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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, 10-13, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto (JP 2022037754) in view of Kunitake et al. (US 7,249,496, hereafter Kunitake).
With respect to claim 1, Sakamoto teaches a tire inspection apparatus (depth gauge 50) comprising: a data acquisition unit (control unit 56) that acquires, from a groove depth measurement instrument (groove measuring unit 51) at least two groove depth data of a given groove in a tire mounted on a vehicle; a groove depth determination unit (control unit 28) that determines whether a difference in the groove depth data of the given groove acquired by the data acquisition unit is equal to or larger than a predetermined value; and an alert processing unit (tire wear prediction unit 36) that generates, a notification. (translation, pgs. 1, 4-6, 9)
Sakamoto does not explicitly teach wherein the notification is generated when the groove depth determination unit determines that the difference is equal to or larger than the predetermined value, or that it is for re-measurement of a groove depth.
Kunitake teaches a tire inspection apparatus (UF machine 2M) which inspects tire data, determines a difference in the tire data and generates a notification for re-measurement if the difference is equal to or larger than a predetermined value. (col. 2, lines 39-45)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Sakamoto to generate a notification for re-measurement, as taught by Kunitake, so that the monitoring of the tread depth can be performed more effectively.
With respect to claims 2-3, Sakamoto, as modified by Kunitake, teaches a display unit (14) that displays information related to the tire, wherein the notification generated by the alert processing unit includes displaying an image on the display unit and a speaker that outputs alert to worker, wherein the notification generated by the alert processing unit includes outputting a sound by the speaker. (Sakamoto, translation, pg. 3, alert and error voice)
With respect to claim 4, although Sakamoto, as modified by Kunitake, does not explicitly discuss the vehicle is a vehicle operated under management of a transport company, this would have been an obvious application for Sakamoto’s teaching of monitoring of a plurality of vehicles.
With respect to claim 7, Sakamoto, as modified by Kunitake, teaches a vehicle information acquisition unit (position information detection unit 25) that acquires axle arrangement information on the vehicle from an external apparatus, wherein the axle arrangement information includes information related to a position of an axle and the tire of the vehicle. (Sakamoto, translation, pgs. 3-4)
With respect to claim 8, Sakamoto, as modified by Kunitake, teaches wherein when acquisition of data for groove depth of a given tire of the vehicle is completed, a next tire is selected for inspection and data for groove depth of the tire is acquired based on the axle arrangement information. (Sakamoto, translation, pgs. 3-6)
With respect to claim 10, Sakamoto teaches a tire inspection system comprising: a tire management server (management server 30) apparatus comprising: a storage unit (storage unit 22) that stores axle arrangement information including information related to a position of an axle and a tire of the vehicle; and an information processing unit (control unit 28) that reads the axle arrangement information from the storage unit and transmits the axle arrangement information; and a tire inspection apparatus (depth gauge 50) comprising: a data acquisition unit (control unit 56) that acquires, from a groove depth measurement instrument (groove measuring unit 51) at least two groove depth data of a given groove in a tire mounted on a vehicle; a groove depth determination unit (control unit 28) that determines whether a difference in the groove depth data of the given groove acquired by the data acquisition unit is equal to or larger than a predetermined value; and an alert processing unit (tire wear prediction unit 36) that generates, a notification. (translation, pgs. 1, 3-6, 9)
Sakamoto does not explicitly teach wherein the notification is generated when the groove depth determination unit determines that the difference is equal to or larger than the predetermined value, or that it is for re-measurement of a groove depth.
Kunitake teaches a tire inspection apparatus (UF machine 2M) which inspects tire data, determines a difference in the tire data and generates a notification for re-measurement if the difference is equal to or larger than a predetermined value. (col. 2, lines 39-45)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Sakamoto to generate a notification for re-measurement, as taught by Kunitake, so that the monitoring of the tread depth can be performed more effectively.
With respect to claims 11-12, Sakamoto, as modified by Kunitake, teaches a display unit (14) that -displays information related to the tire, wherein the notification generated by the alert processing unit includes displaying an image on the display unit and a speaker that outputs alert to worker, wherein the notification generated by the alert processing unit includes outputting a sound by the speaker. (Sakamoto, translation, pg. 3, alert and error voice)
With respect to claim 13, although Sakamoto, as modified by Kunitake, does not explicitly discuss the vehicle is a vehicle operated under management of a transport company, this would have been an obvious application for Sakamoto’s teaching of monitoring of a plurality of vehicles.
With respect to claim 16, Sakamoto, as modified by Kunitake, teaches wherein when acquisition of data for groove depth of a given tire of the vehicle is completed, a next tire is selected for inspection and data for groove depth of the tire is acquired based on the axle arrangement information. (Sakamoto, translation, pgs. 3-6)
With respect to claim 18, Sakamoto teaches a computer program embodied on a non-volatile recording medium for tire inspection, the program comprising computer-implemented modules including: a data acquisition module (control unit 56) that acquires at least two groove depth data of a given groove of a tire mounted on a vehicle; a groove depth determination module (control unit 28) that determines a difference in the groove depth data of the given groove acquired by the data acquisition module; and an alert processing module (tire wear prediction unit 36) that generates a notification. (translation, pgs. 1, 4-6, 9)
Sakamoto does not explicitly teach wherein the notification is generated when the groove depth determination unit determines that the difference is equal to or larger than the predetermined value, or that it is for re-measurement of a groove depth.
Kunitake teaches a tire inspection apparatus (UF machine 2M) which inspects tire data, determines a difference in the tire data and generates a notification for re-measurement if the difference is equal to or larger than a predetermined value. (col. 2, lines 39-45)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Sakamoto to generate a notification for re-measurement, as taught by Kunitake, so that the monitoring of the tread depth can be performed more effectively.
Claim(s) 5-6, 9, 14-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto in view of Kunitake as applied above, and further in view of Canovas et al. (US 5,365,668, hereafter Canovas).
With respect to claims 5 and 14, Sakamoto, as modified by Kunitake, teaches all that is claimed, as in the above rejection, except for explicitly teaching wherein a groove of the tire extends in a circumferential direction of the tire, and the groove depth data is derived from measuring the given groove at different positions in the circumferential direction of the tire.
Canovas teaches a tire inspection apparatus for a tire, wherein a groove (lateral groove 18) of the tire (tire 19) extends in a circumferential direction of the tire, and the groove depth data is derived from measuring the given groove at different positions in the circumferential direction of the tire. (col. 4, lines 1-23)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify the apparatus of Sakamoto to include measuring a given groove at different positions in the circumferential direction of the tire, as taught by Canovas, in order to be able to evaluate a difference in wear around the tire.
With respect to claims 6 and 15, Sakamoto, as modified by Kunitake, teaches all that is claimed, as in the above rejection, except for explicitly teaching wherein the groove depth determination unit makes a determination on measurement data for each groove after the data acquisition unit acquires a groove depth for all grooves of the tire, and the alert processing unit alerts of a groove for which re-measurement is necessary, based on a determination result of the groove depth determination unit.
Canovas teaches a tire inspection apparatus for a tire, wherein a groove depth determination unit makes a determination on measurement data after the data acquisition unit acquires a groove depth for all grooves of the tire. (col. 1, lines 38-44)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify the apparatus of Sakamoto to include evaluating all of the grooves on the tire, as taught by Canovas, and making a determination based on all of the data in order to be able to evaluate a difference in wear in each groove and react to an alert more efficiently.
With respect to claims 9 and 17, Sakamoto, as modified by Kunitake, teaches all that is claimed, as in the above rejection, except for explicitly teaching wherein the data acquisition unit acquires, in re-measurement of groove depth, the groove depth data at different positions in the given groove in a circumferential direction of the tire.
Canovas teaches a tire inspection apparatus for a tire, wherein the groove depth data is derived from measuring the given groove at different positions in the circumferential direction of the tire. (col. 4, lines 1-23)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify the apparatus of Sakamoto to include measuring a given groove at different positions in the circumferential direction of the tire, as taught by Canovas, including during a re-measurement, in order to be able to evaluate a difference in wear around the tire.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kunitake does not show that a notification for remeasurement is generated and that the claim requires “generation of an output that prompts re-measurement in an actionable manner”. However, it is noted that these limitations are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, the claim merely recites a notification for re-measurement of a groove depth, and as the reference teaches re-measuring the depth, the system must contain some notification in order for this to happen.
In response to applicant's argument that Kunitake does not show the purpose of claim 1, that is to conduct an inspection of a groove depth of a tire efficiently and ensuring data quality in groove depth measurement, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, Kunitake teaches inspecting a groove depth of a tire and therefore its structure is capable of meeting the requirements of the claim.
Conclusion
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 Jill E Culler whose telephone number is (571)272-2159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JILL E CULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights