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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. With respect to applicant’s remarks filed on 04/22/26 regarding rejected claims, pages 11-12, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues “Katsura does not amount to a teaching of using this rotation to correct for the angle of a scan. The positioning of the shape measurement unit by rotating the moving pate 44 according to Katsura is merely aligning the apparatus to perform a desired measurement. The angle of a scan is not corrected by this positioning or alignment step because no scan has yet taken place … Amended claim 1 requires that the step of correcting for an angle of a scan uses an algorithm to identify edges of a scanned region in the tyre surface data recorded by the measurement device, i.e. the "correcting" step is performed based on tyre surface data that has already been recorded … The rotation of the shape measurement unit 30 according to Katsura is merely a step of positioning the apparatus prior to performing a measurement in that position. There is no disclosure or suggestion in Katsura of correcting for an angle of a scan based on tyre surface data that has already been recorded”.
The following dictionaries disclose the meaning of wording “correct”:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/correct
to alter or adjust so as to bring to some standard or required condition
https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=correct
To adjust so as to meet a required standard or condition
According to the above dictionaries, Katsura has disclosed to alter or adjust an angle of a scan of the movable table 40 relative to an axis AA of the tyre T, this is not different from to correct an angle of a scan of the movable table 40 relative to an axis AA of the tyre T, (the following figure 1, and page 4, lines 22-38 disclose tyre T is rotated around an axis AA, the rotating moving plate 44 is rotated around point B. Therefore, movable table 40 attached to the rotating moving plate 44 can move the three-dimensional shape measuring unit 30 to alter/adjust angle α of a scan relative to an axis AA of the tire T). In the other words, Katsura has disclosed the limitation “correcting for an angle of a scan relative to an axis of the tyre”.
Further, the limitation “The angle of a scan is not corrected by this positioning or alignment step because no scan has yet taken place… correcting for an angle of a scan based on tyre surface data that has already been recorded” must be added into the claims and specification in order to be considered.
2. With respect to applicant’s remarks the new added limitation “using an algorithm which identifies, in the tyre surface data recorded by the measurement device, edges of a scanned region to identify data characteristic of sidewalls of the tyre” has been found in reference of Katsura (figures 7a-d, 8; page 8, lines 23-33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Nobis by using an algorithm which identifies, in the tyre surface data recorded by the measurement device, edges of a scanned region to identify data characteristic of sidewalls of the tyre in order to summarize four integrated three-dimensional shape data into one three-dimensional shape data in the tire width direction, (Katsura, figures 7a-d, 8; page 8, lines 23-33).
Further, in new reference of Braghiroli (U.S. Pat. No. 9,188,429) also teachs this limitation, (figure 5, using an algorithm in the tyre surface data recorded by the sensors 218, 216, and 217, to identify data characteristic of surface and sidewalls of the wheel 201; Column 3, lines 12-18; Column 11, lines 23-35. It is inherent that both sides and surface of the wheel include sidewalls and edges of the wheel). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Nobis by using an algorithm which identifies, in the tyre surface data recorded by the measurement device, edges of a scanned region to identify data characteristic of sidewalls of the tyre in order to inspect both sides and edges of the tyre, (Braghiroli, figure 5, sensors 218, 216, 217, identify data characteristic of sidewalls of the wheel 201; Column 3, lines 12-18; Column 11, lines 23-35).
3. Based on the foregoing, current claims should be amended more to overcome the prior art. Grounds for the rejection of claims are provided below as necessitated by amendment.
[AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: textbox (α)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
238
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Drawings
4. The drawings filed on 04/22/26. These drawings are acceptable.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
5. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/22/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, 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.
7. Claims 1-3, 17, 19-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobis et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0232852) in view of Katsura Naoyuki (JP 2007132807), further in view of Braghiroli et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,188,429). Hereafter “Nobis”, “Katsura”, “Braghiroli”. (Please see attached files for reference of Katsura in previous office action).
Regarding Claims 1, 17, 19, 20, Nobis teaches a method of generating a three-dimensional topological surface representation of a tyre on a vehicle (Abstract; [00063, 0064]; Figures 6(a-c). 3D profile depth measurement of the tyre is not different from 3D topological surface of the tyre), the method comprising:
using a measurement device comprising a sensor to record tyre surface data for a tyre surface during a relative movement between the measurement device and the tyre surface (figure 1, camera 8, tire 4; [0038-0039]); and
matching respective times at which the tyre surface data were recorded to corresponding respective positions on a curved base tyre structure and assembling the tyre surface data into said corresponding respective positions on the curved base tyre ([0026], to identify and compare texture feature to the stored structure feature or data bank to make the automated valuing of the tyre is not different from mapping assembling the tyre surface data onto a curved base tyre structure. [0038, 0041], the image-taking data is at plurality time periods corresponding respective positions of first area 15 and second area 17, is not different from respective times, the tyre surface data were recorded to corresponding respective positions on a curved base tyre structure), to construct the three-dimensional topological surface representation of the tyre ([0035, 0063, 0064]. 3D profile depth measurement of the tyre is not different from 3D topological surface of the tyre).
However, Nobis does not teach correcting for an angle of a scan relative to an axis of the tyre using an algorithm which identifies, in the tyre surface data recorded by the measurement device, edges of a scanned region to identify data characteristic of sidewalls of the tyre. Katsura teaches correcting for an angle of a scan relative to an axis of the tyre structure, (the above figure 1, and page 4, lines 22-38 discloses tire T is rotated around an axis AA, the rotating moving plate 44 is rotated around point B. Therefore, movable table 40 attached to the rotating moving plate 44 can move the three-dimensional shape measuring unit 30 to correct angle α of a scan relative to an axis AA of the tire T. Please see the explanation in paragraphs 1-2 above). Katsura teaches using an algorithm which identifies, in the tyre surface data recorded by the measurement device, edges of a scanned region to identify data characteristic of sidewalls of the tyre (figures 7a-d, 8; page 8, lines 23-33. Please see the explanation in paragraphs 1-2 above). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Nobis by correcting for an angle of a scan relative to an axis of the tyre using an algorithm which identifies, in the tyre surface data recorded by the measurement device, edges of a scanned region to identify data characteristic of sidewalls of the tyre in order to summarize four integrated three-dimensional shape data into one three-dimensional shape data in the tire width direction, (Katsura, figures 7a-d, 8; page 4, lines 22-38; page 8, lines 23-33).
Further, Nobis in view of Katsura teach all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above, the limitation “using an algorithm which identifies, in the tyre surface data recorded by the measurement device, edges of a scanned region to identify data characteristic of sidewalls of the tyre” also disclosed by Braghiroli. Braghiroli teaches using an algorithm which identifies, in the tyre surface data recorded by the measurement device, edges of a scanned region to identify data characteristic of sidewalls of the tyre, (figure 5, using an algorithm in the tyre surface data recorded by the sensors 218, 216, and 217, to identify data characteristic of surface and sidewalls of the wheel 201; Column 3, lines 12-18; Column 11, lines 23-35. It is inherent that both sides and surface of the wheel include sidewalls and edges of the wheel). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Nobis by using an algorithm which identifies, in the tyre surface data recorded by the measurement device, edges of a scanned region to identify data characteristic of sidewalls of the tyre in order to inspect both sides and edges of the tyre, (Braghiroli, figure 5, sensors 218, 216 identify data characteristic of sidewalls of the wheel 201; Column 3, lines 12-18; Column 11, lines 23-35).
Regarding Claim 2, Nobis teaches recording the tyre surface data as the vehicle moves towards or away from the tyre surface measurement device, (figure 1, tire 4, camera 8 and projection device and optical display device 14 is not different from measurement device).
Regarding Claim 3, Nobis teaches generating a movement profile and using the movement profile to match said respective times to said corresponding respective positions, wherein the movement profile comprises or is derived from a trace defined by a set of data representing the positions at given times traced by a part of the tyre surface as the relative movement takes place, ([0038, 0041]. The profile recorded by camera 8 during the travel of tyre 4 is not different from a movement profile. The image-taking data is at plurality periods of times corresponding respective position of first area 15 and second area 17).
8. Claims 5, 8, 10-14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobis et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0232852) in view of Katsura Naoyuki (JP 2007132807), further in view of Braghiroli et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,188,429), and further in view of Vinciguerra et al. (Pub. No. 2013/0266225). Hereafter “Nobis”, “Katsura”, “Braghiroli”, “Vinciguerra”. (Please see attached files for reference of Katsura in previous office action).
Regarding Claim 5, Nobis in view of Katsura and further in view of Braghiroli, teach all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above except for obtaining a plurality of traces, each corresponding to a respective position on the tyre surface. Vinciguerra teaches obtaining a plurality of traces, each corresponding to a respective position on the tyre surface, ([0002, 0008, 0062]. Note: to carry out a complete revolution to obtain inspection data for the tyre surface with different images of different surfaces is not different obtaining a plurality of traces). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify Nobis in view of Katsura and further in view of Braghiroli by obtaining a plurality of traces in order to determine the anomalies by analyzing the differences between the two images, (Vinciguerra, [0002, 0008, 0062]).
Regarding Claims 8, 10, Nobis in view of Katsura and further in view of Braghiroli, teach all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above except for recording tyre surface data as the tyre turns relative to the measurement device while the vehicle is stationary, and the three-dimensional topological surface representation is generated by mapping the tyre surface data onto the base tyre structure based on a frame rate of the measurement device. Vinciguerra teaches this limitation ([0062-0063]. It is inherent that the vehicle is stationary). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify Nobis in view of Katsura and further in view of Braghiroli by recording tread depth data as the tyre turns in order to inspect three-dimensional image of the tire, (Vinciguerra, [0062-0063]).
Regarding Claims 11-14, Nobis in view of Katsura and further in view of Braghiroli, teach all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above except for a handheld device, and the accelerometer, the use for these devices is for portable and convenient. It would have been obvious for using a handheld device, and the accelerometer is well-known. The modification involves only routine skill in the art. Further, the exact type of the support means as that claimed by Applicant are considered obvious and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular type of the support means is anything more than one of numerous types a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing support. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
9. Claim 9, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobis et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0232852) in view of Katsura Naoyuki (JP 2007132807), further in view of Braghiroli et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,188,429), and further in view of Vinciguerra et al. (Pub. No. 2013/0266225), further in view of Muthukumar, (Pat. No. 9,296,263). Hereafter “Nobis”, “Katsura”, “Braghiroli”, “Vinciguerra”, “Muthukumar”. (Please see attached files for reference of Katsura in previous office action).
Regarding Claim 9, Nobis in view of Katsura, and further in view of Braghiroli, and further in view of Vinciguerra, teach all the limitations of claims 1 as stated above except for the movement profile is determined from a rotation speed of the tyre. Muthukumar teaches the movement profile is determined from a rotation speed of the tyre, (column 6, lines 56-67; column 7; Column 20, lines 37-67; Column21, lines 1-10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify Nobis, Katsura, Braghiroli, Vinciguerra, by having the movement profile is determined from a rotation speed of the tyre in order to implement movement profile of the tyre, (Muthukumar, column 6, lines 56-67; column 7; Column 20, lines 37-67; Column21, lines 1-10).
10. Claims 16, 18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobis et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0232852) in view of Katsura Naoyuki (JP 2007132807), further in view of Braghiroli et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,188,429), further in view of Ghidotti Piovan et al. (2018/0189939). Hereafter “Nobis”, “Katsura”, “Braghiroli”, “Ghidotti”. (Please see attached files for reference of Katsura).
Regarding Claims 16, 18, Nobis in view of Katsura, and further in view of Braghiroli,
teach all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above except for spatial low pass filters, a bilateral filter, and optical sensor. Katsura teaches an angle of a scan relative to an axis of the tyre (page 3, lines 16-20, 34-42; Page 5, lines 1-6). Ghidotti teaches spatial low pass filters, a bilateral filter, and optical sensor, ([0014, 0145]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify Nobis in view of Katsura, and further in view of Braghiroli by having spatial low pass filters, a bilateral filter, and optical sensor in order to implement movement profile of the tyre, (Ghidotti, [0014, 0145]).
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 4, 6, 7, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The allowable Subject matters for these claims were indicated in office Action mailed on 06/02/25.
12. Claim 15 has been cancelled.
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (571)270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
April 30, 2026
/Tri T Ton/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights