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
101 Rejection
Based on applicant’s filed amendments, the previously set forth 101 rejection of claim 17 has been withdrawn.
103 Rejection
Based on applicant’s filed amendments and remarks, see pages 15-16, the previously set forth 103 rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
With respect to claim 8, Applicant's arguments or lack thereof do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks claim 8 presents in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Therefore, the original rejection of claim 8 is maintained.
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 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, 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.
Claim(s) 8, 10, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapoux (FR 2671632A1).
With respect to claim 8, Chapoux teaches in Fig. 1 a device for evaluating endurance of a tyre (1), the device comprising: a movable surface (2 and 3), a tyre holder (as indirectly taught via the disclosed roller bench Chapoux teaches can be used when testing the tire 1; [0012]) configured such that a tyre (1) held by the tyre holder (i.e. the holder of the roller bench) contacts the movable surface (2 and 4), a rotor configured to rotate the tyre holder (as part of the roller bench used to rotate the tire under load) such that, in use, the tyre (1) makes a rolling contact with the movable surface (2 and 3),a processor (6), a microphone (4) arrangement comprising at least a first microphone (4) configured to detect sound, and means for sending a signal from the microphone arrangement to the processor (6), wherein: a sampling frequency of the signal (as Chapoux teaches capturing the emitted sound at a frequency), the processor (6) is configured to determine from the signal that an endurance of the tyre has been exceeded ([0015] using a statistical approach, the signal is used to determine different kinds of internal damage and a likely hood of bursting), and the device is configured to indicate based on the determining, that the endurance of the tyre has been exceeded (via an alarm; [0015].
Chapoux remains silent regarding the sampling frequency to be at least 44 kHz.
It has been held that it would have been obvious to try from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(E)
In this instance, a person having ordinary skill in the art, i.e. a person having a degree in engineering, understands a certain sampling frequence is always dependent on the frequency of the signal that one intended to capture and a well-established rule is that the sampling frequency should be at least twice the highest frequency of the interested sampling frequency without the use of any inventive skill. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try from a finite number of frequencies based on the signal itself such that the sampling frequency in Chapoux is at least 44 kHz, as such a modification ensures the correct data is being sampled.
With respect to claim 10, Chapoux teaches the method wherein: the rotor (i.e. as part of the roller bench) is configured to rotate the tyre holder (of the roller bench) and/or to move the movable surface (2 and 3) such that, in use, the tyre has a peripheral velocity and/or the device is configured to press the tyre (1) and/or the movable surface (2 and 3) against each other while rotating the tyre and/or moving the movable surface with a force (i.e. a working load).
Chaooux remains silent regarding the peripheral velocity in 80km/hr and the force is at least 3500 N.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the peripheral velocity to be at least 80km/hr and the force to be at least 3500N, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the Art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Further, such a modification ensures enough pressure is applied to mimic driving conditions when performing the taught damage determinations.
With respect to claim 21, Chapoux teaches the method/device wherein: the tyre holder (of the roller bench) defines an axis of rotation of the tyre (1), and the first microphone (4) is arranged to a location such that the location of the first microphone (4) and the contact surface between the tyre (1) and the movable surface (2 and 3) define a primary line (defined by their physical locations relative to one another) and the first microphone (4) is directed towards the contact surface (as Fig.1 shows the line between 4 and the contact surface).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapoux (FR 2671632A1) in view of Ko Y H (KR 2019051140A).
With respect to claim 9, Chapoux teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 8 but remains silent regarding the device comprising: a mechanical sensor configured to detect a condition of the tyre, comprising a mechanical sensor configured to detect an anomaly of a shape of the tyre; and/or, optical sensor configured to detect a condition of the tyre, comprising a laser scanner or a camera configured to detect an anomaly of the shape of the tyre.
Ko teaches a similar device that includes an optical sensor (i.e. camera) configured to detect a condition of the tyre (i.e. an abrasion shape of a tire), comprising a camera (Abstract) configured to detect an anomaly of the shape of the tyre (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the device of Chapoux to include the camera of Ko because Ko teaches such a modification improves the reliability about tire quality verification; Abstract.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapoux (FR 2671632A1) in view of ‘432 (JP 2004-503432).
With respect to claim 20, Chapoux teaches the device all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 8, but remains silent regarding the microphone arrangement comprises at least a second microphone; the second microphone is arranged closer to a contact surface between the tyre and the movable surface than the first microphone; and/or, the tyre has a width, or the tyre holder is configured to hold a tyre having a width, and a distance between the first microphone and a contact surface between the tyre-and the movable surface is more than a value calculatable by multiplying a square of the width by sixteen and dividing by meters; and/or, the tyre has a width, or the tyre holder is configured to hold a tyre having a width, and a distance between the first microphone and a contact surface between the tyre and the movable surface is more than a value calculatable by multiplying a square of the width by sixteen and dividing by meters, and a distance between the second microphone and a contact surface between the tyre and the movable surface is less than the value calculatable by multiplying a square of the width by sixteen and dividing by meters.
‘432 teaches a similar device in Fig. 77 that includes microphone arrangement [0052] comprises at least a second microphone (a second of subassemblies 200, 202, 204).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the device of Chapoux to include a second microphone, as taught in ‘432, because such a modification allows for real-time analysis in an automated and customizable way [0052], thereby improving the overall versatility of Chapoux.
Chapoux as modified is silent regarding the second microphone is arranged closer to a contact surface between the tyre and the movable surface than the first microphone; and/or, the tyre has a width, or the tyre holder is configured to hold a tyre having a width, and a distance between the first microphone and a contact surface between the tyre-and the movable surface is more than a value calculatable by multiplying a square of the width by sixteen and dividing by meters; and/or, the tyre has a width, or the tyre holder is configured to hold a tyre having a width, and a distance between the first microphone and a contact surface between the tyre and the movable surface is more than a value calculatable by multiplying a square of the width by sixteen and dividing by meters, and a distance between the second microphone and a contact surface between the tyre and the movable surface is less than the value calculatable by multiplying a square of the width by sixteen and dividing by meters.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the position of the second microphone to be arranged closer to a contact surface between the tyre and the movable surface than the first microphone (4 taught in Chapoux), since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the Art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Further, such a modification ensures proper distances are meet for accurate and reliable data collection during the testing procedure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is 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.
Claims 1-7, 14, 16 and 25 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 1, the prior art does not teach or render obvious the claimed combination, in particular the tyre has a width, a distance between the first microphone and a contact surface between the tyre and the movable surface is more than a value calculatable by multiplying a square of the width by sixteen and dividing by meters, and a distance between the second microphone and a contact surface between the tyre and the movable surface is less than the value calculatable by multiplying a square of the width by sixteen and dividing by meters.
With respect to claim 25, the prior art does not teach or render obvious the claimed combination for at least the reasons indicated in the Office Action dated 05/28/2026.
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 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
Prosecution Insights