depth relative to a fill valve on the vehicle tire, and to generate a visual representation of the vehicle tire comprising a reference point (i.e. the fill valve).
Regarding claim 18, the limitations of claim 18 are found in claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, Neau in view of Darolfi teaches the limitations of claim 18. Darolfi further teaches that it may obtain the desired air pressure to inflate the tire from a database, where the pressure may be associated with a vehicle type and/or tire type (¶154).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Darolfi with the invention of Neau in view of Darolfi by configuring the robotic device to transmit a type of the vehicle tire to a remote computing system; and
receive the threshold air pressure level and the model for the vehicle tire from the remote computing system.
Doing so would enable one to inflate the tire under analysis to its standard operating pressure.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium configured to store instructions for automatic condition analysis of a vehicle tire, that when executed by a robotic device comprising one or more processors, causes the robotic device to perform the method of claim 1. Claim 20 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neau (US 20160121671 A1) in view of Darolfi (US 20210114408 A1), and further in view of Walter (“Tire standards and specifications”).
Regarding claim 11, Neau in view of Darolfi teaches the limitations of claim 10, and further teaches estimating, based on the one or more differences, an amount of wear corresponding to the vehicle tire (see ¶29 of Neau and rejection of claim 10 above).
Neau in view of Darolfi does not explicitly teach the remaining limitations of claim 11.
Walter teaches that various states in the US have minimum legal tread limits (p. 657, Table 17.2 “Legal minimum tread depths (light duty vehicles)”; below the table Walter states that “most state laws require a minimum tread depth of 2/32 in.”).
The remaining limitations are encompassed by estimating the amount of wear left before the vehicle tire’s tread reaches its legal limit, and outputting the result. This information would be useful for the vehicle’s owner, so they can consider the risk of driving on the vehicle tire and avoid breaking the law.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Walter with the invention of Neau in view of Darolfi to estimate, based on the amount of wear, an amount of use left before the vehicle tire reaches a threshold tread limit; and to cause generating the diagnostic output to comprise: generating the diagnostic output to represent the amount of use left before the vehicle tire reaches the threshold tread limit.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neau (US 20160121671 A1) in view of Darolfi (US 20210114408 A1), and further in view of Borner (US 4741211 A).
Regarding claim 17, Neau in view of Darolfi teaches the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 17.
Borner discloses a machine and method for balancing vehicle wheels (Abstract). Borner teaches that the imbalance forces on a wheel increase as the square of rotational velocity, and that therefore it is easier to measure imbalance forces at higher rotational speed (Column 1, lines 59-68). Borner's invention performs wheel balancing without requiring a predetermined rotational velocity, carrying out measurements in a uniform time period (Column 2, lines 59-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Borner with the invention of Neau in view of Darolfi by adjusting a rotation speed of the vehicle tire using the mechanical manipulator during rotation of the vehicle tire and, based on adjusting the rotation speed of the vehicle tire, determining that the vehicle tire is out of balance. Doing so would enable one to dynamically test for imbalanced tires using an appropriate rotational velocity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)272-0266. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am-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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/E.W.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights