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
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/27/23 has been entered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
3. The drawings filed on 10/10/23, 10/31/23. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The following wordings “processing system” render the claims indefinite because the wordings are not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide a standard definition/explanation/structure for ascertaining the requisite degree that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 20, disclose the following limitations “processing system”. These limitations are rejected to because the meanings of wordings are not clear. The limitations merely state the names of unit without providing any indication about the structures of that unit in the claims.
In the other words, the claims do not meet the threshold requirements of clarity and precision set forth in the statute, not whether more suitable language or modes of expression are available. In the other words, the claims are required to be cast in clear—as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite—terms.
For the purpose of examination, the claims are interpreted in view of the objections/rejections indicated above as follow:
processing system: a computer.
Double Patenting
6. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
7. Claims 1-20, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of Pryce et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,820,178). Hereafter, “Pryce ‘178”.
As to claim 1, Pryce ‘178 claims:
A method of generating a three-dimensional topological surface representation of a tyre on a vehicle, the method comprising (claim 1, lines 1-3):
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 (claim 1, lines 4-7); 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 structure to construct the three-dimensional topological surface representation of the tyre (claim 1, lines 12-20).
As to claim 2, Pryce ‘178 claims: recording the tyre surface data as the vehicle moves towards or away from the measurement device (claim 2).
As to claim 3, Pryce ‘178 claims: 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 (claim 3).
As to claim 4, Pryce ‘178 claims: comprising one or more of: i) discarding portions of the trace corresponding to one of more of: tread grooves, sipes, and tyre shoulders; ii) filtering noise from the trace; iii) smoothing the trace; and iv) using spline interpolation to remove discontinuities in the trace (claim 5).
As to claim 5, Pryce ‘178 claims: obtaining a plurality of traces, each corresponding to a respective position on the tyre surface (claim 6).
As to claim 6, Pryce ‘178 claims: extrapolating one or more traces corresponding to respective positions on the tyre surface to extend said one or more traces to a length that is the same as a length of a further trace corresponding to a further position on the tyre surface (claim 7).
As to claim 7, Pryce ‘178 claims: at least one of: discarding any trace that shows more than a defined variation from a median of the other traces of the plurality of traces; and taking an average of the plurality of traces to obtain a movement profile comprising a single trace (claim 8).
As to claim 8, Pryce ‘178 claims: recording tyre surface data as the tyre turns relative to the measurement device while the vehicle is stationary (claim 10).
As to claim 9, Pryce ‘178 claims: generating a movement profile and using the movement profile to match said respective times to said corresponding respective positions, wherein the movement profile is determined from a rotation speed of the tyre (claim 11).
As to claim 10, Pryce ‘178 claims: the three-dimensional topological surface representation is generated by mapping the tyre surface data onto the curved base tyre structure based on a frame rate of the measurement device (claim 12).
As to claim 11, Pryce ‘178 claims: the tyre surface data is obtained using a handheld device (claim 13).
As to claim 12, Pryce ‘178 claims: the device is adapted to generate a movement profile by measuring movement of the device relative to the tyre (claim 14).
As to claim 13, Pryce ‘178 claims: the handheld device comprises an accelerometer (claim 15).
As to claim 14, Pryce ‘178 claims: using feedback from the accelerometer to determine the curvature of the tyre (claim 16).
As to claim 15, Pryce ‘178 claims: correcting for an angle of a scan relative to an axis of the tyre (claim 17).
As to claim 16, Pryce ‘178 claims: improving the generated three- dimensional topological surface representation using one or more of a combination of spatial low pass filters and a bilateral filter for preserving edges of the tyre (claim 18).
As to claim 17, Pryce ‘178 claims: the measurement device is a tread depth measurement device, and the tyre surface data is tread depth data.(claim 19).
As to claim 18, Pryce ‘178 claims: the tread depth measurement device comprises an optical sensor (claim 20).
As to claim 19, Pryce ‘178 claims: the measurement device is arranged to use a sensing arrangement both for determining a distance to the tyre surface and for measuring the tyre surface (claim 21).
As to claim 20, Pryce ‘178 claims: An apparatus for generating a three-dimensional topological surface representation of a tyre on a vehicle, the apparatus comprising: a measurement device comprising a sensor arranged to record tyre surface data for a tyre surface during a relative movement between the measurement device and the tyre surface; and a processing system configured to match respective times at which the tyre surface data were recorded to corresponding respective positions on a curved base tyre structure and to assemble the tyre surface data into said corresponding respective positions on the curved base tyre structure to construct the three-dimensional topological surface representation of the tyre (claim 22).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 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.
9. 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.
10. 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 Uffenkamp et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0069779), or in view of Katsura Naoyuki (JP 2007132807). Hereafter “Nobis”, “Uffenkamp”, “Katsura”. (Please see attached files for reference of Katsura).
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; [0064]; Figures 6(a-c)), 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 surface data onto a curved base tyre structure. [0038, 0041], the image-taking data is at plurality periods of times corresponding respective positions of first area 15 and second area 17), structure to construct the three-dimensional topological surface representation of the tyre ([0035, 0064]).
Moreover, Uffenkamp also teaches matching the tyre surface data onto a base tyre structure, ([0012, 0013, 0057]). 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 matching the tyre surface data onto a base tyre structure in order to inspect the data profile of the tyre at the point in time of the measurement, (Uffenkamp, ([0012, 0013, 0057]).
Katsura also teaches 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 structure to construct the three-dimensional topological surface representation of the tyre (page 3, lines 4-12, 43-46; Page 8, lines 41-46; Page 9, lines 1-2). 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 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 structure to construct the three-dimensional topological surface representation of the tyre order to measure a three-dimensional shape of the tire surface accurately with a high resolution to such a degree that an abrasion form of the tread surface of a tire can be known (Katsura, Abstract).
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).
11. 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 Uffenkamp et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0069779), or in view of Katsura Naoyuki (JP 2007132807), and further in view of Vinciguerra et al. (Pub. No. 2013/0266225). Hereafter “Nobis”, “Uffenkamp”, “Katsura”, “Vinciguerra”. (Please see attached files for reference of Katsura).
Regarding Claim 5, Nobis, Uffenkamp, Katsura, 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 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, Uffenkamp, Katsura 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 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 Uffenkamp, Katsura 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 welknown. The modification involves only routine skill in the art. Further, the exact shape 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.
12. 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 Uffenkamp et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0069779), or in view of Katsura Naoyuki (JP 2007132807), and further in view of Vinciguerra et al. (Pub. No. 2013/0266225), further in view of Muthukumar, (Pat. No. 9,296,263). Hereafter “Nobis”, “Uffenkamp”, “Katsura”, “Vinciguerra”, “Muthukumar”. (Please see attached files for reference of Katsura).
Regarding Claim 9, Nobis, Uffenkamp, Katsura, 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, Uffenkamp, Katsura, Vinciguerra by having the movement profile is determined from a rotation speed of the tyre in order to implement movement profile of the tyre, (column 6, lines 56-67; column 7; Column 20, lines 37-67; Column21, lines 1-10).
13. Claim 15, 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 Uffenkamp et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0069779) or in view of Katsura Naoyuki (JP 2007132807), further in view of Ghidotti Piovan et al. (2018/0189939). Hereafter “Nobis”, “Uffenkamp”, “Katsura”, “Ghidotti”. (Please see attached files for reference of Katsura).
Regarding Claims 15, 16, 18, Nobis Uffenkamp, Katsura, 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 Vinciguerra by having spatial low pass filters, a bilateral filter, and optical sensor in order to implement movement profile of the tyre, ([0014, 0145]).
Allowable Subject Matter
14. 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, and if the rejection under 112 were overcome.
15. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there was no prior art found by the examiner that suggested modification or combination with the cited art so as to satisfy the combination of all the limitations in claims 4, 6, 7.
16. As claim 4, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method of generating a three-dimensional topological surface representation of a tyre on a vehicle comprising to record tyre surface data during a relative movement between the measurement device and the tyre surface; 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 structure; 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; and comprising one or more of: i) discarding portions of the trace corresponding to one of more of: tread grooves, sipes, and tyre shoulders; ii) filtering noise from the trace; iii) smoothing the trace; and iv) using spline interpolation to remove discontinuities in the trace; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 3 and 4.
17. As claim 4, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method of generating a three-dimensional topological surface representation of a tyre on a vehicle comprising to record tyre surface data during a relative movement between the measurement device and the tyre surface; 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 structure; 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; extrapolating one or more traces corresponding to respective positions on the tyre surface to extend said one or more traces to a length that is the same as a length of a further trace corresponding to a further position on the tyre surface; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 3 and 5 and 6.
18. As claim 4, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method of generating a three-dimensional topological surface representation of a tyre on a vehicle comprising to record tyre surface data during a relative movement between the measurement device and the tyre surface; 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 structure; 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; discarding any trace that shows more than a defined variation from a median of the other traces of the plurality of traces; and taking an average of the plurality of traces to obtain a movement profile comprising a single trace; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 3 and 5 and 7.
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.
May 29, 2025
/Tri T Ton/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2877