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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura (US 20170274607) (of record) and Zhang (CN 106645198, see machine translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumura discloses an apparatus, comprising: a tire building drum (Figs. 1-7: 2); a machine vision system (Figs. 1-3, 5-6: 5) directed at the tire building drum ([0023]), the machine vision system produces an image of a green rubber tread (Figs. 1-7: 8, 9) applied to the tire building drum ([0019], [0021]), at least one processor circuit (Figs. 1-3, 5-6: 6) with a memory comprising instructions ([0010], [0021], [0025], [0028]-[0029], [0033]-[0035], [0038]), that when executed by the processor circuit, causes the at least one processor circuit to at least: identify a center (Figs. 2-4: DL; Figs. 3-7: L1; Figs. 5-7: L2) of the green rubber tread (Figs. 1-7: 8, 9) in the image ([0020]-[0021], [0025], [0030], [0036]); identify a difference between the center of the green rubber tread and a target position of the tire building drum ([0021], [0028]-[0030], [0037]); and using the difference as a tread position feedback error to position an application of a next green rubber tread onto the tire building drum from a tread conveyor ([0021]-[0025], [0028]-[0031], [0036]-[0037], [0040]).
However, Matsumura does not expressly recite the machine vision system produces a three dimensional image of the green rubber tread applied to the tire building drum. Matsumura also does not expressly recite that the center of the tread in the image is identified by performing at least one convolution with at least one profile trace of the green rubber tread and a predefined tread profile.
Zhang discloses a tread detection system that solves the problem of large errors and low efficiency ([0007]), wherein the system includes a three-dimensional camera and controller ([0009]), wherein the three-dimensional camera captures the image of the tread until the drum rotates one circle ([0010]), and wherein a centerline position of the tread according to a left and right boundary position is detected and defects in the centerline of the tread are identified ([0028]-[0035], [0039]-[0040]). Zhang further discloses that various different features of the tread may be captured by laser and compared to photographs captured by the three-dimensional camera by comparing a number of values in each set and determining if there is a defect present, including with the center of the tread ([0009]-[0035]). In other words, the center of the tread in the image is identified by performing at least one convolution with at least one profile trace of the green rubber tread and a predefined tread profile. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the camera of Matsumura to be a three-dimensional camera that captures three-dimensional images of the tread, wherein the center of the tread in the image is identified by performing at least one convolution with at least one profile trace of the green rubber tread and a predefined tread profile, to reduce errors and increase efficiency as is generally known in the substantially similar art, as taught by Zhang.
Regarding claim 2, Matsumura further discloses a tread guiding system (Figs. 1-3, 5-6: 4, 6, 7) that controls a lateral position of the tread (Figs. 1-7: 8, 9) onto the tire building drum (Figs. 1-7: 2), where the difference is applied as the tread position feedback error to the tread guiding system ([0025], [0027]-[0037]: wherein the deviation is detected and the controller corrects for the deviation).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang further discloses the center of the green rubber tread corresponds to a position of a maximum of the at least one convolution ([0009]-[0011], [0028]-[0035], [0040], [0057]-[0064]).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang further discloses in identifying of the center of the green rubber tread, the instructions, that when executed by the processor circuit, further cause the at least one processor circuit to at least: perform a plurality of convolutions between a corresponding plurality of profile traces of the green rubber tread and the predefined tread profile ([0028]-[0035], [0040], [0057]-[0065]); identify a plurality of tread center values of the green rubber tread from corresponding ones of the convolutions ([0028]-[0035], [0040], [0057]-[0065]); and generate a tread center of the green rubber tread as an average of the tread center values of the green rubber tread ([0028]-[0035], [0040], [0057]-[0065]).
Regarding claim 5, Matsumura further discloses the instructions, when executed by the processor circuit, further cause the at least one processor circuit to determine the target position (Figs. 2-7: DL) of the tire building drum ([0025], [0028]-[0030], [0037]).
Regarding claim 9, Matsumura further discloses that the system may be used for a belt member (i.e., breaker) or tread rubber, or for forming belts (i.e., breakers) followed by a tread ([0019], [0040]). In other words, because Matsumura discloses the same steps for both types of components, the steps as discussed above in claim 1 may be repeated for a breaker and Matsumura discloses that the difference further comprises a first difference, the machine vision system produces a three dimensional image of a breaker applied to the tire building drum from a breaker application conveyor; and the instructions, when executed by the processor circuit, further cause the at least one processor circuit to: identify a center of the breaker in the three dimensional image; identify a second difference between the center of the breaker and the target position of the tire building drum; and use the second difference as a feedback error to position a next breaker on the application conveyor.
The examiner notes that the claim language does not require that the breaker and tread are provided on different and separate application conveyors. Accordingly, the system may rely on the same conveyors and systems to provide both breaker and tread at different times, as taught by Matsumura.
Regarding claim 10, Matsumura further discloses a breaker guiding system (Figs. 1-3, 5-6: 4, 6, 7) that controls a lateral position of the breaker onto the application conveyor ([0019], [0022]-[0025], [0040]), where the second difference is applied as the tread position feedback error to the breaker guiding system ([0021]-[0025], [0028]-[0031], [0036]-[0037], [0040]).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura (US 20170274607) (of record) and Zhang (CN 106645198, see machine translation provided) (of record) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Ajino (JP 2010260178, see machine translation provided) (of record).
Regarding claims 6-8, modified Matsumura does not expressly recite the target position comprises a center of the tire building drum that is determined by identifying a first edge and a second edge of the tire building drum, and determining a midpoint between the first and second edges as the center of the tire building drum. Matsumura also does not expressly recite that the center of the tire building drum is determined relative to a mark on the tire building drum, or that the center of the tire building drum is determined relative to a physical feature of the tire building drum.
Ajino discloses a tire building apparatus that may adjust the position of a strip-shaped member ([0001]), wherein the apparatus comprises a position measuring means, such as a camera for detecting an image ([0007]), wherein the positions of both edges of the member can be measured based on the captured image ([0007]). By using this area of the captured image, the amount of misalignment between the member and the drum can be predicted, allowing feedforward control to be performed when moving the building drum ([0007]). Ajino further discloses that any two cameras may be used, or any single camera may be used to detect both edges ([0018]). Ajino also discloses that a line serving as a marker may be drawn on the surface of the forming drum at the center position in advance and may be imaged by the camera(s) to calibrate the center position of the drum and the positions of the camera(s) ([0024]). In other words, the line on the drum may be both a mark and physical feature of the drum. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Ajino in order to provide the camera with the ability to detect both edges of the tread, as well as provide a mark/physical feature on the drum for the center line, for the advantages as discussed above as taught by Ajino.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 1-2 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “Matsumura does not describe ‘at least one processor circuit with a memory comprising instructions, that when executed by the processor circuit, causes the at least one processor circuit to at least…identify a difference between the center of the green tread and a target position of the drum’ as recited in claim 1. Instead, Matsumura uses the discrepancy between the member reference line and the drum reference line to move the drum in a drum width direction during winding. Matsumura does not compute a tread center or consider a center‑to‑target difference derived from 3D imaging and convolution.”
Matsumura discloses that a post-winding position sensor (Figs. 1-6: 5) can detect the position of the member reference line (Figs. 1-6: L1; Figs. 5-6: L2) drawn on the cylindrical member (Figs. 4-6: 9), and the position of the member reference line drawn on the cylindrical member can also be acquired on the basis of the detection data, wherein, since the position of the member reference line drawn on the cylindrical member winding around the forming drum (Figs. 1-6: 2) can be detected, the position of the member reference line drawn on the cylindrical member can be acquired with even higher precision ([0009]). In other words, Matsumura identifies a center of the belt-like member (i.e., green rubber tread) in an image by performing winding (i.e., at least one convolution) with at least one profile trace of the belt-like member (i.e., green rubber tread) and a predefined reference line of the belt-like member (i.e., green rubber tread). Matsumura also discloses providing a drum reference line (Figs. 1-4: DL) on the tire building drum (i.e., a target position of the tire building drum), wherein the reference line (Figs. 1-6: L1) of the cylindrical member (i.e., the center of the green rubber tread) is matched with the drum reference line ([0029]-[0030]). In other words, both the center of the green rubber tread and target position of the tire building drum are identified with the sensor (Figs. 1-6: 5) so that they match (i.e., a difference between the center of the green rubber tread and a target position of the tire building drum is identified and is zero). Matsumura also discloses that since the position data of the member reference line drawn on the cylindrical member is used as a reference when winding another belt-like member, the embodiment enables another belt-like member that is subsequently laminated to be formed accurately in a cylindrical shape without meandering with respect to the cylindrical member and shifting (offsetting) each belt-like member in the width direction ([0036]). Moreover, since the position data also includes the predetermined drum reference line (i.e., predetermined target position), Matsumura discloses relying on various points of position data in order to position subsequent layers onto the drum. In other words, Matsumura discloses using the difference between the center of the green rubber tread and a target position of the tire building drum as a tread position feedback error to position an application of a next green rubber tread onto the tire building drum from a tread conveyor.
The examiner further notes that the claim language does not exclude providing additional components to aid in determining the position of application of a next green rubber tread onto the tire building drum from a tread conveyor, such as the pre-winding position sensor (Figs. 1-6: 4) of Matsumura. In other words, because Matsumura discloses identifying and collecting data for the controller of the drum reference line, the reference line L1, and the reference line L2 using the pre-winding position sensor and post-winding position sensor, Matsumura necessarily discloses using the difference between the center of the green rubber tread and the target position of the tire building drum as one point of data for a tread position feedback error to position an application of a next green rubber tread onto the tire building drum from a tread conveyor.
On page 2 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “Matsumura does not describe ‘at least one processor circuit with a memory comprising instructions, that when executed by the processor circuit, causes the at least one processor circuit to at least… using the difference as a tread position feedback error to position an application of a next green rubber tread onto the tire building drum from a tread conveyor’ as recited in claim 1. Instead, Matsumura controls drum lateral movement to match the position of the member reference line Ll and the position of the drum reference line DL and uses stored position data to align subsequent belt‑like members. Matsumura does not use a 3D‑derived center error to pre‑position the next tread on a conveyor.”
The examiner refers to the response above as to Matsumura’s disclosure. Additionally, the examiner notes that the claim language does not exclude the apparatus from performing additional functions, such as laterally moving the drum to match positions. Even in doing so, Matsumura must necessarily identify and collect data that will be used to laterally move the drum in order to align the reference lines. Moreover, the examiner notes that Zhang was relied upon to teach modifying the images and data captured by Matsumura in order to be three-dimensional. Accordingly, Matsumura was not discussed as disclosing a 3D‑derived center error to pre‑position the next tread on a conveyor.
On page 2 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “Zhang is silent regarding ‘at least one processor circuit with a memory comprising instructions, that when executed by the processor circuit, causes the at least one processor circuit to at least: identify a center of the green rubber tread in the three dimensional image by performing at least one convolution with at least one profile trace of the green rubber tread and a predefined tread profile’ as recited in claim 1. In contrast, in Zhang, the controller analyzes the laser image’s laser height information and whether the connector and the central line of the tread have the defects or not according to the laser height information. Zhang is silent regarding a convolution with a predefined profile and a template correlation.”
Zhang was relied upon to teach modifying Matsumura in order to teach that the post-winding position sensor capturing images of the drum and applied tread of Matsumura while it is wound (i.e., performs at least one convolution) may be done using a three-dimensional camera so as to reduce errors and increase efficiency. In other words, Matsumura already discloses that the post-winding sensor includes a camera capable of acquiring captured image data ([0021]), but is silent as to whether that camera may be a three-dimensional camera, and Zhang discloses a three-dimensional camera having benefits that would also be applicable to and advantageous for the camera disclosed by Matsumura. Furthermore, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Zhang was not discussed as disclosing the instructions argued, but instead was relied upon for modifying the camera of Matsumura, which discloses the instructions as discussed above. The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Zhang provides advantages for using a three-dimensional camera in Matsumura as discussed above.
On page 2 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “Zhang also does not describe ‘at least one processor circuit with a memory comprising instructions, that when executed by the processor circuit, causes the at least one processor circuit to at least…identify a difference between the center of the green tread and a target position of the drum’ as recited in claim 1. Instead, Zhang calculates centerline offset as an inspection metric by comparing tread centerline to drum centerline to flag a defect. Zhang does not use a 3D‑derived center computed by convolution with a predefined profile nor define a target for closed‑loop placement.”
The examiner refers to the discussion above as to how Zhang was relied upon.
On page 2 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “Zhang does not describe ‘at least one processor circuit with a memory comprising instructions, that when executed by the processor circuit, causes the at least one processor circuit to at least… using the difference as a tread position feedback error to position an application of a next green rubber tread onto the tire building drum from a tread conveyor’ as recited in claim 1. Instead, in Zhang, if a defect is found, an alarm is issued for manual adjustment. Zhang does not explain any automatic use of measured error to position a next tread from the conveyor. Zhang does not use a feedback error to actuate next‑pass placement from the conveyor.”
The examiner refers to the discussion above as to how Zhang was relied upon.
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEDEF PAQUETTE (née AYALP) whose telephone number is (571) 272-5031. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST - 4:00 PM EST.
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, KATELYN SMITH (née WHATLEY) can be reached on (571) 270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. The fax phone number for the examiner is (571) 273-5031.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights