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 Remond does not teach the uneven wear which is identified in a tread part of the tire (the uneven wear such as center wear, feather edge wear, heel and toe wear, should wear, shoulder wear, spot wear, etc., as argued on page 7; however, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed below in the rejection, Remond teaches measuring tire depth at a tread part of the tire. From the measured depth, insofar as what is structurally defined regarding the plurality of types of wear, a user can determine many types of tire wear based on the measured and depicted tread depth in Fig. 8. Therefore, insofar as what is structurally recited, Remond teaches the claimed invention.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a data acquisition unit, a user operation acknowledgment unit, a display processing unit and a vehicle information acquisition unit in claims 1-5;
a storage unit, an information processing unit, a vehicle acquisition unit, a user operation acknowledgment unit, a display processing unit in claims 10-14; and
a data acquisition module, a user operation acknowledgment module, and a display processing module in claim 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wofford-Remond et al. (EP 3640059A1).
With respect to claim 1, Wofford-Remond et al. teaches a tire inspection apparatus (8) comprising: a data acquisition unit (22) that acquires, from a groove depth measurement instrument, data for groove depth of a tire (12) mounted on a vehicle (10; as Wofford-Remond teaches in [0030] a device 22 measures tread depth); a user operation acknowledgment unit (26) that acknowledges a user operation input (via screen 156) indicating whether an uneven wear is identified in a tread part of the tire (12, as the measured tread depth of a tire occurs in a tread part and is a primary method to detect uneven tire wear) for which the data for groove depth (D) is acquired (as Wofford-Remond et al. teaches data device 26 being used to receive the measurement data from device 22; [0031] and provide a measurement screen 156 to an user allowing the user to identify groove depth data indicating uneven tire wear); and a display processing unit (i.e. a portion of data device 26) that provides, when the user operation acknowledgment unit (26) acknowledges that an uneven wear is identified (via the input from the user from screen 156), a schematic diagram (158; Fig. 8) corresponding to a plurality of types of uneven wear (as shown in Fig. 8, a plurality of tire depth measurements are superimposed on their respective tires; Fig. 8; therefore, it is the position of the Office that these tire depth measurements are capable of depicting a plurality of types of uneven wear, insofar as what is structurally defined by the claim), wherein the user operation acknowledgment unit (26) is configured to acknowledge a user operation input (via the screen) to select an uneven wear type of the plurality of types of uneven wear (as the screen depicts the different tire depths, which are capable of indicating a plurality of wear types; as there are a plurality of tires depicted on the screen with their respective tire depths capable of indicating different wear types depending on the depth values) from the schematic diagram (as device 26 enables users to acknowledge specific tire wear types by selecting a tire on the display, which shows multiple tires with their respective wear patterns based on depth values).
With respect to claim 2, Wofford-Remond et al. teaches the tire inspection apparatus (8) wherein the data acquisition unit (22 and a camera of device 26) is configured to acquire, when the user operation input acknowledged by the user operation acknowledgment unit (26) indicates selection of heel and toe wear (as the selected acknowledgement of wear is capable of indicating heel and toe wear, insofar as how the apparatus is structurally defined), data (i.e. depth data) for wear of the heel and toe edges of blocks in a tread part (18; as the wear is capable of being heel and toe edges of the tread part of the vehicle, as the tire, blocks and vehicle is not part of the claimed apparatus; further the measured data is capable of indicating any type of wear and insofar as how the apparatus is structurally defined, the apparatus 8 of Wofford-Remond et al. is capable of measuring the claimed types of wear).
With respect to claim 3, Wofford-Remond et al. teaches the tire inspection apparatus (8) wherein when the user operation input (via the display screen of device 26) acknowledged by the user operation acknowledgment unit (26) indicates selection of heel and toe wear (via the screen of the device and the user’s selection of the tire is capable of indicating heel and toe wear), the display processing unit (of the device 26) displays an input window for inputting a stepped wear of a block of a tread part (as the screen of device 26 is capable of entering data superimposed on the image of the tire 12, thereby reading on the claimed inputting of wear; further, insofar as what is structurally recited, the apparatus 8 is capable of displaying the inputted data which represents any type of wear based on the measurements collected by 22, thereby reading on the claimed invention; as device 26 is capable of providing a window for inputting a stepped wear of a block of a tread part; further, what the data represents does not further differentiate the claimed invention over the prior art, as it does not further define the apparatus itself and reads as an intended use limitation).
With respect to claim 4, Wofford-Remond et al. teaches the tire inspection apparatus (8) wherein the data acquisition unit (22) is configured to acquire image data capturing a tread part of the tire (via a camera).
With respect to claim 5, Wofford-Remond et al. teaches the tire inspection apparatus (8) wherein the user operation acknowledgment unit (26) acknowledges a user operation input (via the screen of the device) indicating whether the tire needs to be exchanged (as device 26 will indicate a tire replacement based on the measured and selected data; [0029]).
With respect to claim 6, Wofford-Remond et al. teaches the tire inspection apparatus (8) wherein types of uneven wear (are capable of) including at least two of center wear, feather edge wear, heel and toe wear, and shoulder wear (as the type of wear does not further define the apparatus over the prior art apparatus, which is capable of detecting any type of wear, insofar as what is structurally recited).
With respect to claim 7, Wofford-Remond et al. teaches the tire inspection apparatus (8) wherein the vehicle (10) is a vehicle (as seen in Fig. 1) operated under management of a transport company (as entered by the user; Fig. 4c; [0001]).
With respect to claim 8, Wofford-Remond et al. teaches the tire inspection apparatus (8) further comprising: a vehicle information acquisition unit (i.e. a portion of 26 that provides a vehicle data screen 124) that acquires axle arrangement information on the vehicle (i.e. arrangement of steer and drive axles, type and number) from an external apparatus (as axle data from a server 34 can be accessed containing information regarding the number of axles if the fleet vehicle has been inspected before; [0040]), wherein the axle arrangement information includes information related to a position of an axle (i.e. steer or drive axle [0038] and the tire (12) of the vehicle [0039].
With respect to claim 9, Wofford-Remond et al. teaches the tire inspection apparatus (8) wherein when acquisition of a result of inspection (conducted by the user via 22 and 26) of a condition of uneven wear (if determined to be uneven) is completed for a given tire (for example 12) of a vehicle (10), a next tire mounting position is selected (i.e. the next tire seen in Fig. 8) and a result of inspection (conducted by the user via 22 and 26) of a condition of uneven wear of the tire (i.e. the other of 12) is acquired based on the axle arrangement information (i.e. steer or drive).
With respect to claim 10, Wofford-Remond et al. a tire inspection system (8) comprising: a tire management server apparatus (34) comprising: a storage unit (i.e. as indirectly taught in [0034] which teaches the server storing tire and axle data) that stores axle arrangement information including information related to a position of an axle (i.e. steer or drive) and a tire of a vehicle (i.e. a tire found on its respective axle; for example, if the vehicle has been inspected before, the server will contain the axle and tire arrangement information; [0040]); and an information processing unit (as indirectly taught in [0034]) that reads the axle arrangement information from the storage unit (of the server 34) and transmits the axle arrangement information (as [0034] teaches the server sends store information to a managerial device 42 or a data device 26); and a tire inspection apparatus (22/26) comprising: a vehicle information acquisition unit (i.e. a portion of device 26 that allows data to be fed from the server into their respective data fields when the fleet has been inspected before; See Fig. 7-8 which depicts the various screens and entered/sent data) that acquires the axle arrangement information (i.e. steer or drive) on the vehicle (10) from the tire management server apparatus (34); a data acquisition unit (22) that acquires, from a groove depth measurement instrument, data for groove depth of a tire (12) mounted on a vehicle (10; as Wofford-Remond teaches in [0030] a device 22 measures tread depth); a user operation acknowledgment unit (26) that acknowledges a user operation input (via screen 156) indicating whether an uneven wear is identified in a tread part of the tire (12, as the measured tread depth of a tire occurs in a tread part and is a primary method to detect uneven tire wear) for which the data for groove depth (D) is acquired (as Wofford-Remond et al. teaches data device 26 being used to receive the measurement data from device 22; [0031] and provide a measurement screen 156 to a user allowing the user to identify groove depth data indicating uneven tire wear); and a display processing unit (i.e. a portion of data device 26) that provides, when the user operation acknowledgment unit (26) acknowledges that an uneven wear is identified (via the user input from screen 156), a schematic diagram (158; Fig. 8) corresponding to a plurality of types of one uneven wear (as shown in Fig. 8, a plurality of tire depth measurements are superimposed on their respective tires; Fig. 8; therefore, it is the position of the Office that these tire depth measurements are capable of depicting a plurality of types of uneven wear, insofar as what is structurally defined by the claim), wherein the user operation acknowledgment unit (26) is configured to acknowledge a user operation input (via the screen) to select an uneven wear type of the plurality of types of uneven wear from the schematic diagram (as device 26 enables users to acknowledge specific tire wear types by selecting a tire on the display, which shows multiple tires with their respective wear patterns based on depth values).
With respect to claim 11, Wofford-Remond et al. the tire inspection system (8) wherein the data acquisition unit (22 and a camera of device 26) is configured to acquire, when the user operation input acknowledged by the user operation acknowledgment unit (26) indicates selection of heel and toe wear (as the selected acknowledgement of wear is capable of indicating heel and toe wear, insofar as how the apparatus is structurally defined), data (i.e. depth data) for wear of the heel and toe edges of blocks in a tread part (18; as the wear is capable of being heel and toe edges of the tread part of the vehicle, as the tire, blocks and vehicle is not part of the claimed apparatus; further the measured data is capable of indicating any type of wear and insofar as how the apparatus is structurally defined, the apparatus 8 of Wofford-Remond et al. is capable of measuring the claimed types of wear).
With respect to claim 12, Wofford-Remond et al. teaches the tire inspection system (8) wherein when the user operation input (via the display screen of device 26) acknowledged by the user operation acknowledgment unit (26) indicates selection of heel and toe wear (via the screen of the device and the user’s selection of the tire capable of indicating heel and toe wear), the display processing unit (of the device 26) displays an input window for inputting a stepped wear of a block of a tread part (as the screen of device 26 is capable of entering data superimposed on the image of the tire 12, thereby reading on the claimed inputting of wear; further, insofar as what is structurally recited, the apparatus 8 is capable of displaying the inputted data which represents any type of wear based on the measurements collected by 22, as the device 26 is capable of providing a window for inputting a stepped wear of a block of a tread part; note: what the data represents does not further differentiate the claimed invention over the prior art, as it does not further define the apparatus itself and reads as an intended use limitation).
With respect to claim 13, Wofford-Remond et al. the tire inspection system (8) wherein the data acquisition unit (22) is configured to acquire image data capturing a tread part of the tire (via a camera).
With respect to claim 14, Wofford-Remond et al. the tire inspection system (8) wherein the user operation acknowledgment unit (26) acknowledges a user operation input (via the screen of the device) indicating whether the tire needs to be exchanged (as device 26 will indicate a tire replacement based on the measured and selected data; [0029]).
With respect to claim 15, Wofford-Remond et al. teaches the tire inspection system (8) wherein types of uneven wear (are capable of) including at least two of center wear, feather edge wear, heel and toe wear, and shoulder wear (as the type of wear does not further define the apparatus over the prior art apparatus, which is capable of detecting any type of wear, insofar as what is structurally recited).
With respect to claim 16, Wofford-Remond et al. teaches the tire inspection system (8) wherein the vehicle (10) is a vehicle (as seen in Fig. 1) operated under management of a transport company (as seen in the input screens Fig. 4c; [0001]).
With respect to claim 17, Wofford-Remond et al. teaches the tire inspection apparatus (8) wherein when acquisition of a result of inspection (conducted by the user via 22 and 26) of a condition of uneven wear (if determined to be uneven) is completed for a given tire (for example 12) of a vehicle (10), a next tire mounting position is selected (i.e. the next tire seen in Fig. 8) and a result of inspection (conducted by the user via 22 and 26) of a condition of uneven wear of the tire (i.e. the other of 12) is acquired based on the axle arrangement information (i.e. steer or drive).
With respect to claim 18, Wofford-Remond et al. teaches a non-volatile recording medium for tire inspection encoded with a program, the program comprising computer-implemented modules (as seen in Fig. 2 and 3) including: a data acquisition module (i.e. a computer element, as indirectly taught) that acquires data for groove depth of a tire (12) from a groove depth measurement instrument (22); a user operation acknowledgment module (i.e. a module of 26) that acknowledges a user operation input (via a screen of the device 26) indicating whether an uneven wear is identified in a tread part of the tire (12, as the measured tread depth of a tire occurs in a tread part and is a primary method to detect uneven tire wear) for which the data for groove depth is acquired [0030]; and a display processing module (i.e. a module of device 26) that provides, when the user operation acknowledgment module (of 26) acknowledges that an uneven wear is identified (as detected and inputted in by the user), a schematic diagram (seen in Fig. 8) corresponding to a plurality of types of uneven wear (as indicated by data 164), wherein the user operation acknowledgment module (via the screen) is configured to acknowledge a user operation input (via the screen) to select an uneven wear type of the plurality of types of uneven wear from the schematic diagram (as device 26 enables users to acknowledge specific tire wear types by selecting a tire on the display, which shows multiple tires with their respective wear patterns based on depth values).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fontaine et al. (2018/0253109) teaches a similar system that uses sensor data to make determination of tire wear of a fleet.
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