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
.
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.
Priority
US National Stage of PCT
Acknowledgment is made that this application is the US national phase of international application PCT/NO2023/050037 filed 02/16/2023 which designated the U.S. and claims the benefit of NO20220226 filed 02/18/2022.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s)
(IDS) submitted on 08/16/2024, 02/19/2026, 06/15/2026, & 07/31/2026 is/are in compliance
with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
37 CFR 1.83(a) states (bold added for emphasis):
The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.
37 CFR 1.84(n) states (bold added for emphasis):
Symbols. Graphical drawing symbols may be used for conventional elements when appropriate. The elements for which such symbols and labeled representations are used must be adequately identified in the specification. Known devices should be illustrated by symbols which have a universally recognized conventional meaning and are generally accepted in the art. Other symbols which are not universally recognized may be used, subject to approval by the Office, if they are not likely to be confused with existing conventional symbols, and if they are readily identifiable.
MPEP § 608.02(IX) states-in-part (bold added for emphasis):
37 CFR 1.84(n) indicates that graphic drawing symbols and other labeled representations may be used for conventional elements where appropriate, subject to approval by the Office. Also, suitable legends may be used, or may be required, in proper cases. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) (www.ansi.org ) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (www.iso.org ) are organizations whose numerous publications include some that pertain to graphical symbols; the symbols therein are considered to be generally acceptable in patent drawings. Although ANSI and ISO documents and other published sources may be used as guides during the selection of graphic symbols for patent drawings, the Office will not "approve" any published collection of symbols as a group because their use and clarity must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Overly specific symbols should be avoided. Symbols with unclear meanings should be labeled for clarification.
37 CFR 1.84(o) states (bold added for emphasis):
Legends. Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing. They should contain as few words as possible.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5), and correspondingly for PCT 11.13(l), because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “220” of fig(s) 6”. See likely related objection below.
Unshown Claimed Features:
The drawing(s) is/are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a), and correspondingly PCT Chapter I Article 7 (see also 37 CFR 1.437 & MPEP 1825). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims, and the Examiner asserts that these drawings are necessary for the understanding of the invention. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“liquid inlet” (at least claim 8).
No new matter should be entered.
Unlabeled Non-Descriptive Representations:
The drawings are objected to because:
unlabeled non-descriptive representations are impermissible under 37 CFR 1.83(a); specific illustrated symbols do not yet have a universally recognized conventional meaning nor are those symbols generally accepted in the art in accordance with 37 CFR 1.84(n); and the Examiner has determined suitable descriptive legends comprising a (few) word(s) are required as necessary for understanding of the drawings in accordance with 37 CFR 1.84(o). The drawings are correspondingly objected to for failing to comply with PCT Rule 11 as catchwords are indispensable to the understanding of the unlabeled non-descriptive representations, wherein PCT Rule 11.11 Words in Drawings states (bold for emphasis):
(a) The drawings shall not contain text matter, except a single word or words, when absolutely indispensable, such as "water," "steam," "open," "closed," "section on AB," and, in the case of electric circuits and block schematic or flow sheet diagrams, a few short catchwords indispensable for understanding.
(b) Any words used shall be so placed that, if translated, they may be pasted over without interfering with any lines of the drawings.
Non-descriptive representation(s)
“220” in fig(s). 6
need (an) appropriate legend(s) in the form of descriptive text label(s) (alternatively, conventional graphical drawing symbols may be substituted as appropriate) in addition to any reference character(s) already present. Empty or not labeled rectangular boxes and/or non-descriptive representations of features are not descriptive (i.e., symbols with unclear meanings), and therefore incomplete. The Examiner emphasizes that the requested text label(s) is/are indispensable for proper understanding. The descriptive text label(s) should contain as few words as possible. See also 37 CFR 1.84(p) pertaining to standards for the text labels, see exemplary publications by the American National Standards Institute and/or the International Organization for Standardization which include exemplary conventional/understandable graphical symbols which the Examiner will carefully consider on case-by-case basis as the Examiner Determines Completeness and Consistency of Drawings, and see also MPEP Appendix T Rule 11.11. Appropriate Correction is required.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive.
A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. This may result in slightly longer titles, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc. If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the Examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by an Examiner’s amendment. See MPEP § 1302.04(a) and PCT Rule 4.3.
The following title is suggested: “DRIVE-OVER TIRE TREAD GAUGING DEVICE WITH AIR FLOW BARRIER FOR OPTICAL SCANNER”.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 16 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 16,
the Examiner objects to the use of the pronoun “it” in the claim, noting in particular that the use of a pronoun is ambiguous as to which element the pronoun is being substituted; the Examiner suggests explicit recitation of the element.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1, 6, 10-11, 14-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Rose et al (US 20200018591 A1; hereafter “Rose”) in view of newly cited Uffenkamp et al (US 20150330773 A1; hereafter “Uffenkamp”) and in further view of newly cited SolvAir (NPL How Air Knives Work; hereafter “SolvAir”).
Regarding independent claim 1,
Rose teaches a drive-over tire tread depth gauging system (see TREAD LINE SCANNER of fig. 1) (Title “TREAD LINE SCANNER”; Abstract “A device for measuring tread depth of tyres, wherein in use a tyre can be driven over the device”) comprising:
a housing (fig. 1, housing 4) comprising an optical opening (fig. 1, window 15), the housing (fig. 1, housing 4) being configured to be embedded in a road (portion tyre 5 is driving over at once envisaged as a road) such that a tire (fig. 1, tyre 5) of a vehicle (vehicle comprising tyre 5) is able to roll across the optical opening (fig. 1, window 15) of the housing (fig. 1, housing 4) ([0002] “existing optically based scanners of tread depth are provided above the road”; [0014] “solved by using a scanner which is provided beneath the tyres when the vehicle drives over the scanner”; additional obviousness analysis provided);
an optical scanner (tread line scanner of fig. 1) disposed inside the housing (fig. 1, housing 4), the optical scanner (tread line scanner of fig. 1) being configured to measure, through the optical opening (fig. 1, window 15) of the housing (fig. 1, housing 4), a tread (fig. 1, tread 7) depth of the tire (fig. 1, tyre 5) as the tire (fig. 1, tyre 5) rolls across the optical opening (fig. 1, window 15) of the housing (fig. 1, housing 4); and
at least one air nozzle (not shown) configured to provide an air flow barrier between the optical scanner (tread line scanner of fig. 1) and the optical opening (fig. 1, window 15) of the housing (fig. 1, housing 4) ([0020] “An air knife or similar nozzle with dry air supply can also be used to ensure the view remains clear”; Examiner notes that air knives are at once envisaged to continuously airflow while in use; additional obviousness analysis provided).
Rose does not explicitly state item 1) that the surface that is driven over is a road. Rose does not teach item 2) wherein the air nozzle used to ensure a clear view is (continuously used) to provide an air flow barrier.
Regarding item 1):
Rose teaches the association between the road and the existing optical scanners ([0002]; [0014]) with the implication that one of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage that Rose’s solution of being provided beneath is by embedding into the road to be driven over.
Furthermore, Uffenkamp teaches embedding a drive-over tire tread depth gauging system (device for measuring the tread depth; see slot 14 in figs. 2-3 and scanning elements comprising 4 and 18 in fig. 3 beneath roadway 16 and viewing through slot 14) into a road (figs. 2-3, roadway 16) (Title “DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MEASURING THE TREAD DEPTH OF A TIRE”; Abstract “A device for measuring the tread depth of a tire includes measuring modules situated transversely with respect to the running direction of the tire and connected to a shared evaluation device. Each measuring module includes (i) an illumination device which is configured and situated in such a way that during operation it projects at least one light line onto the tread to be measured, and (ii) at least one image recording device recording at least one image of at least one area of the tread to be measured”; [0002] “device and a method for measuring the tread depth of at least one tire, in particular a motor vehicle tire”; [0039] “installation in the roadway” and “may be easily used at a variety of locations, in particular in entryways of repair shops, service stations, drive-in facilities, drive-through facilities, and parking lots, for example”).
In view of the above, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Rose reasonably teaches that Rose’s drive-over tire tread depth gauging system is embedded in a road, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to so embed in a road—as factually supported by Uffenkamp’s roadway installation of drive-over tire tread depth gauging system—thereby providing the expected advantage of providing a conventional and purposeful driving surface to being driven over as opposed to mere ground.
Regarding item 2):
The Examiner takes Official Notice that air knives conventionally create barriers of air ideal for cleaning and eliminating contaminants.
As factual evidence of the aforementioned assertion, SolvAir teaches an air nozzle that is an air knife configured to provide an air flow barrier (Section What are Air Knives? “Air Knives are engineered to produce a curtain-like flow of air that not only covers the full shape of an object, but acts as a barrier to foreign matter as well”; top of page 3 “Air Knives are able to perform cleaning, drying and blow-off functions by emitting a powerful and consistent stream of air”; Section Laminar Air Flow “Laminar air flow is a unique and useful type of air movement. It occurs when air moves at the same speed and in the same direction, with no crossover. It is a highly effective barrier, and is used for example on research facilities where a sterile environment needs to be maintained”).
Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C), In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to so re/arrange Rose’s air knife in a position to ensure the view of the optical scanner scanning through an optical opening stays clear.
In view of the above, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Rose’s air knife provides an air flow barrier between the optical scanner and the optical opening, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to so arrange Rose’s knife to conventionally provide an air flow barrier—as factually supported by SolvAir—for the expected purpose of performing cleaning and blow-off functions by emitting a stream of air to provide an air flow barrier to maintain a clean environment.
Regarding claim 17, which depends on claim 1,
Rose as previously modified (see analysis of independent claim, especially in view of SolvAir) suggests wherein the at least one air nozzle (not shown) is configured to provide an air flow barrier between the optical scanner (tread line scanner of fig. 1) and the optical opening (fig. 1, window 15) of the housing (fig. 1, housing 4) when the tire (fig. 1, tyre 5) rolls across the optical opening (fig. 1, window 15) of the housing (fig. 1, housing 4) ([0020] “An air knife or similar nozzle with dry air supply can also be used to ensure the view remains clear”).
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1,
Rose as modified reasonably teaches/suggests further comprising:
a transparent wall (window) provided between the optical scanner (tread line scanner of fig. 1) and the optical opening (fig. 1, window 15) of the housing (fig. 1, housing 4),
wherein the at least one air nozzle (not shown) is configured to provide the air flow barrier between the transparent wall (window) and the optical opening (fig. 1, window 15) of the housing (fig. 1, housing 4) ([0020] “Transparent windows 14 are provided to protect the optical elements. The glass can be treated with a hydrophobic coating. An air knife or similar nozzle with dry air supply can also be used to ensure the view remains clear. An open window 15 is provided in the housing, but this window can also be closed by transparent material”; see also analysis of independent claim).
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 1,
Rose teaches wherein the at least one air nozzle (not shown) comprises at least one air knife ([0020] “An air knife or similar nozzle with dry air supply can also be used to ensure the view remains clear”).
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claim 10,
Rose teaches the at least one air knife (not shown) which is disposed to ensure that the view across the windows of the housing are clear ([0020] “Transparent windows 14 are provided to protect the optical elements. The glass can be treated with a hydrophobic coating. An air knife or similar nozzle with dry air supply can also be used to ensure the view remains clear. An open window 15 is provided in the housing, but this window can also be closed by transparent material”).
Rose does not explicitly state items 1): wherein the at least one air knife is a linear air knife; and 2) that said air knife is disposed in or along at least one wall of the housing.
Regarding item 1) and pertinent to item 2), SolvAir teaches an air knife that is a linear air knife and configured to provide an air flow barrier (section What are Air Knife Systems? “Air Knife Systems use a precision-engineered linear slot to direct and utilise high-velocity air”; Section What are Air Knives? “Air Knives are engineered to produce a curtain-like flow of air that not only covers the full shape of an object, but acts as a barrier to foreign matter as well”; top of page 3 “Air Knives are able to perform cleaning, drying and blow-off functions by emitting a powerful and consistent stream of air”; Section Laminar Air Flow “Laminar air flow is a unique and useful type of air movement. It occurs when air moves at the same speed and in the same direction, with no crossover. It is a highly effective barrier, and is used for example on research facilities where a sterile environment needs to be maintained”).
Therefore, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Rose’s air knife is a linear air knife, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Rose’s air knife as linear for the expected purpose of providing an airflow barrier/curtain that keeps the view clear, the Examiner emphasizing the corresponding geometries of the views across the opening and/or across the windows.
Regarding item 2):
It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C), In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to so re/arrange Rose’s air knife in a position to ensure the view of the optical scanner to stay clear.
Furthermore, the Examiner also notes that MPEP § 2145(III)(X)(B) states “An “obvious to try” rationale may support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious where one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. “[A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).” It is the Examiner’s position that placing an air knife in/along at least one wall of the housing would place the air knife reasonably in a position to ensure the view remains clear and therefore merely requires common sense to so re/arrange.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try re/arranging Rose’s air knife in a position in/along a wall in order to provide a reasonable location for a full curtain barrier, the Examiner emphasizing that offsetting the air knife from the wall would either unnecessarily increase the size of the housing or leave portions between the wall and the air knife absent an air flow barrier/curtain.
Regarding claim 14, which depends on claim 1,
Rose as previously modified suggests a method comprising:
measuring, by the drive-over tire (fig. 1, tyre 5) tread (fig. 1, tread 7) depth gauging system according to claim 1 (see analysis of independent claim 1), the tread (fig. 1, tread 7) depth of the tire (fig. 1, tyre 5) of the moving vehicle (vehicle comprising tyre 5) (Title “TREAD LINE SCANNER”; Abstract “A device for measuring tread depth of tyres, wherein in use a tyre can be driven over the device”).
Regarding claim 15, which depends on claim 1,
Rose as previously modified suggests a method for gauging a tire (fig. 1, tyre 5) tread (fig. 1, tread 7) depth of a tire (fig. 1, tyre 5) of a moving vehicle (vehicle comprising tyre 5), the method comprising:
providing the drive-over tire (fig. 1, tyre 5) tread (fig. 1, tread 7) depth gauging system according to claim 1 (see analysis of independent claim 1);
embedding the drive-over tire (fig. 1, tyre 5) tread (fig. 1, tread 7) depth gauging system in a road or a road segment such that the optical opening (fig. 1, window 15) of the housing (fig. 1, housing 4) of the drive-over tire (fig. 1, tyre 5) tread (fig. 1, tread 7) depth gauging system aligns with a surface of the road or the road segment (see fig. 1, showing alignment of surface for driving upon and the opening of the system; additional obviousness analysis provided);
providing the air flow barrier between the optical scanner (tread line scanner of fig. 1) and the optical opening (fig. 1, window 15) of the housing (fig. 1, housing 4); and
measuring, by the optical scanner (tread line scanner of fig. 1) of the drive-over tire (fig. 1, tyre 5) tread (fig. 1, tread 7) depth gauging system, the tire (fig. 1, tyre 5) tread (fig. 1, tread 7) depth of the tire (fig. 1, tyre 5) of the moving vehicle (vehicle comprising tyre 5) as the vehicle (vehicle comprising tyre 5) drives across the drive-over tire (fig. 1, tyre 5) tread (fig. 1, tread 7) depth gauging system.
With further respect to the alignment:
It does not matter that the feature shown (in this case alignment of road/surface and window/opening of tire tread depth gauging system) is unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2125 and In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979).
Furthermore, It had been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B) and In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the present case it is the Examiner's position that Rose is teaching that placing the scanner above the road was problematic with the implication that one of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage that Rose’s solution of being provided beneath is by embedding into the road to be driven over in alignment with the road, as shown by the alignment in the figure ([0002]; [0014]; see fig. 1), and therefore only ordinary skill in the art is required to optimize the height of Rose’s scanning system with respect to the road.
Therefore, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Rose reasonably teaches the alignment, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to so optimize the alignment for smoother driving surface, prevent bumps/dips, and/or to make the view undisturbed by shadows caused by mis-alignment.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Rose in view of newly cited Uffenkamp, newly cited SolvAir, and in further view of newly cited Wittmann et al (US 20170124784 A1; hereafter “Wittmann”).
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1,
Rose reasonably suggests where the at least one air nozzle (not shown) is configured to provide an air flow from within the housing (fig. 1, housing 4), out through the optical opening (fig. 1, window 15) of the housing (fig. 1, housing 4) ([0020] “An air knife or similar nozzle with dry air supply can also be used to ensure the view remains clear”; Examiner notes that air knives are at once envisaged to keep the optical opening clear as the optical opening is part of the view; additional obviousness analysis provided).
Rose does not explicitly state that the air flows out through opening.
However:
It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C), In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to re/arrange Rose’s air knife so as to further keep the optical opening view clear by blowing air flow out through the opening where contamination is falling in from, including directly blowing back out towards the source of said contamination—namely the tire. The Examiner further notes that commonsensically this keeps the view clearer and prevents build-up within the housing and can also help remove contamination from the tire which might interfere with depth gauging.
Furthermore, Wittman teaches using airflow (not shown; pressurized gas cleaning subsystem) to both clean the optical systems and to clean the tires of a vehicle for a tire tread depth gauge (Title “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MULTIPLE FEATURE DETECTION AND ANALYSIS OF A ROTATING TIRE”; Abstract; [0019] “tread depth”; [0194] “image of the tire tread may or may not be assisted by structured light, laser light and/or multiple tread cameras”; [0175] “subsystem for cleaning the tires and/or other parts of the vehicle by ways of pressurized fluid/gas. The fluid or gas is applied without any additional physical contact between the system and the tire. A similar system may be used to clean some subsystems of the system such as lights, lenses and sensors”).
In view of the above, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Rose’s air knife utilized to ensure the view remains clear is inclusive of keeping the optical opening clear, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to so re/arrange Rose’s knife to further blow out across the vehicle’s tire—as factually supported by Wittman’s tire cleaning by pressurized gas—thereby both cleaning the tire and clearing the optical view through the opening and thus leading to more accurate/precise tread measurements.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Rose in view of newly cited Uffenkamp, newly cited SolvAir, and in further view of Applicant cited Stieff (US 20180313722 A1; hereafter “Stieff”).
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 1,
Rose does not teach a heat source configured to heat at least a part of the drive-over tire tread depth gauging system.
Stieff teaches a heat source configured to heat at least a part of the drive-over tire tread depth gauging system (Title “Protective Structure For Outdoor Installation Of Drive-Over Tire Inspection System”; Abstract; [0023] “drive-over tire tread depth sensor modules”; [0022] “Additionally, in cold-weather climates, a suitable snow-melt heating system (not shown), such as a thermo-electric heating grid or warm-water circulating tubing may be incorporated into the base 102 to keep the exposed surfaces free of accumulating ice and snow”; [0027] “heating elements may be incorporated into the protective structures 100 without departing from the scope of the invention”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Stieff’s heating elements for a drive-over tire tread depth sensor system with Rose’s drive-over tire tread depth sensor system for the expected benefit of increasing utility during cold weather, including preventing ice, snow, or at least maintaining workable temperatures for functionality.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Rose in view of newly cited Uffenkamp, newly cited SolvAir, and in further view of Applicant cited Tracy (US 20110100108 A1; hereafter “Tracy”).
Regarding claim 13, which depends on claim 1,
Rose does not teach wherein the optical scanner comprises a laser triangulation scanner.
Tracy teaches a laser triangulation scanner (Title “Tire Tread Scanner Drive-Over Unit”; Abstract “A tire tread scanner drive-over unit is used to measure the tread depth and tire wear condition of a vehicle” and “When a vehicle is driven onto the surface so that the tires of one of its axels are on the tire position areas between the rearward and forward areas, the tires self-center against the scanner windows so that the tire profile may be measured”; [0012] “The surface of tire 12, that is, the peripheral surface which engages the road and is grooved, is scanned using a laser triangulation sensor which repeatedly measures the distance to both the surface of the tire and to the bottom of the grooves formed in that surface”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute/combine Tracy’s laser triangulation scanner for/with Rose’s optical scanner for the expected advantages of providing increased accuracy/precision of tread depth measurements, as well as increase utility in three-dimensional mapping, including without external and/or bad lighting or even on dirty tires.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Rose in view of newly cited Uffenkamp, newly cited SolvAir, and in further view of Applicant cited Stangler et al (WO 2021168393 A1; hereafter “Stangler”).
Regarding claim 16, which depends on claim 15,
Rose as modified suggests that the air flow barrier is provided when the moving vehicle (vehicle comprising tyre 5) is driving over the drive-over tire (fig. 1, tyre 5) tread (fig. 1, tread 7) depth gauging system.
Rose is silent to determining that the moving vehicle (vehicle comprising tyre 5) is approaching the drive-over tire (fig. 1, tyre 5) tread (fig. 1, tread 7) depth gauging system, including for the purpose pf then timely/conditionally providing the air flow barrier when it is determined that the moving vehicle (vehicle comprising tyre 5) is approaching the drive-over tire (fig. 1, tyre 5) tread (fig. 1, tread 7) depth gauging system.
However:
It has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(III) and In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). In the present case it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill is required to automate turning on equipment when in use and turning off equipment when not in use.
Furthermore, and as factually supporting the aforementioned assertion of automated on/off triggering, Stangler teaches determining that the moving vehicle is approaching the drive-over tire tread depth gauging system (Title “MAGNETIC DRIVE-OVER SYSTEM PROVIDING TIRE TREAD THICKNESS/DEPTH MEASUREMENT”; Abstract “a drive-over surface adapted to receive the tire thereon including the tread to be measured”; [0059] “the sensor array can be triggered responsive to information from an accelerometer, a proximity sensor, external video or LIDAR imaging sensors, the presence of an RFID (detected using an RFID reader), or other methods. Information received based on imaging can include only the presence of the vehicle or other information including license plate number. In additional or alternative embodiments, the information indicates the presence of a tire”; [0060] “sensors (e.g., hall sensors) can trigger data recording in response to detecting the presence of a tire”; [0074] “tread measurement may be performed as discussed below. A triggering device (e.g., an accelerometer or proximity sensor) may be used to identify the presence of a tire and to initiate collection of data using s sensor array or arrays as discussed above. Responsive to identifying the presence of the tire, data is collected by an array (or arrays) of magnetic sensors”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Stangler’s triggering proximity sensors for a drive-over tire tread depth gauging system with Rose’s drive-over tire tread depth gauging system for the expected purpose of providing a trigger to automatically turn on the remainder of Rose’s system, including Rose’s scanning sensor and accompanying air knife to keep the view thereof clear, while commonsensically likewise automating saving power/energy and/or preventing unnecessary wear and tear from otherwise continuous use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3-5, 7-8, 12, and 18 is/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.
When this application is finally acted upon and allowed (i.e., the Notice of Allowance), the Examiner will determine, at the same time, whether the reasons why the application is being allowed are sufficiently evident from the record; see MPEP § 1302.14(I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID L SINGER whose telephone number is 303-297-4317. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 6:00pm CT, EXCEPT alternating Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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.
/DAVID L SINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 22AUG2026
Prosecution Insights