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
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended the independent claims to recite that the transmitter is configured to transmit a radar signal to penetrate and illuminate a portion of a tire.
On page 7 of Applicant’s response, Applicant alleges that “Prabhakara is directed to a tire sensing system 126 that includes sensing devices 128, which may be a continuous wave radar sensor, and images the outer or external tread surface of a tire to monitor tire wear. While Prabhakara provides a general description of a tire structure at paragraphs 0037-0041, its tire sensing system 126 does not penetrate the structure of the tire.”
Applicant then references several sections of the disclosure of Prabhakara which allegedly teach only surface reflections of the transmitted signal, with the conclusory statement that “the system of Prabhakara images the tread surface and does not transmit a radar signal that penetrates the tire.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
1. Applicant seeks to differentiate the instant application from the Prabhakara reference by implying that the instant application is configured to image the internal structure of the tire. However, Applicant does not claim that the received reflected radar signals are anything other than surface reflections. Barring any additional claim limitations, it is unclear that the processing circuitry is performing analysis on any signal other than surface “reflected radar signals” regardless of whether the transmitted signal was capable of penetration of the incident surface or not.
In addition, the bounds of “penetrate” are not entirely clear from the claim limitations. In any situation of emission and reflection there is an inherent amount of incident energy that will “penetrate” a surface and either continue through the material or be absorbed. As such, nearly any electromagnetic wave incident on a material will have some amount of “penetration”. Further, a highly energetic signal which penetrated the tire and was not reflected would not at all be operated on by the receiver and processing circuitry.
2. Prabhakra discloses utilizing frequencies in the range of 30-300GHz (para 0032). This frequency range is sufficient to “penetrate” a vehicular tire.
As supporting documents, Examiner draws attention to the following:
Toth (US 6480141) discloses a radar system for detecting contraband hidden within a vehicular tire by transmitting radar signals which are capable of penetrating the tire material in order to image contraband hidden within. Toth transmits microwave radar signals for illumination and penetration somewhere in the range of 0.5-40GHz.
Trotte (US 10399393) discloses a transmitter/receiver disposed within a tire which transmits signals in the ranges of 20GHz to 240GHz which is capable of penetrating the inner tire surface and receiving reflections from the outer tire surface and roadway surface for tire characterization.
Applicant’s own invention recites a frequency range between 50 and 300GHz as necessary for penetration (Spec para 0034)
As such, the signals transmitted by Prabhakra would inherently penetrate the tire material.
Examiner suggests, that should Applicant wish to pursue this facet of the invention as the inventive concept, then further limitation and clarification of the function and structure would be warranted. In particular, Applicant may wish to actively recite that the received reflections included sub-surface reflections and that the processing utilizes the full range of reflections from surface reflections as well as internal material transition reflections in order to generate a depth profile or the like of the tire structure.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by
Prabhakara (US 2023/0182509, PCT filed May 11, 2021, 371(c)(1),(2) date Nov. 10,
2022).
Claim 1: Prabhakara discloses An apparatus, comprising:
a transmitter configured to transmit a radar signal to penetrate and illuminate a portion of a tire (fig 5, para 0028, 0032)
a receiver configured to receive reflected radar signals from the portion of the tire
(fig 5, para 0028, 0032) and
processing circuitry comprising a processor, the processing circuitry configured
to generate a three-dimensional (SD) image of at least the portion of the tire, the 3D
image based at least in part upon the reflected radar signals (para 0029-0031, 0069-
0074)
Claim 2: Prabhakara discloses the 3D image comprises gauge information for
layers of material in the tire (para 0002, 0042)
Claim 3: Prabhakara discloses the 3D image comprises foreign object damage
information for the tire (para 0002, 0042-0045)
Claim 4: Prabhakara discloses the radar signal is transmitted via a first antenna
or antenna array and the reflected radar signals are received via a second antenna or
antenna array (fig 5, para 0028, 0032)
Claim 5: Prabhakara discloses the radar signal illuminates a portion of a tread of
the tire, the radar signal extending across a width of the tread from shoulder-to-shoulder
(fig 3-7, para 0042-0045)
Claim 6: Prabhakara discloses the tire is illuminated by the radar signal while
rotating, and the receiver receives reflected radar signals during the rotation of the tire
(para 0043, 0044)
Claim 7: Prabhakara discloses the tire is held in a fixed position, and the receiver
receives reflected radar signals during rotation of the transmitter and receiver around
the tire (para 0042-0045)
Claim 8: Prabhakara discloses the radar signal illuminates a portion of an inner
liner of the tire (para 0037-0041)
Claim 9: Prabhakara discloses the apparatus is a handheld apparatus configured
to render the 3D image on a display (para 0031)
Claim 10: Prabhakara discloses a method, comprising: transmitting radar signals
to penetrate and illuminate a portion of a tire; receiving reflected radar signals from the portion of the tire; and generating a three-dimensional (3D) image of at least the portion of the tire, the 3D image based at least in part upon the reflected radar signals (fig 5, para 0028-0031, 0069-0074)
Claim 11: Prabhakara discloses identifying foreign object damage in the tire
based at least in part upon the 3D image (para 0002, 0042-0045)
Claim 12: Prabhakara discloses the 3D image comprises gauge information for
an innerliner of the tire (para 0037-0041)
Claim 13: Prabhakara discloses identifying a thin spot in the innerliner based at
least in part upon the 3D image (para 0002, 0042-0045)
Claim 14: Prabhakara discloses rotating the tire during transmission of the radar
signals and reception of the reflected radar signals (para 0042-0045)
Claim 15: Prabhakara discloses the portion of the tire comprises a
sidewall of the tire (para 0037-0041)
Claim 16: Prabhakara discloses a system, comprising: a transmitter configured
to transmit a radar signal to penetrate and illuminate a portion of a tire; a receiver configured to receive reflected radar signals from the portion of the tire, at least one computing device configured to generate a three-dimensional (3D) image of at least the portion of the tire; and processing circuitry configured to communicate reflected radar data corresponding the reflected radar signals to the at least one computing device, the 3D image based at least in part upon the reflected radar data (fig 5, para 0028-0031, 0069-0075)
Claim 17: Prabhakara discloses receiver and the processing circuitry are located
on a vehicle adjacent to the tire, and the processing circuitry is configured to communicate the reflected radar data to the at least one computing device via a
wireless link (fig 1-5, para 0028-0031, 0069-0075)
Claim 18: Prabhakara discloses the at least one computing device is remotely
located, and the wireless link is a cellular data link (fig 1-5, para 0028-0031, 0069-
0075)
Claim 19: Prabhakara discloses the at least one computing device is a vehicle
computing device and the vehicle computing device is configured to identify damage to
the tire based at least in part upon the 3D image and provide a notification of the
identified damage (fig 1-5, para 0028-0031, 0042-0045, 0069-0075)
Claim 20: Prabhakara discloses the portion of the tire comprises a sidewall of the
tire (para 0037-0045)
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 PETER M BYTHROW whose telephone number is (571)270-1468. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 830am-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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/PETER M BYTHROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648