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 6 January 2026, have been fully considered. Claims 1-20 remain pending. Claims 7-9 and 13-16 are withdrawn. No amendments have been made.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered.
Applicant states that the independent claims recite a specific conditional sequence ensuring that a robotic device verifies a tire is suitable for analysis before initiating mechanical rotation. Ensuring suitability involves using a pressure comparison to a threshold pressure level as an automated gatekeeper to determine whether a tire is suitable for further analysis. Applicant argues that neither Jones nor Asano suggests using an automated system in which the act of robotic rotation is triggered specifically by a pressure level exceeding a threshold. Applicant argues that Asano discloses neither a robotic control method, using a pressure comparison as an automated gatekeeper, nor tire rotation.
The examiner agrees with some of Applicant’s statements, but not with Applicant’s conclusions. Neither Jones nor Asano explicitly disclose a robotic control method; however, the examiner relies upon Darolfi to teach this limitation. Furthermore, the examiner agrees that Asano does not disclose tire rotation; however, Jones does disclose this (see page 4 of the previous Office action). Finally, the examiner agrees that Asano does not disclose using a pressure comparison as a gatekeeper prior to initiating mechanical rotation for diagnostic sensing.
The examiner considers that using a pressure comparison as an automated gatekeeper to determine whether a tire is suitable for further analysis (i.e. tread analysis) would have been obvious in light of Jones and Asano. Jones teaches analyzing tread depth. While Jones does not explicitly recite comparing the analyzed tread depth to a standard, the examiner considers that it would have been obvious to do so to establish a basis for identifying irregularities (recognizing irregularities implies knowledge of what constitutes a regular or standard condition). Then, the examiner cites Asano which teaches that tire shape is a function of tire pressure. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that from this teaching it follows that a tire’s tread depth profile (including a standard profile for e.g. a new tire) would be a function of tire pressure as well, since a tread depth profile is a tire shape profile. Finally, one would understand that, in order to accurately compare an analyzed tread depth to a standard, one would need to match the analyzed tire’s pressure with the tire pressure corresponding to the standard profile. Thus, one would be motivated to bring the analyzed tire’s pressure to the standard tire pressure before further analysis.
Applicant argues that Darolfi does not disclose conditioning any operation on a comparison of sensed air pressure to a threshold. The examiner agrees and notes the above arguments in light of Jones and Asano, which render such a limitation obvious.
Applicant argues that Jones would not be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Darolfi because Jones performs its test in a non-contact manner at a clean location to avoid debris, does not require significant further hardware, and avoids roller means. Thus, according to Applicant, the clean and stable conditions required by Jones are incompatible with the vibrations and debris inherent in Darolfi.
The examiner disagrees with Applicant’s conclusions. Since Jones measures tread depth with a laser or other radiation source, it manifestly performs its test in a “non-contact manner”. A contact method for measuring tread depth refers to “use of tread depth gauges for insertion into the tread” and “assessment of tread wear by image analysis of a track after paint-treatment of the tread” (Column 1, lines 25-30), not to any absence of tire rotation (see also page 4 of the Office action citing to references in Jones which refer to rotating a tire). The examiner sees no issue with using a robotic means for rotating a tire while the laser of Jones analyzes tread depth. Furthermore, Jones does not state that no dirt, dust, or water can exist at the test location, but rather that the “laser or other radiation source…is located in front of or behind the tire, or indeed to one side of it, not directly beneath it, [so] there is no tendency at all for dirt and dust and water, or any of these, to fall onto or otherwise reach the apparatus during the test.” (Column 3, lines 60-64). The “clean” location Jones refers to is in front of or behind—not below—the tire (Column 3, lines 64-65). Therefore, the examiner does not consider that Applicant’s arguments convincingly demonstrate that the environments of Jones and Darolfi would be incompatible.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant argues that Jones seeks to perform assessments without need for roller means. It is true that Jones states that that a mounting system may enable determinations to be made without a roller bed (see Abstract of Jones). However, elsewhere Jones makes explicit use of roller means (see for example Jones, Figs. 3 and 4 and Column 6, lines 1-6; also Column 5, lines 44-46: “Where the apparatus is installed as garage or service station equipment it may well be convenient to provide a roller system for rotation of the vehicle tire”), thus Jones would not object to the roller means of Darolfi.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Applicant argues that no reference uses a neural network to control the diagnostic manipulation of a tire. The examiner agrees with this; however, Darolfi uses “computer vision” to guide its movement to grip a tire, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to train the computer vision model with an artificial neural network to cause the robotic system to guide its movement to grip and move a tire. Neural networks are used with a wide variety of systems because they can leverage large amounts of historical data to “train” their systems to perform complex tasks.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant argues that Jones does not teach a tread mapping process which dynamically adjusts its comparison model based on real-time pressure data. The examiner agrees, however the arguments used to reject claim 10 still stand. The examiner argued in view of Jones and Asano in claim 1 that it would have been obvious to have a standard tire tread model to compare to, and that such a model would be tire pressure-dependent. The model would depend on the air pressure level of the vehicle tire inasmuch as it is the model for the tire at the common pressure.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant argues that none of the cited references teach using a fill valve as a positional reference for localized diagnostic coordinate mapping.
The examiner agrees. However, the examiner considers that this limitation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. First, one would be motivated to display a model of a tire with the position of an irregularity in order to show a user where the automated system detected an irregularity. Second, one of ordinary skill would recognize the need to address a potential ambiguity when displaying a position on a model of a tire. In the absence of anisotropies, a tire would have circular symmetry such that any direction about a tire’s rotational axis would be indistinguishable from any other direction. Many vehicle tires have fill valves, and a fill valve is a clear feature which enables one to unambiguously define an angle about a tire’s rotational axis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try modeling a fill valve on the tire model and thus provide the position of the irregularity relative to a fill valve on the vehicle tire.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant argues that Walter is a general reference that does not disclose any automatic robotic diagnostic system that estimates remaining tire life, nor does it remedy the absence of the claimed pressure-based gatekeeping sequence.
As argued above, the examiner considers that Jones in view of Asano provide teachings which would render providing a pressure-based gatekeeping sequence to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, Walter was not relied upon to disclose an automatic robotic diagnostic system. Rather, Walter was relied upon because it motivates comparing tread wear to some threshold; some of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the teachings of Walter that once a tire’s tread wears down enough, a tire can no longer be legally driven on the road. Such a person would be motivated by Walter’s teachings to configure the system of Jones in view of Asano and Darolfi to compare the estimated remaining tread to a threshold to determine if the tire needs to be replaced.
Regarding claim 17, Applicant argues that Kirstatter does not disclose initiating robotic rotation based on satisfaction of an air-pressure threshold as required by claim 1. The examiner agrees that Kirstatter does not disclose this, however Kirstatter was not referenced to teach the limitations of claim 1. The arguments for rejecting the limitations of claim 1 in view of Jones and Asano and Darolfi are given above, as well as in the 103 rejections below.
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 Jones (US 6069966 A) in view of Asano (US 20140332131 A1) and Darolfi (US 20210114408 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jones discloses a method for condition analysis of a vehicle tire (Abstract: “Method and apparatus for automotive tire condition and other article assessment”), the method comprising:
rotating the vehicle tire in a first direction (see reference below);
obtaining, from a second sensor, sensor data representing an outer surface of the vehicle tire during rotation of the vehicle tire (Column 3, lines 20-28: "it is possible to obtain a tire tread or sidewall profile at a given peripheral location thereon and by means of a series of measurements to obtain an overall tire tread or sidewall profile determination…[The] determination can be made…as the wheel/tire assembly is rotated."); and
performing a second comparison between sensor data representing the outer surface of the vehicle tire and a model for the vehicle tire (Column 2, lines 56-63: "a laser energy source is utilized and tread depth is analyzed on the basis of the laser image displacement as between the tread surface and tread bottom images. The same analytical approach applies to assessment of tire sidewall condition, and other tire conditions, by determining the profile of the side wall and identifying irregularities therein, or indeed by comparing same with a standard sidewall profile.").
While Jones does not explicitly recite that tread depth is compared to a standard tread depth profile, it would have been obvious to do so in order to identify irregularities in tread depth as compared to a standard.
Furthermore, while Jones does not explicitly recite generating, based on the second comparison, a diagnostic output that represents a condition of the vehicle tire, it would have been obvious to do so in order to provide a result of the tread depth analysis indicating differences with a standard (Column 2, lines 56-63: "a laser energy source is utilized and tread depth is analyzed on the basis of the laser image displacement”).
Considering the above, Jones still does not explicitly recite: that the method for condition analysis of a vehicle tire is automatic; obtaining, by a 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; responsive to the air pressure level of the vehicle tire exceeding the threshold air pressure level, rotating, by the robotic device using a mechanical manipulator, the vehicle tire in a first direction; obtaining the sensor data representing an outer surface of the vehicle tire by the robotic device; and generating, by the robotic device, the diagnostic output.
Asano teaches that pneumatic tires change shape as tire pressure changes (¶7).
Considering this teaching, it would be reasonable to expect that a tread profile is dependent on tire pressure, and that the standard tread model would be defined for a given tire at its standard tire pressure. Therefore one implementing the invention of Jones would be interested in setting the vehicle tire is to its standard pressure in order to accurately compare its tread profile with the standard tread model and make conclusions about wear on the vehicle tire. In order to do this, one would sense the vehicle tire’s pressure and, if it is lower than the standard pressure, raise the tire’s pressure until it has reached or just passed the standard pressure. Then one would proceed with creating the tread profile.
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 Asano with the invention of Jones by obtaining, 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; and responsive to the air pressure level of the vehicle tire exceeding the threshold air pressure level, rotating the vehicle tire in a first direction. Doing so would enable one to generate the tread profile at a standard pressure to facilitate comparison with a standard tread model.
Jones in view of Asano does not explicitly teach: that the method for condition analysis of a vehicle tire is automatic; obtaining, by a robotic device, air pressure data; rotating, by the robotic device using a mechanical manipulator, the vehicle tire in a first direction; obtaining the sensor data representing an outer surface of the vehicle tire by the robotic device; and generating, by the robotic device, the diagnostic output.
Darolfi teaches a robotic system for changing a tire (Abstract). As part of this system, Darolfi discloses a robotic apparatus capable of detecting, operating on, and moving a wheel (Abstract). Darolfi teaches that the robotic apparatus may comprise a number of sensors (¶59: "The robotic apparatus 150 may include different types of sensors integrated into the robotic apparatus 150 to obtain sensor data describing the vehicle") including a system for inflating or deflating a tire (¶153: "The robotic apparatus 150 and/or the tire changing machine 160 may include a tire deflation/inflation apparatus or subsystem"). The robotic apparatus is also capable of rotating a wheel using a mechanical manipulator (¶166: " the robotic apparatus 150 may axially rotate, shift and/or position the wheel"; by virtue of the robotic apparatus being mechanical and manipulating a wheel, it uses a mechanical manipulator). Darolfi also teaches that the robotic apparatus may have computing components (¶196: “In some embodiments, the robotic apparatus has control circuitry, processors, and data storage”).
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 Jones in view of Asano by configuring the method for condition analysis of a vehicle tire to be automatic; obtaining, by a robotic device, air pressure data; rotating, by the robotic device using a mechanical manipulator, the vehicle tire in a first direction; and generating, by the robotic device, the diagnostic output. Doing so would enable one to perform the tire’s condition analysis efficiently and safely with a dedicated system, obviating human interaction with the tire. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to configure the robotic device with the sensors to analyze tread depth (¶123 of Darolfi teaches that the robotic apparatus may have lasers to sense a wheel) to consolidate the sensing functions into a dedicated system.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations of claim 18 are found in claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations of claim 20 are found in claim 1 except that claim 20 explicitly recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium which stores instructions for the automatic condition analysis of the vehicle tire, and which are executed by the robotic device. It would have been obvious to include instructions on a memory in order to automatically perform the method with the robotic system described in claim 1. Therefore claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Jones in view of Asano and 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 Jones in view of Asano and 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 4, Jones in view of Asano and 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 Jones in view of Asano and 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, Jones in view of Asano and 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 Jones in view of Asano and 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, Jones in view of Asano and Darolfi teaches the limitations of claim 5. Jones further discloses that the vehicle tire is coupled to a vehicle (Column 8, lines 18-19: "Usually, it will be preferred to retain the tire on the vehicle wheel, in situ on the vehicle."). Jones in view of Asano and Darolfi does not explicitly teach the remaining limitations of claim 6.
The examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art that there are different makes and models of vehicles.
Noting the above, then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Jones in view of Asano and Darolfi to associate the vehicle with a vehicle make identifier and a vehicle model identifier, and to cause providing the sensor data representing the distance and the orientation of the vehicle tire as the input to the neural network to further comprise providing an indication of the vehicle make identifier and the vehicle model identifier as a second input to the neural network, wherein the neural network is further trained to provide movement instructions for the mechanical manipulator based on the vehicle make identifier and the vehicle model identifier. Doing so would enable the system to take into account differences in design (tire type, distance from wheel to rims, etc.) of vehicles of various makes and models when connecting with, moving, and analyzing the vehicle tire.
Regarding claim 10, Jones in view of Asano and 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 (Jones, Column 2, lines 56-63: "a laser energy source is utilized and tread depth is analyzed on the basis of the laser image displacement; see rejection of claim 1); and determining, based on the depth measurements, a tread mapping of the outer surface of the vehicle tire (Jones, Column 3, lines 20-28: "it is possible to obtain a tire tread or sidewall profile at a given peripheral location thereon and by means of a series of measurements to obtain an overall tire tread or sidewall profile determination…[The] determination can be made…as the wheel/tire assembly is rotated"; see rejection of claim 1); 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, wherein the model tread mapping depends on the air pressure level of the vehicle tire (see arguments in view of Asano in the rejection of claim 1); 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 (see arguments for comparing to a standard tread profile and arguments in view of Asano in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, Jones in view of Asano and 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 (see rejection of claim 1). Jones in view of Asano and Darolfi does not explicitly recite the remaining limitations. However, the remaining limitations are encompassed by displaying a representation of a tire and a position of the irregularity relative to a valve stem. Displaying an image pointing out the location of the irregularity would be useful to show a user where possible tire damage may be located. Displaying the position relative to the tire’s valve stem would be useful because tires have cylindrical symmetry, therefore referring to the valve stem enables one to unambiguously show a point’s location.
For the above reasons, then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Jones in view of Asano and Darolfi to estimate a position of the irregularity in tread depth of the vehicle tire relative to a fill valve on the vehicle tire; and to cause generating the diagnostic output to comprise: generating a visual representation of the vehicle tire comprising a reference point based on the estimated position of the irregularity in tread depth of the vehicle tire.
Regarding claim 19, Jones in view of Asano and Darolfi teaches the limitations of claim 18 but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 19.
The examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art that tires do not all have the same recommended standard operating pressure. The examiner also takes official notice that it is well known in the art that tires are not all manufactured to have the same tread.
Noting the above, one would therefore expect that multiple standard tread models would need to be made in order to accurately assess different types of tires, and that each standard tread model would correspond to some individual standard tire pressure.
Furthermore, Darolfi teaches that the robotic apparatus may comprise a camera capable of visualizing the tire (¶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”).
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 teachings of Darolfi with the invention of Jones in view of Asano and Darolfi by using a camera to determine the vehicle tire’s type including its brand and model, then to transmit the 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 perform tread analysis on different types of tires that have different tread patterns and different standard operating pressures.
Regarding claim 3, Jones in view of Asano and Darolfi teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, the limitations of claim 3 are met by the process described in claim 19, and would have been obvious for the same reasons.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US 6069966 A) in view of Asano (US 20140332131 A1) and Darolfi (US 20210114408 A1), and further in view of Walter (“Tire standards and specifications”).
Regarding claim 11, Jones in view of Asano and Darolfi teaches the limitations of claim 10. Jones further discloses estimating, based on the one or more differences, an amount of wear corresponding to the vehicle tire (Abstract: "By positional analysis of the tread depth locations there is provided complementary information on the tread wear pattern"; Column 7, lines 29-34: “The above-described system is expected to be capable of resolving tire profile height and tread depth to 6 bits (i.e. 1/2.sub.6 =1.6%), such resolution being considered adequate to indicate the degree of wear on the tire in general and to provide more specific information as to tread depth.”).
Jones in view of Asano and Darolfi does not explicitly recite the remaining limitations.
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 Jones in view of Asano and 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 Jones (US 6069966 A) in view of Asano (US 20140332131 A1) and Darolfi (US 20210114408 A1), and further in view of Kirstatter (US 20120204632 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Jones in view of Asano and Darolfi teaches the limitations of claim 1. Jones further teaches that its invention may be used with wheel balance or brake testing equipment (Column 1, lines 9-15: "An example of the application of the invention is a method and apparatus which could be incorporated into automotive wheel balance or brake testing equipment so that a simultaneous or contemporaneous assessment of tire tread and sidewall and other tire condition factors may be made when other wheel tests are performed on a vehicle.").
Kirstatter discloses a brake test stand (Abstract). The brake test stand is capable of adjusting a tire’s rotation speed (¶43: "Brake test stand 10 comprises a control unit 100 for controlling brake test stand 10, which is coupled at least to the drives of rollers 20, 22, 24, 26 in order to start and stop said drives, to control drive speed "). The brake stand is also capable of determining whether a wheel is out of balance (¶51: "based on the analysis of all data, not only an adjustment of the vehicle brakes is possible, but also suggestions may be made regarding the wheel alignment, the balance conditions and other conditions of the wheels may be made, including an advice whether or not a balancer operation is necessary.").
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 teachings of Kirstatter with the invention of Jones in view of Asano and Darolfi by causing the robotic device to comprise the mechanical manipulator of Kirstatter (i.e. brake test stand) and to rotate the vehicle tire in the first direction with the mechanical manipulator of Kirstatter. Doing so would provide a simple and reliable method for rotating the vehicle tire. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to adjust a rotation speed of the vehicle tire using the mechanical manipulator of Kirstatter during rotation of the vehicle tire; and based on adjusting the rotation speed of the vehicle tire, determine that the vehicle tire is out of balance. This would enable one to perform a tire balance test in addition to a tread test.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Duan (US 20210069898 A1) teaches that computer vision is used to guide robotic systems (¶22) and that computer vision models may be based on neural networks (¶53).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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