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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 10, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 recites “wherein a transit doze of X-rays of each of the constituent members adjacent to each other in the width direction of the tire member is determined in advance, a reference range of the magnitude of the difference between the transit dozes of each of the constituent members at the boundary between each of the constituent members is set, and a width dimension of a specific one of the constituent members is calculated based on the reference range and contrast in the image data” which is not originally disclosed and thus is new matter.
Applicant argues that support for claim 13 is found in [0048]-[0050] of the original specification. However, the explicit language of claim 13 is not found therein. The scope of claim 13 includes at least two constituent members adjacent to each other in the width direction wherein a width dimension of a specific one of the constituent members is calculated based on the reference range and contrast in the image data, which is NOT originally disclosed. There is no original support for a width dimension of a specific one of the constituent members being calculated based on the reference range and contrast in the image data.
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.
Claims 13-14 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 is indefinite because it is unclear how a width dimension of a specific one of the constituent members is calculated based ONLY on the reference range AND contrast in the image data (based on X-ray transmittance of the predetermined length range).
Claim 14 recites “the inspection object” which lacks antecedent basis. The Examiner suggests the following amendments: “an inspection object”.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) in view of Nakamura US (6,294,119) and Sivakumar et al. (US 2021/0225088).
Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) discloses a method (figs. 3-4; col. 2, lines 43, to col. 3, line 29;
col. 6, line 11, to col. 7, line 1) for manufacturing a tire member E' for manufacturing, while determining
a predetermined quality of an elongated tire member E' formed by bonding a plurality of types of
constituent members made of a material for making a tire E' extruded by a plurality of respective
extruders 10', the tire member E' (col. 1, lines 15-21; tire member made from layered or
multicomponent extrudates; the extrudates (constituent members) are bonded (fig. 4) by extrusion (fig.
3),
the method comprising:
continuously performing a process of applying X- rays to a predetermined length range
of the tire member from a top surface side of the tire member while conveying the tire member in a
longitudinal direction (fig. 3 shows X-ray measuring device 40 applying X-rays to a top surface of the tire
member E') to acquire image data based on X-ray transmittance of the predetermined length range (X-
ray measuring device 40 takes transmission measurements (col. 6, lines 11-30); it would be inherent that applying X-rays is continuous over a predetermined length range because the tire member (extrudate) E’ is continuously extruded (col. 3, lines 63-66) and because as shown in fig. 3 the X-ray measuring device can only take a measurement (a continuous measurement) over a portion of the length (defining a predetermined length range) of the tire member E' as the tire member E’ continuously moves (is extruded) along the longitudinal direction; in other words, the X-rays are continuously applied between the beginning of measurement to the end of measurement, and the predetermined length range of the tire member E’ is defined from the point (on the tire member) where the beginning measurement was made to the downstream point (since the tire member is continuously moving past the X-ray measuring device 40) where the end of measurement is made; note that it would be inherent that X-ray transmission data based on transmission absorption intensities (col. 6, lines 30-54, the material's transmitted intensity is measured) is image data; as shown in fig. 3, an X-ray measuring device 40 measures X-rays applied across the width of the tire member E’; thus, the X-ray transmission data is collected is along the width and length (longitudinal direction) of the tire member E’; thus, such data is image data because such data is capable of mapping (imaging) the transmission absorption intensities along the width and length of the tire member E’; this inherency is further confirmed by Sivakumar et al. (US 2021/0225088) who discloses that it is possible to form an image from recorded X-ray intensities [0004]);
acquiring the image data of the predetermined length range continuous without gaps in the longitudinal direction (Stevenson discloses (p. 3, lines 24-29) "As the calculations performed by the computer upon receiving the actual extrudate profile measurements are extremely rapid, the comparison of actual measurements to desired measurements to obtain the adjustment increment, may be performed continuously, or at any interval the operator may select." The actual extrudate profile measurements must be performed continuously if the comparison of actual measurements to desired measurements is "performed continuously". In other words, as the tire member E’ moves downstream relative to the X-ray measuring device 40, if the downstream point (where the end of measurement is made for a first predetermined length range of the tire member E’) becomes the beginning point where the beginning measurement is made for the next upstream predetermined length range of the tire member E’ (upstream of the first predetermined length), then the comparison of actual measurements to desired measurements would be performed continuously AND the image data of the predetermined length range would be acquired continuous without gaps in the longitudinal direction. If the downstream point (where the end of measurement is made for a first predetermined length range of the tire member E’) is spaced from the beginning point where the beginning measurement is made for the next upstream predetermined length range of the tire member E’ (upstream of the first predetermined length), then the comparison of actual measurements to desired measurements would be performed at an interval.);
determining, based on contrast in each piece of the image data which resulted from subjecting each piece of the image data acquired to computational processing and analysis, a magnitude of
variation in the predetermined quality of the tire member in the longitudinal direction (each piece of image data is defined by the transmission data obtained for each predetermined length range mentioned above; col. 6, lines 11-53; the thickness is calculated using "the material's transmitted intensity" which is measured as mentioned above by a digital computer of a system controller 14’ (computational processing and analysis); the measured transmission absorption intensities (which have contrast (difference) when the intensities are different, such as when the thickness changes) are used to determine a magnitude of variation (a magnitude of change) in the thickness (predetermined quality) of the constituent members in the longitudinal direction by the digital computer of the system controller 14’; the difference in thicknesses (magnitude of variation) is made between the measured thickness and the specified (desired) thickness) (col. 3, lines 24-29; col. 6, lines 11-53)); and
correcting the variation by controlling, based on the magnitude of the variation determined, a
rotation speed of a screw disposed in at least one of the plurality of extruders (the thickness variation is
controlled by varying screw speed dependent upon the magnitude of the thickness variation; the
measured thickness and the specified thickness are used to calculate screw-to-line speed ratios,
respectively, the screw speed of each extruder may then be adjusted by the difference of these values) (figs. 3-4; col. 2, lines 43, to col. 3, line 29; col. 6, line 11, to col. 7, line 1).
However, Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) does not disclose the tire material being unvulcanized
rubber.
Nakamura (US 6,294,119) discloses a method of manufacturing a tire member including an
elongated tire member formed by bonding a plurality of types of constituent members made of unvulcanized rubber extruded by a plurality of respective extruders (abstract; col. 4, line 63, to col. 6,
line 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to modify the tire material of Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) to be unvulcanized rubber because
such tire materials known in the art for making tires, as disclosed by Nakamura (US 6,294,119).
As to claims 2-3, as mentioned above, Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) discloses that thickness is
the predetermined quality which would include a distribution in the longitudinal direction (as the
measurements are made continuously as the tire member moves in the longitudinal direction as shown
in fig. 3) of a dimension (thickness) in a width direction of a specific constituent member of the
constituent members (the thickness measurements are made in the width direction because the overall
dimensional measurements and the radiation transmission (X-ray) measurements are made at the same
locations to allow determination of the contribution to the overall dimension from each extruder; col. 2,
lines 43-51; note that each extruder extrudes material that defines a specific constituent (of the
constituent members) having the material of the respective extruder).
However, Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) doesn't disclose the specific constituent member
being formed of unvulcanized rubber having a higher content rate of a specific component than content
rate of unvulcanized rubber forming the other constituent members.
Nakamura (US 6,294,119) further discloses that one of the constituent members can be formed
of unvulcanized rubber having a higher content rate of a specific component (carbon black) than content
rate of unvulcanized rubber forming the other constituent members (col. 5, lines 18-43; one extruder
has extrusion material having a large amount of carbon black which extrusion material makes a respective constituent member which then has a large amount of carbon black compared to other constituent members).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to further modify the specific constituent member to be formed of unvulcanized rubber having a
higher content rate of a specific component (carbon black) than content rate of unvulcanized rubber
forming the other constituent members, as disclosed by Nakamura (US 6,294,119), because such a
modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the specific
constituent member known to be operable in the art and capable of having a higher content rate of a
specific component (carbon black) than other constituent members.
Claim(s) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) in view of Nakamura (US 6,294,119) and Sivakumar et al. (US 2021/0225088) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Kono et al. (US 2020/0408706).
Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077), Nakamura (US 6,294,119) and Sivakumar et al. (US 2021/0225088) do not disclose the limitations of claims 4 and 8.
Kono et al. (US 2020/0408706) discloses calculating thickness or mass (weight) of a film based on the intensity of measured X-rays (image data) [0013].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further modify the method wherein mass of the tire member is the predetermined quality because Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) discloses that alternatively weight (mass) may be substituted for a dimension (e.g., thickness) (col. 2, lines 36-39) and because Kono et al. (US 2020/0408706) discloses that measured X-ray intensity (transmission) can be correlated to thickness or mass.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) in view of Nakamura (US 6,294,119) and Sivakumar et al. (US 2021/0225088) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Ripple (US 2013/0154144).
Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) further discloses determining a distribution in the longitudinal
direction of a cross-sectional area of the tire member by applying a laser beam to the tire member being
conveyed in the longitudinal direction (col. 4, lines 15-34; devices used to measure peak dimensions,
including the thickness and width (i.e., cross-section) of the extrusion profile (tire member) as it moves
in the longitudinal direction include sensors 26 which can be laser devices; note that sensors 26'
correspond to sensors 26).
However, Stevenson et al. (US5,128,077) does not disclose receiving reflected light reflected on
an outer surface of the tire member.
Ripple (US 2013/0154144) discloses a method of manufacturing a tire member [0001], wherein
a distribution in the longitudinal direction of a cross-sectional area of the tire member 132 is determined
by applying a laser beam 122 to the tire member 132 being conveyed in the longitudinal direction and
receiving reflected light 136 reflected on an outer surface of the tire member 132 (fig. 8; [0019)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to further modify the method by receiving reflected light reflected on an outer surface of the tire
member, as disclosed by Ripple (US 2013/0154144), because such a modification is known in the art and
would provide an alternative configuration for determining a distribution in the longitudinal direction of
a cross-sectional area of the tire member.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) in view of Nakamura (US 6,294,119) and Sivakumar et al. (US 2021/0225088) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0080943) and Anders et al. (US 5,843,349).
Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) further discloses determining a distribution in the longitudinal
direction of a cross-sectional area of at least one type of the constituent members unevenly distributed
on a back surface side of the tire member by transmitting an electromagnetic wave (laser) toward the
tire member (fig. 2 shows at least one type of the constituent members can be unevenly distributed on a
back surface side of the tire member; col. 4, lines 15-34; devices used to measure peak dimensions,
including the thickness and width (i.e., cross-section) of the extrusion profile (tire member) as it moves
in the longitudinal direction include sensors 26 which can be laser devices; note that sensors 26'
correspond to sensors 26).
However, Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) does not disclose transmitting an electromagnetic
wave having a terahertz frequency from the back surface side of the tire member being conveyed in the
longitudinal direction toward the tire member and detecting a reflected wave entering the tire member
and reflected thereon.
Kim et al. (US 2019/0080943) discloses a method for measuring the dimensions of an object,
wherein a distribution in a longitudinal direction of a cross-sectional area of the object is determined by
transmitting an electromagnetic wave having a terahertz frequency from an emitter 210 on a side of the
object being conveyed by transporter 300 in the longitudinal direction toward the object and detecting
by detector 220 a reflected wave entering the object and reflected thereon (figs. 1-2; [0027]-[0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to further modify the method wherein a distribution in a longitudinal direction of a cross -
sectional area of the at least one type of the constituent members is determined by transmitting an
electromagnetic wave having a terahertz frequency from a side of the tire member being conveyed in
the longitudinal direction toward the tire member and detecting a reflected wave entering the tire
member and reflected thereon because such a method of measuring the dimensions of an object is
known in the dimension measuring art, as disclosed by Kim et al. (US 2019/0080943), and would provide
an alternative configuration for measuring dimensions and because Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077)
discloses that lasers can be used for measuring dimensions, as mentioned above. Note that Kim et al.
(US 2019/0080943) discloses that lasers having a terahertz frequency can be used for transmitting the
electromagnetic wave [0032].
As to transmitting from the back surface side of the tire member, Anders et al. (US 5,843,349)
discloses a method for manufacturing a tire member (col. 6, lines 5-60), means for measuring width of
the tire member (cameras 25, 26) being on a top surface side and a back surface side of the tire member
(fig. 1; col. 8, lines 8-12). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time
the invention was made, to further modify the method by transmitting the electromagnetic wave from
the back surface side because it is known in the art that means for measuring dimensions can be on a
top surface side and a back surface side of the tire member, as disclosed by Anders et al. (US 5,843,349).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) in view of Nakamura (US 6,294,119) and Sivakumar et al. (US 2021/0225088).
Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) discloses a system (figs. 3-4; col. 2, lines 43, to col. 3, line 29; col.
6, line 11, to col. 7, line 1) for manufacturing a tire member comprising a plurality of extruders
configured to extrude constituent members made of a plurality of different types of a material for
making a tire E' and manufacturing, while determining predetermined quality of an elongated tire
member formed by bonding the plurality of types of constituent members, the tire member (col. 1, lines
15-21; tire member made from layered or multicomponent extrudates; the extrudates (constituent
members) are bonded (fig. 4) by extrusion (fig. 3)), the system comprising:
a conveying device (fig. 3; conveyor belt and drive 25) configured to convey the tire member E'
in a longitudinal direction;
an X-ray inspection device 40 configured to apply X-rays to a predetermined length range of the
tire member from atop surface side of the tire member being conveyed by the conveying device to
acquire image data based on X-ray transmittance of the predetermined length range (fig. 3 shows X-ray
inspection device 40 applying X-rays from a top surface of the tire member E'; X-ray measuring device 40 takes transmission measurements (col. 6, lines 11-30); it would be inherent that applying X-rays is continuous over a predetermined length range because the tire member (extrudate) E’ is continuously extruded (col. 3, lines 63-66) and because as shown in fig. 3 the X-ray measuring device can only take a measurement (a continuous measurement) over a portion of the length (defining a predetermined length range) of the tire member E' as the tire member E’ continuously moves (is extruded) along the longitudinal direction; in other words, the X-rays are continuously applied between the beginning of measurement to the end of measurement, and the predetermined length range of the tire member E’ is defined from the point (on the tire member) where the beginning measurement was made to the downstream point (since the tire member is continuously moving past the X-ray measuring device 40) where the end of measurement is made; note that it would be inherent that X-ray transmission data based on transmission absorption intensities (col. 6, lines 30-54, the material's transmitted intensity is measured) is image data; as shown in fig. 3, an X-ray measuring device 40 measures X-rays applied across the width of the tire member E’; thus, the X-ray transmission data is collected is along the width and length (longitudinal direction) of the tire member E’; thus, such data is image data because such data is capable of mapping (imaging) the transmission absorption intensities along the width and length of the tire member E’; this inherency is further confirmed by Sivakumar et al. (US 2021/0225088) who discloses that it is possible to form an image from recorded X-ray intensities [0004]);
a calculation device (digital computer) to which the image data is input; and
a control device 14' configured to control rotation of a screw disposed in each of the extruders
and having a configuration in which
a process of acquiring the image data is continuously performed, the image data of the predetermined length range continuous without gaps in the longitudinal direction is acquired, based on contrast in each piece of the image data which resulted from each piece of the image data
acquired being subjected to computational processing and analysis by the calculation device, a magnitude of variation in the predetermined quality of the tire member in the longitudinal
direction is calculated by the calculation device, and the variation is corrected by controlling, based on the magnitude of the variation calculated, a rotation speed of a screw disposed in at least one of the extruders by the control device (as mentioned above, it would be inherent that applying X-rays is continuous over a predetermined length range because the tire member (extrudate) E’ is continuously extruded (col. 3, lines 63-66) and because as shown in fig. 3 the X-ray measuring device can only take a measurement (a continuous measurement) over a portion of the length (defining a predetermined length range) of the tire member E' as the tire member E’ continuously moves (is extruded) along the longitudinal direction; in other words, the X-rays are continuously applied between the beginning of measurement to the end of measurement, and the predetermined length range of the tire member E’ is defined from the point (on the tire member) where the beginning measurement was made to the downstream point (since the tire member is continuously moving past the X-ray measuring device 40) where the end of measurement is made; Stevenson discloses (p. 3, lines 24-29) "As the calculations performed by the computer upon receiving the actual extrudate profile measurements are extremely rapid, the comparison of actual measurements to desired measurements to obtain the adjustment increment, may be performed continuously, or at any interval the operator may select." The actual extrudate profile measurements must be performed continuously if the comparison of actual measurements to desired measurements is "performed continuously". In other words, as the tire member E’ moves downstream relative to the X-ray measuring device 40, if the downstream point (where the end of measurement is made for a first predetermined length range of the tire member E’) becomes the beginning point where the beginning measurement is made for the next upstream predetermined length range of the tire member E’ (upstream of the first predetermined length), then the comparison of actual measurements to desired measurements would be performed continuously AND the image data of the predetermined length range would be acquired continuous without gaps in the longitudinal direction. If the downstream point (where the end of measurement is made for a first predetermined length range of the tire member E’) is spaced from the beginning point where the beginning measurement is made for the next upstream predetermined length range of the tire member E’ (upstream of the first predetermined length), then the comparison of actual measurements to desired measurements would be performed at an interval. Each piece of image data is defined by the transmission data obtained for each predetermined length range mentioned above; col. 6, lines 11-53; the thickness is calculated using "the material's transmitted intensity" which is measured as mentioned above by a digital computer of a system controller 14’ (computational processing and analysis); the measured transmission absorption intensities (which have contrast (difference) when the intensities are different, such as when the thickness changes) are used to determine a magnitude of variation (a magnitude of change) in the thickness (predetermined quality) of the constituent members in the longitudinal direction by the digital computer of the system controller 14’; the difference in thicknesses (magnitude of variation) is made between the measured thickness and the specified (desired) thickness) (col. 3, lines 24-29; col. 6, lines 11-53); the thickness variation is controlled by varying screw speed dependent upon the magnitude of the thickness variation; the measured thickness and the specified thickness are used to calculate screw-to-line speed ratios, respectively, the screw speed of each extruder may then be adjusted by the difference of these values) (figs. 3-4; col. 2, lines 43, to col. 3, line 29; col. 6, line 11, to col. 7, line 1)).
However, Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) does not disclose the tire material being unvulcanized
rubber.
Nakamura (US 6,294,119) discloses a method of manufacturing a tire member including an
elongated tire member formed by bonding a plurality of types of constituent members made of
unvulcanized rubber extruded by a plurality of respective extruders (abstract; col. 4, line 63, to col. 6,
line 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to modify the tire material of Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) to be unvulcanized rubber because
such tire material is known in the art for making tires, as disclosed by Nakamura (US 6,294,119).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) in view of Nakamura (US 6,294,119) and Sivakumar et al. (US 2021/0225088) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Kono et al. (US 2020/0408706) and Ripple (US 2013/0154144).
Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077), Nakamura (US 6,294,119) and Sivakumar et al. (US 2021/0225088) do not disclose the limitations of claim 9.
Kono et al. (US 2020/0408706) discloses calculating thickness or mass (weight) of a film based on the intensity of measured X-rays (image data) [0013].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further modify the method wherein mass of the tire member is the predetermined quality because Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) discloses that alternatively weight (mass) may be substituted for a dimension (e.g., thickness) (col. 2, lines 36-39) and because Kono et al. (US 2020/0408706) discloses that measured X-ray intensity (transmission) can be correlated to thickness or mass.
Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) further discloses determining a distribution in the longitudinal
direction of a cross-sectional area of the tire member by applying a laser beam to the tire member being
conveyed in the longitudinal direction (col. 4, lines 15-34; devices used to measure peak dimensions,
including the thickness and width (i.e., cross-section) of the extrusion profile (tire member) as it moves
in the longitudinal direction include sensors 26 which can be laser devices; note that sensors 26'
correspond to sensors 26).
However, Stevenson et al. (US5,128,077) does not disclose receiving reflected light reflected on
an outer surface of the tire member.
Ripple (US 2013/0154144) discloses a method of manufacturing a tire member [0001], wherein
a distribution in the longitudinal direction of a cross-sectional area of the tire member 132 is determined
by applying a laser beam 122 to the tire member 132 being conveyed in the longitudinal direction and
receiving reflected light 136 reflected on an outer surface of the tire member 132 (fig. 8; [0019)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to further modify the method by receiving reflected light reflected on an outer surface of the tire
member, as disclosed by Ripple (US 2013/0154144), because such a modification is known in the art and
would provide an alternative configuration for determining a distribution in the longitudinal direction of
a cross-sectional area of the tire member.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) in view of Nakamura (US 6,294,119) and Sivakumar et al. (US 2021/0225088) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Kono et al. (US 2020/0408706), Ripple (US 2013/0154144), Kim et al. (US 2019/0080943) and Anders et al. (US 5,843,349).
Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077), Nakamura (US 6,294,119) and Sivakumar et al. (US 2021/0225088) do not disclose the limitations of claim 10.
Kono et al. (US 2020/0408706) discloses calculating thickness or mass (weight) of a film based on the intensity of measured X-rays (image data) [0013].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further modify the method wherein mass of the tire member is the predetermined quality because Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) discloses that alternatively weight (mass) may be substituted for a dimension (e.g., thickness) (col. 2, lines 36-39) and because Kono et al. (US 2020/0408706) discloses that measured X-ray intensity (transmission) can be correlated to thickness or mass.
Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) further discloses determining a distribution in the longitudinal direction of a cross-sectional area of the tire member by applying a laser beam to the tire member being conveyed in the longitudinal direction (col. 4, lines 15-34; devices used to measure peak dimensions, including the thickness and width (i.e., cross-section) of the extrusion profile (tire member) as it moves in the longitudinal direction include sensors 26 which can be laser devices; note that sensors 26' correspond to sensors 26).
However, Stevenson et al. (US5,128,077) does not disclose receiving reflected light reflected on an outer surface of the tire member.
Ripple (US 2013/0154144) discloses a method of manufacturing a tire member [0001], wherein a distribution in the longitudinal direction of a cross-sectional area of the tire member 132 is determined by applying a laser beam 122 to the tire member 132 being conveyed in the longitudinal direction and receiving reflected light 136 reflected on an outer surface of the tire member 132 (fig. 8; [0019)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further modify the method by receiving reflected light reflected on an outer surface of the tire member, as disclosed by Ripple (US 2013/0154144), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for determining a distribution in the longitudinal direction of a cross-sectional area of the tire member.
Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) further discloses determining a distribution in the longitudinal
direction of a cross-sectional area of at least one type of the constituent members unevenly distributed
on a back surface side of the tire member by transmitting an electromagnetic wave (laser) toward the
tire member (fig. 2 shows at least one type of the constituent members can be unevenly distributed on a
back surface side of the tire member; col. 4, lines 15-34; devices used to measure peak dimensions,
including the thickness and width (i.e., cross-section) of the extrusion profile (tire member) as it moves
in the longitudinal direction include sensors 26 which can be laser devices; note that sensors 26'
correspond to sensors 26).
However, Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) does not disclose transmitting an electromagnetic
wave having a terahertz frequency from the back surface side of the tire member being conveyed in the
longitudinal direction toward the tire member and detecting a reflected wave entering the tire member
and reflected thereon.
Kim et al. (US 2019/0080943) discloses a method for measuring the dimensions of an object,
wherein a distribution in a longitudinal direction of a cross-sectional area of the object is determined by
transmitting an electromagnetic wave having a terahertz frequency from an emitter 210 on a side of the
object being conveyed by transporter 300 in the longitudinal direction toward the object and detecting
by detector 220 a reflected wave entering the object and reflected thereon (figs. 1-2; [0027]-[0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to further modify the method wherein a distribution in a longitudinal direction of a cross-
sectional area of the at least one type of the constituent members is determined by transmitting an
electromagnetic wave having a terahertz frequency from a side of the tire member being conveyed in
the longitudinal direction toward the tire member and detecting a reflected wave entering the tire
member and reflected thereon because such a method of measuring the dimensions of an object is
known in the dimension measuring art, as disclosed by Kim et al. (US 2019/0080943), and would provide
an alternative configuration for measuring dimensions and because Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077)
discloses that lasers can be used for measuring dimensions, as mentioned above. Note that Kim et al.
(US 2019/0080943) discloses that lasers having a terahertz frequency can be used for transmitting the electromagnetic wave [0032]. Furthermore, note that Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) discloses that
plural measurement means can be used (col. 2, lines 11-13; col. 3, lines 2-5; col. 4, lines 32-34).
As to transmitting from the back surface side of the tire member, Anders et al. (US 5,843,349)
discloses a method for manufacturing a tire member (col. 6, lines 5-60), means for measuring width of
the tire member (cameras 25, 26) being on a top surface side and a back surface side of the tire member
(fig. 1; col. 8, lines 8-12). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time
the invention was made, to further modify the method by transmitting the electromagnetic wave from
the back surface side because it is known in the art that means for measuring dimensions can be on a
top surface side and a back surface side of the tire member, as disclosed by Anders et al. US 5,843,349).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) in view of Nakamura (US 6,294,119) and Sivakumar et al. (US 2021/0225088) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Allport JS 4,037,104).
Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077), Nakamura (US 6,294,119) and Sivakumar et al. (US 2021/0225088) do not disclose the limitations of claim 11.
Allport (US 4,037,104) discloses an X-ray inspection device for acquiring the image data (col. 3,
lines 20-33, the measured transmission radiation intensity through a material (sheet)), including an
irradiation unit 15 (for applying X-rays) and a light receiving unit 16 (fig. 1) (or alternatively an
irradiation unit 15' and a light receiving unit 16', 18', fig. 2) which are disposed vertically sandwiching a
material, the irradiation unit applies the X-rays and the X-rays transmitted through the material are
received by the light receiving unit, the X-ray inspection device is used to determine the thickness of the
material (figs. 1-2; col. 2, line 54, to col. 7, line 66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to further modify the method with an X-ray inspection device, as disclosed by Allport (US
4,037,104), because such a modification is known in the X-ray art and would provide a means for applying X-rays to acquire image data for determining the thickness of a material. Stevenson et al. (US
5,128,077) discloses an x-ray measuring device 40 for determining the material thickness, as mentioned
above. The X-ray inspection device of Allport (US 4,037,104) would be an alternative means for
determining a material thickness to the x-ray measuring device of Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) in view of Nakamura (US 6,294,119) and Sivakumar et al. (US 2021/0225088) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Allport (US 4,037,104).
Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077), Nakamura (US 6,294,119) and Sivakumar et al. (US 2021/0225088) do not disclose the limitations of claim 12.
Allport (US 4,037,104) discloses an X-ray inspection device for acquiring the image data (col. 3,
lines 20-33, the measured transmission radiation intensity through a material (sheet 10)), including an
irradiation unit 15 (for applying X-rays) and a light receiving unit 16 (fig. 1) (or alternatively an
irradiation unit 15' and a light receiving unit 16', 18', fig. 2) which are disposed vertically sandwiching a
material, the irradiation unit applies the X-rays, and the X-rays transmitted through the material are
received by the light receiving unit, the X-ray inspection device is used to determine the thickness of the
material (figs. 1-2; col. 2, line 54, to col. 7, line 66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to further modify the X-ray inspection device with an X-ray inspection device, as disclosed by
Allport (US 4,037,104), because such a modification is known in the X-ray art and would provide an
alternative means for determining the thickness of a material.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) in view of Nakamura (US 6,294,119) and Sivakumar et al. (US 2021/0225088) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Kono et al. (US 2020/0408706) and Cho (US 4,803,715).
Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077), Nakamura (US 6,294,119) and Sivakumar et al. (US 2021/0225088) do not disclose all the limitations of claim 14.
Kono et al. (US 2020/0408706) discloses calculating thickness or mass (weight) of a film based on the intensity of measured X-rays (image data) [0013].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further modify the method wherein mass of the tire member is the predetermined quality because Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) discloses that alternatively weight (mass) may be substituted for a dimension (e.g., thickness) (col. 2, lines 36-39) and because Kono et al. (US 2020/0408706) discloses that measured X-ray intensity (transmission) can be correlated to thickness or mass.
Cho (US 4,803,715) discloses a method and system of measuring the thickness of a sheet that is in motion in a longitudinal direction during continuous production thereof, wherein image data of a large number of samples of the sheet is acquired, thickness data per unit length of each of the samples is acquired, an estimation model which estimates the thickness per unit length of the predetermined length range corresponding to the image data is generated from the image data acquired as the inspection object by performing learning on the image data and the thickness data of each of the samples as training data (col. 1, line 7, to col. 2, line 34; the method and system is typically calibrated by measuring the transmittance (image data) for several samples of known composition but varying thickness, and using the measurements to derive values for the polynomial function. If the sheet to be measured has a composition that is known and uniform, the value of "d" is known and the transmittance of the sheet can be measured to produce, by appropriate manipulation of Equation 2, a measurement of the sheet thickness; in other words, calibration (learning) occurs when the measured transmittances (training image data) of samples are correlated to the known thicknesses (training thickness data) of the samples, so that later the thickness of a produced sheet (not a sample) can be determined (estimation model) from a measured transmittance of the produced sheet).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further modify the method, wherein the image data of a large number of samples of the sheet is acquired, thickness data per unit length of each of the samples is acquired, an estimation model which estimates the thickness per unit length of the predetermined length range corresponding to the image data is generated from the image data acquired as the inspection object by performing learning on the image data and the thickness data of each of the samples as training data, as disclosed by Cho (US 4,803,715) because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for determining thickness; and to further modify the method wherein mass is used instead of thickness because Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) discloses that alternatively weight (mass) may be substituted for a dimension (e.g., thickness) (col. 2, lines 36-39) and/or because Kono et al. (US 2020/0408706) discloses that measured X-ray intensity (transmission) can be correlated to thickness or mass. In view of such combination, in acquiring a distribution of the mass of the tire member in the longitudinal direction while conveying the tire member in the longitudinal direction, each piece of the image data acquired would be input to the estimation model and calculate mass per unit length of each of the predetermined length range.
As to “machine learning”, such a modification is known in the art as disclosed by Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) further discloses the method wherein the (col. 2, line 3, to col. 3, line 5; col. 6, lines 11-59; a digital computer may be used for data acquisition (machine learning) and calculation of screw speeds based upon dimensional values using experimentally determined constants characteristic of the extruders and the die; the data base in a computer includes experimentally determined constants (i.e., from experimental samples) dependent on the operating conditions of the extruders, together with the mass absorption coefficients of the materials being extruded; the thicknesses are calculated (via an estimation model).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) in view of Nakamura (US 6,294,119) and Sivakumar et al. (US 2021/0225088) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Ripple (US 2013/0154144), Kim et al. (US 2019/0080943) and Anders et al. (US 5,843,349).
Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) further discloses a plurality of sensors 26 for measuring the dimensions of the tire member (col. 4, lines 15-17), additional sensors may also be used (col. 4, lines 32-34), and a profile sensor determining a distribution in the longitudinal direction of a cross-sectional area of the tire member by applying a laser beam to the tire member being conveyed in the longitudinal direction (col. 4, lines 15-34; devices (profile sensor) used to measure peak dimensions, including the thickness and width (i.e., cross-section) of the extrusion profile (tire member) as it moves in the longitudinal direction include sensors 26 which can be laser devices; note that sensors 26' correspond to sensors 26).
However, Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) does not disclose receiving reflected light reflected on
an outer surface of the tire member.
Ripple (US 2013/0154144) discloses a system of manufacturing a tire member [0001] including a profile sensor 134, 138, 140 determining a distribution in the longitudinal direction of a cross-sectional area of the tire member 132 by applying a laser beam 122 to the tire member 132 being conveyed in the longitudinal direction and receiving reflected light 136 reflected on an outer surface of the tire member 132 (fig. 8; [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to further modify the profile sensor with a profile sensor, as disclosed by Ripple (US 2013/0154144), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for determining a distribution in the longitudinal direction of a cross-sectional area of the tire member.
Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) further discloses a wave measuring device determining a distribution in the longitudinal direction of a cross-sectional area of at least one type of the constituent members unevenly distributed on a back surface side of the tire member by transmitting an electromagnetic wave (laser) toward the tire member (fig. 2 shows at least one type of the constituent members can be unevenly distributed on a back surface side of the tire member; col. 4, lines 15-34; devices used to measure peak dimensions, including the thickness and width (i.e., cross-section) of the extrusion profile (tire member) as it moves in the longitudinal direction include sensors (wave measuring device) for laser devices).
However, Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) does not disclose transmitting an electromagnetic
wave having a terahertz frequency from the back surface side of the tire member being conveyed in the
longitudinal direction toward the tire member and detecting a reflected wave entering the tire member
and reflected thereon.
Kim et al. (US 2019/0080943) discloses a system for measuring the dimensions of an object including a terahertz wave measuring device determining a distribution in a longitudinal direction of a cross-sectional area of the object by transmitting an electromagnetic wave having a terahertz frequency from an emitter 210 on a side of the object being conveyed by transporter 300 in the longitudinal direction toward the object and detecting by detector 220 a reflected wave entering the object and reflected thereon (figs. 1-2; [0003], [0027]-[0032]).
As mentioned above, Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) discloses a plurality of sensors, including additional sensors, for measuring the dimensions of the tire member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further modify the plurality of sensors with a terahertz wave measuring device, as disclosed by Kim et al. (US 2019/0080943), because such a modification is known in the dimension measuring art and would provide an alternative configuration for measuring dimensions and because Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077)
discloses that additional sensors for measuring dimensions can be used (col. 2, lines 11-13; col. 3, lines 2-5; col. 4, lines 32-34). Note that Kim et al. (US 2019/0080943) discloses that lasers having a terahertz frequency can be used for transmitting an electromagnetic wave [0032].
As to transmitting from the back surface side of the tire member, Anders et al. (US 5,843,349)
discloses a system for manufacturing a tire member (col. 6, lines 5-60), means for measuring width of
the tire member (cameras 25, 26) being on a top surface side and a back surface side of the tire member
(fig. 1; col. 8, lines 8-12). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time
the invention was made, to further modify the system by transmitting the electromagnetic wave from
the back surface side because it is known in the art that means for measuring dimensions can be on a
top surface side and a back surface side of the tire member, as disclosed by Anders et al. US 5,843,349).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) in view of Nakamura (US 6,294,119) and Sivakumar et al. (US 2021/0225088) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Ripple (US 2013/0154144), Kim et al. (US 2019/0080943), Anders et al. (US 5,843,349) and Allport (US 4,037,104).
Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) further discloses a plurality of sensors 26 for measuring the dimensions of the tire member (col. 4, lines 15-17), additional sensors may also be used (col. 4, lines 32-34), and a profile sensor determining a distribution in the longitudinal direction of a cross-sectional area of the tire member by applying a laser beam to the tire member being conveyed in the longitudinal direction (col. 4, lines 15-34; devices (profile sensor) used to measure peak dimensions, including the thickness and width (i.e., cross-section) of the extrusion profile (tire member) as it moves in the longitudinal direction include sensors 26 which can be laser devices; note that sensors 26' correspond to sensors 26).
However, Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) does not disclose receiving reflected light reflected on
an outer surface of the tire member.
Ripple (US 2013/0154144) discloses a system of manufacturing a tire member [0001] including a profile sensor 134, 138, 140 determining a distribution in the longitudinal direction of a cross-sectional area of the tire member 132 by applying a laser beam 122 to the tire member 132 being conveyed in the longitudinal direction and receiving reflected light 136 reflected on an outer surface of the tire member 132 (fig. 8; [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to further modify the profile sensor with a profile sensor, as disclosed by Ripple (US 2013/0154144), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for determining a distribution in the longitudinal direction of a cross-sectional area of the tire member.
Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) further discloses a wave measuring device determining a distribution in the longitudinal direction of a cross-sectional area of at least one type of the constituent members unevenly distributed on a back surface side of the tire member by transmitting an electromagnetic wave (laser) toward the tire member (fig. 2 shows at least one type of the constituent members can be unevenly distributed on a back surface side of the tire member; col. 4, lines 15-34; devices used to measure peak dimensions, including the thickness and width (i.e., cross-section) of the extrusion profile (tire member) as it moves in the longitudinal direction include sensors (wave measuring device) for laser devices).
However, Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) does not disclose transmitting an electromagnetic
wave having a terahertz frequency from the back surface side of the tire member being conveyed in the
longitudinal direction toward the tire member and detecting a reflected wave entering the tire member
and reflected thereon.
Kim et al. (US 2019/0080943) discloses a system for measuring the dimensions of an object including a terahertz wave measuring device determining a distribution in a longitudinal direction of a cross-sectional area of the object by transmitting an electromagnetic wave having a terahertz frequency from an emitter 210 on a side of the object being conveyed by transporter 300 in the longitudinal direction toward the object and detecting by detector 220 a reflected wave entering the object and reflected thereon (figs. 1-2; [0003], [0027]-[0032]).
As mentioned above, Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) discloses a plurality of sensors, including additional sensors, for measuring the dimensions of the tire member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further modify the plurality of sensors with a terahertz wave measuring device, as disclosed by Kim et al. (US 2019/0080943), because such a modification is known in the dimension measuring art and would provide an alternative configuration for measuring dimensions and because Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077)
discloses that additional sensors for measuring dimensions can be used (col. 2, lines 11-13; col. 3, lines 2-5; col. 4, lines 32-34). Note that Kim et al. (US 2019/0080943) discloses that lasers having a terahertz frequency can be used for transmitting an electromagnetic wave [0032].
As to transmitting from the back surface side of the tire member, Anders et al. (US 5,843,349)
discloses a system for manufacturing a tire member (col. 6, lines 5-60), means for measuring width of
the tire member (cameras 25, 26) being on a top surface side and a back surface side of the tire member
(fig. 1; col. 8, lines 8-12). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time
the invention was made, to further modify the system by transmitting the electromagnetic wave from
the back surface side because it is known in the art that means for measuring dimensions can be on a
top surface side and a back surface side of the tire member, as disclosed by Anders et al. US 5,843,349).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further modify the system wherein there are groups of the X-ray inspection device, the profile sensor and the terahertz wave measuring device because Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) discloses that the dimensions for each component of the multi-component tire member can be measured (col. 2, lines 3-13; and thus it would be obvious to have groups of sensors, wherein each group is assigned to measure the dimensions of one of the components); and to further modify the system wherein groups of the X-ray inspection device, the profile sensor and the terahertz wave measuring device are disposed at two positions separated from each other in the longitudinal direction of the conveying device because Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) further discloses that the sensors 26, 26’ can be placed at positions separated from each other in a longitudinal direction of movement of the tire member (figs. 1, 3) and because Allport (US 4,037,104) discloses a system of measuring a thickness of a moving sheet 10 including a first X-ray inspection device 15, 16 and a second X-ray inspection device 17, 18 disposed at two positions separated from each other in a longitudinal direction of movement of the sheet (fig. 1; col. 2, line 54, to col. 7, line 39). Thus, it would be further obvious that the groups of sensors can be placed at various locations, and locating groups of the X-ray inspection device, the profile sensor and the terahertz wave measuring device at two positions separated from each other in the longitudinal direction of the conveying device would have been in view of the location teachings of Stevenson et al. (US 5,128,077) and Allport (US 4,037,104).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Stevenson is cited as allegedly disclosing the use of x-rays to
measure dimensions. However, the text of Stevenson does not disclose or suggest that the use of x-rays or otherwise the measurement of the extruded members is continuous. It may be that the measurements are taken at intervals or the like rather than continuously. Because Stevenson does not disclose the continuous limitations of claim 1, and the Office Action has not stated why it would be obvious to perform Stevenson's method continuously, obviousness has not been established.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Stevenson, it would be inherent that applying X-rays is continuous over a predetermined length range because the tire member (extrudate) E’ is continuously extruded (col. 3, lines 63-66) and because as shown in fig. 3 the X-ray measuring device can only take a measurement (a continuous measurement) over a portion of the length (defining a predetermined length range) of the tire member E' as the tire member E’ continuously moves (is extruded) along the longitudinal direction. In other words, the X-rays are continuously applied between the beginning of measurement to the end of measurement, and the predetermined length range of the tire member E’ is defined from the beginning point (on the tire member) where the beginning measurement is made to the downstream point (since the tire member is continuously moving past the X-ray measuring device 40) where the end of measurement is made. Stevenson discloses (p. 3, lines 24-29) "As the calculations performed by the computer upon receiving the actual extrudate profile measurements are extremely rapid, the comparison of actual measurements to desired measurements to obtain the adjustment increment, may be performed continuously, or at any interval the operator may select." The actual extrudate profile measurements must be performed continuously if the comparison of actual measurements to desired measurements is "performed continuously". In other words, as the tire member E’ moves downstream relative to the X-ray measuring device 40, if the downstream point (where the end of measurement is made for a first predetermined length range of the tire member E’) becomes the beginning point where the beginning measurement is made for the next upstream predetermined length range of the tire member E’ (upstream of the first predetermined length), then the comparison of actual measurements to desired measurements would be performed continuously AND the image data of the predetermined length range would be acquired continuous without gaps in the longitudinal direction. If the downstream point (where the end of measurement is made for a first predetermined length range of the tire member E’) is spaced from the beginning point where the beginning measurement is made for the next upstream predetermined length range of the tire member E’ (upstream of the first predetermined length), then the comparison of actual measurements to desired measurements would be performed at an interval.
Additionally, as quoted above, claim 1 requires acquiring image data continuously without gaps. Claim 1 also describes "determining, based on contrast in each piece of the image data acquired, a magnitude of variation in the predetermined quality of the tire member in the longitudinal direction." The Office Action states that it is obvious, if not inherent, that x-ray transmission data would produce image-based data. Applicant does not concede this is true. However, for the sake of argument, even if the Office's assertions are taken as true (and the Office has provided no evidence in support of the
assertion and thus has not established obviousness), this still would not render obvious or inherently include continuous image data without gaps. Furthermore, even if Stevenson's x-rays produce some image data, it is complete speculation as to how the image data is processed to determine measurements. Stevenson does not disclose or suggest determining a magnitude of variation based on contrast. The Office Action has not addressed what is claimed and has provided no support for the conclusions.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Stevenson reading on the “image data” and “without gaps” claim limitations is mentioned above. As mentioned above, if the comparison of actual measurements to desired measurements is "performed continuously", the actual measurements are performed continuously (i.e., without gaps) in order to continuously compare the actual measurements to desired measurements. Stevenson discloses (col. 6, lines 30-54) that the thickness measurement is calculated using "the material's transmitted intensity (I) measured from the transmission device 40". As mentioned above, it is inherent that X-ray transmission data based on transmission absorption intensities, as disclosed by Stevenson, is imaged based data. As shown in fig. 3 of Stevenson, an X-ray measuring device 40 measures X-rays applied across the width of the tire member E’. Thus, the X-ray transmission data is collected is along the width and length (longitudinal direction). Such X-ray transmission data is image data because such data is capable of producing an image showing the transmission absorption intensities along the width and length of the tire member. This inherency is further confirmed by Sivakumar et al. (US 2021/0225088) who discloses that it is possible to form an image from recorded X-ray intensities [0004]). As to the magnitude of variation, in Stevenson, the thickness is calculated using "the material's transmitted intensity" which is measured as mentioned above. Thus, the measured transmission absorption intensities (which have contrast (difference) when the intensities are different, such as when the thickness changes) are used to determine a magnitude of variation (magnitude of change) in the thickness (predetermined quality) of the constituent members in the longitudinal direction; the difference in thicknesses (magnitude of variation) is made between the measured thickness and the specified (desired) thickness (col. 3, lines 24-29; col. 6, lines 11-53)).
Applicant argues, further, even if x-ray transmission can produce image data, Stevenson explicitly does not use or require image data. Instead, Stevenson discloses to use an incident beam intensity and a material's transmitted intensity in a specified equation to calculate the material thickness (see Stevenson at Col. 6, lines 31-63). Stevenson does not create or capture images and only inputs the measured intensities into the formula to calculate the thickness. Because Stevenson does not create or capture images, Stevenson necessarily does not determine a magnitude of variation based on contrast in image data.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments relative to creating or capturing images is moot because they are not commensurate in scope with the instant claims. The instant claims require acquiring image data. The "image data" limitations are discussed above. As mentioned above, the measured material intensities read on "image data", and different measured intensities (which are different when the thicknesses are different) would have contrast enabling the determination of a magnitude of variation of the thickness (predetermined quality). See Stevenson (col. 6, lines 11-53).
Applicant argues that the Response to Arguments in the Office Action responds that Stevenson discloses extremely rapid calculations upon receipt of measurements and that comparison of measurements to obtain the adjustment increment can be performed continuously or at any interval. However, a continuous comparison is not a continuous application of x-rays or continuous measurements. The Office Action states that measurements must be performed continuously if the comparison is performed continuously but this is not true. Stevenson only discloses "rapid" calculations while disclosing "continuous" comparisons. In other words, "Comparison is performed continuously"
which is disclosed by Stevenson only means to "continuously compare the actual measurements
and desired measurements" and is not a continuous application of X-rays or continuous
measurements. Stevenson suggests to perform the comparisons continuously regardless of the
rate of acquisition of data, but the rate of calculation is neither disclosed nor suggested to be
continuous and the rate of calculation is not inherently or necessarily continuous. The Office's
interpretation of Stevenson is unsupported.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Stevenson, it would be inherent that applying X-rays is continuous over a predetermined length range because the tire member (extrudate) E’ is continuously extruded (col. 3, lines 63-66) and because as shown in fig. 3 the X-ray measuring device can only take a measurement (a continuous measurement) over a portion of the length (defining a predetermined length range) of the tire member E' as the tire member E’ continuously moves (is extruded) along the longitudinal direction. In other words, the X-rays are continuously applied between the beginning of measurement to the end of measurement, and the predetermined length range of the tire member E’ is defined from the beginning point (on the tire member) where the beginning measurement is made to the downstream point (since the tire member is continuously moving past the X-ray measuring device 40) where the end of measurement is made. Stevenson discloses (p. 3, lines 24-29) "As the calculations performed by the computer upon receiving the actual extrudate profile measurements are extremely rapid, the comparison of actual measurements to desired measurements to obtain the adjustment increment, may be performed continuously, or at any interval the operator may select." The actual extrudate profile measurements must be performed continuously if the comparison of actual measurements to desired measurements is "performed continuously". In other words, as the tire member E’ moves downstream relative to the X-ray measuring device 40, if the downstream point (where the end of measurement is made for a first predetermined length range of the tire member E’) becomes the beginning point where the beginning measurement is made for the next upstream predetermined length range of the tire member E’ (upstream of the first predetermined length), then the comparison of actual measurements to desired measurements would be performed continuously AND the image data of the predetermined length range would be acquired continuous without gaps in the longitudinal direction. If the downstream point (where the end of measurement is made for a first predetermined length range of the tire member E’) is spaced from the beginning point where the beginning measurement is made for the next upstream predetermined length range of the tire member E’ (upstream of the first predetermined length), then the comparison of actual measurements to desired measurements would be performed at an interval.
Applicant argues that the Response to Arguments further states that it would be obvious, if not inherent, that the x-ray transmission of Stevenson would produce image based data. However, Stevenson clearly does not disclose acquiring or using image data. It is well-known to detect X-rays
without creating image data. For example, it is well-known in the art to detect x-rays without
imaging, such as by using gas ionization detectors, solid state detectors (e.g., Perovskite
detectors), or silicon PN solar cells that produce a measurable signal, such as a current or charge,
instead of generating an image. Stevenson does not disclose to detect, generate or use any X-ray
images or X-ray image data. Therefore, it reasons that application of x-ray detection may be
used to detect x-ray signals without generating an image to obtain the described measurements.
The Office Action mentions Sivakumar (US 2021/0225088) as allegedly disclosing creating an
image using x-ray intensities as evidence that x-rays create an image, but Stevenson does not disclose imaging and it is not necessary or inherent for an image to be created in Stevenson, regardless of the disclosure of Sivakumar. Stevenson only discloses to merely detect X-ray transmittance data without creating image data. The Office Action states that the transmission intensity in a generated image of Stevenson would be used to determine a magnitude of variation in the thickness, but there is no evidence from Stevenson or Sivakumar to support this conclusion.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments relative to detecting, generating, creating or capturing images is moot because they are not commensurate in scope with the instant claims. As mentioned above, in Stevenson, X-ray measuring device 40 takes transmission measurements (col. 6, lines 11-30); it would be inherent that applying X-rays is continuous over a predetermined length range because the tire member (extrudate) E’ is continuously extruded (col. 3, lines 63-66) and because as shown in fig. 3 the X-ray measuring device can only take a measurement (a continuous measurement) over a portion of the length (defining a predetermined length range) of the tire member E' as the tire member E’ continuously moves (is extruded) along the longitudinal direction; in other words, the X-rays are continuously applied between the beginning of measurement to the end of measurement, and the predetermined length range of the tire member E’ is defined from the point (on the tire member) where the beginning measurement was made to the downstream point (since the tire member is continuously moving past the X-ray measuring device 40) where the end of measurement is made; note that it would be inherent that X-ray transmission data based on transmission absorption intensities (col. 6, lines 30-54, the material's transmitted intensity is measured) is image data; as shown in fig. 3, an X-ray measuring device 40 measures X-rays applied across the width of the tire member E’; thus, the X-ray transmission data is collected is along the width and length (longitudinal direction) of the tire member E’; thus, such data is image data because such data is capable of mapping (imaging) the transmission absorption intensities along the width and length of the tire member E’; this inherency is further confirmed by Sivakumar et al. (US 2021/0225088) who discloses that it is possible to form an image from recorded X-ray intensities [0004]. Applicant argues that it is well-known to detect X-rays
without creating image data. The Examiner agrees. However, Stevenson does not JUST detect X-rays. As mentioned above, Stevenson detects X-ray transmission absorption intensity data over the width and length of the time member, and such data is image data because such data is capable of mapping (imaging) the transmission absorption intensities along the width and length of the tire member.
Applicant argues that Stevenson describes in the cited text at col. 6, lines 30-54 with regard to FIG. 4 that dimensions of an extrudate are measured and at the same time an x-ray transmission
measurement is performed to determine the overall transmission absorption levels of materials in
the extrudate. Referring to Stevenson at Col. 2, lines 43-61, Stevenson describes dimensional
measurements and radiation transmission measurements are made separately but are coupled
together to determine conditions of the extruder/extrudate. The text at col. 6, lines 30-54
describes an equation which uses the measured dimensions and the transmission intensity to
determine a thickness of individual materials within the extrudate. In other words, the
transmission intensity is a number which is applied to a formula together with the measured
dimensions, material coefficients and the like to calculate a thickness of one of the materials,
from which a thickness of the other material can be calculated by subtracting the one material
thickness from the measured total thickness. To measure the dimensions of the overall extrudate,
Stevenson discloses to use a pneumatic, non-contacting, linear variable differential transformer
or a laser device. There is no description or suggestion in Stevenson of the use of x-ray images, any value in x-ray images, or how to determine a number representing an x-ray transmission
measurement from an image. However, using a detector which simply produces a signal without
creating an image would reasonably provide the transmission number for use in the Stevenson
formula. Otherwise, Stevenson is not reasonably enabled. Because Stevenson does not acquire
image data or describe how such image data would be used, either Stevenson must use a detector
without imaging and thus cannot render the present claims obvious or Stevenson is non-enabling
and cannot be relied on to determine obviousness of the present claims. In either scenario, the
claims cannot be considered obvious over Stevenson and the rejection should be withdrawn.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments relative to using x-ray images and creating an image is moot because they are not commensurate in scope with the instant claims. The instant claims require “image data”, not images. Steven discloses “image data”, as mentioned above.
Applicant argues that despite the error in the rejection, in an effort to advance prosecution of the claims, the claims have been amended. Stevenson does not disclose or suggest the amended limitations of claims 1 and 7 of "using contrast in each piece of the image data which resulted from subjecting each piece of the image data acquired to computational processing and analysis".
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. See prior art rejections above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach or reasonably suggest the method of claim 13, particularly wherein a transit doze of X-rays of each of the constituent members adjacent to each other in the width direction of the tire member is determined in advance, a reference range of the magnitude of the difference between the transit dozes of each of the constituent members at the boundary between each of the constituent members is set, and a width dimension of a specific one of the constituent members is calculated based on the reference range and contrast in the image data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH S LEYSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5061. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30pm.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 5712705343. 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.
/J.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744