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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “said image” in lines 13 and 19 should be written as –said at least one two-dimensional image— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “each one of the reference image” in line 17 should be written as –each one of the reference images— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the basis” in line 20 should be written as –[[the]]a basis— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the execution” in line 24 should be written as –[[the]]an execution — for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a), b), c)” in line 1 should be written as –a), b), and c)— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a’), b’), c’)” in line 11 should be written as –a’), b’), and c’)— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 37 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “said two-dimensional image” in line 1 should be written as –said at least one two-dimensional image — for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 38 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “Artificial Intelligence, AI, agent” in line 3 should be written as –Artificial Intelligence[[,]] (AI)[[,]] agent — for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 38 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “recognise presence” in line 4 should be written as –[[recognise]]recognize a presence— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 38 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “said two-dimensional image” in lines 6 and 7 should be written as –said at least one two-dimensional image — for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 38 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the junction zone” in line 7 should be written as –the at least one junction zone— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 39 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the basis” in line 3 should be written as –[[the]]a basis— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 46 is 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.
Regarding claim 46, where Applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “complex” in claim 46 is used by the claim to mean “a tire component,” while the accepted meaning is “a group or system of different things that are linked in a close or complicated way.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. It is unclear what structural tire component “a complex” is and what function it serves. Further clarification is requested. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will rely on the other listed components for satisfying the component limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 29-32 and 35-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blasko et al. (WO 2018226167) and optionally Krolczyk et al. (US 20160225128).
Regarding claim 29, Blasko discloses a process for building tyres for wheels of vehicles, comprising the following building operations: a) providing a first forming drum (Fig. 1: 1; Fig. 2: 2) configured to rotate about its central axis; b) winding around a radially external surface of said first forming drum a cut-to-size semifinished element, thereby forming a corresponding component of a tyre being processed, wherein said semifinished element has, after having been wound around said first forming drum, opposite ends juxtaposed with each other to form a junction zone (Figs. 3-9) (Pages 2-4: Summary of the Invention); c) repeating operation b) until completion of the building operations on said first forming drum (Figs. 3-9) (Pages 2-4: Summary of the Invention); wherein, during said building operations, a checking operation is performed on said tyre being processed, at least at the end of an operation b), said checking operation comprising: acquiring at least one two-dimensional image of said tyre being processed (Pages 2-4: Summary of the Invention: “The evaluation unit analyses pictures, high-resolution digital images of the semifinished green tyre and, based on the specified production parameters”); and identifying, in said image, at least one junction zone in a radially external position of said tyre being processed (Pages 2-4: Summary of the Invention: “The evaluation unit analyses pictures, high-resolution digital images of the semifinished green tyre and, based on the specified production parameters, checks … the splicing quality of individual layers and sends the analysed data to the production line control unit … OpenCV image processing methods can be used to perform edge detection and material presence checks.”).
Blasko further discloses an evaluation unit for analyzing the identified images, wherein the evaluation unit has an operating output fed to the operator panel and an action output fed the control unit of the building drum, and wherein the evaluation unit analyzes the images of the semifinished green tyre checks the splicing quality (i.e., junction zone) based on the specified production parameters (Pages 2-4: Summary of the Invention). Thereby, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that in order to evaluate the identified images at the splice (i.e., junction zone) to determine whether they are acceptable, there must be a reference in which to compare the identified images to determine if the splice/junction portion is acceptable or not acceptable. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, or alternatively find obvious, that the evaluation may be done in a limited number of ways: (1) by comparison to reference images; (2) by comparison to preset parameters; (3) by reliance on an algorithm using predetermined parameters and rules; (4) by comparison of a statistical model; or (5) by way of machine learning. In other words, there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions that a skilled artisan may choose from with a reasonable expectation of success. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that when there is a finite number of identified and predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options with his or her technical grasp. See MPEP 2144.04(II)(B). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the evaluation unit to: provide a plurality of reference images, wherein each reference image represents a junction zone type; compare said at least one identified junction zone with each one of the reference image; select, as a function of said comparison, a junction zone type corresponding to said at least one junction zone identified in said image; and classify said at least one identified junction zone on the basis of the selected junction zone type.
Blasko further discloses generating either a stop signal or a consent signal, wherein said stop signal causes said building operations to stop and said consent signal activates the execution of subsequent operations on said tyre being processed (Pages 2-4: Summary of the Invention: “The evaluation unit then sends a control pulse or a command to the control unit via a data bus to stop or to resume the production process.”).
Optionally, Krolczyk discloses a tire inspection method comprising taking an image of the tire and then comparing the acquired image with at least one stored reference image representing the desired shape in order to detect any deviations from the standard, and then sending an acceptance or rejection signal ([0007]-[0010], [0046]-[0048]). Although Krolczyk discloses the method is for inspection of a tire in general, rather than for a junction zone, Krolczyk discloses a method used in the tire art for obtaining images of a tire surface and then comparing those images to determine if the deviations are acceptable or unacceptable, similar to Blasko (Pages 1-2: Prior Art). In this manner, an operator does not need to be relied upon and thereby there is no risk that the operator may downgrade tires even though they are acceptable, and no risk that the operation of the inspection machines may be disrupted if the operator selects a tire that should not be accepted ([0004]-[0005]), similar to Blasko. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the evaluation unit of Blasko in view of the method taught by Krolczyk for the advantages discussed above so as to: provide a plurality of reference images, wherein each reference image represents a junction zone type; compare said at least one identified junction zone with each one of the reference image; select, as a function of said comparison, a junction zone type corresponding to said at least one junction zone identified in said image; classify said at least one identified junction zone on the basis of the selected junction zone type; and generating either a stop signal or a consent signal, wherein said stop signal causes said building operations to stop and said consent signal activates the execution of subsequent operations on said tyre being processed.
Regarding claim 30, Blasko further discloses said operations a), b), and c) produce, on said first forming drum, a crown sleeve (Pages 2-4: Summary of the Invention: “tyre building machine with the carcass (belt building)”).
Regarding claim 31, Blasko further discloses there may be two drums to perform the process (i.e., a PU drum and/or a shaping drum KM for the carcass and belt building operations) (Pages 2-4: Summary of the Invention). Accordingly, Blasko discloses executing the following building operations: a') providing a second forming drum rotating about its central axis; b') winding around a radially external surface of said second forming drum a further cut-to-size semifinished element thereby forming a corresponding further component of said tyre being processed, wherein said further cut-to-size semifinished element has, after having been wound around said second forming drum, further opposite ends juxtaposed with each other to form a junction zone; and c') repeating operation b') until completion of the building operations on said second forming drum, wherein said operations a'), b'), and c') produce, on said second forming drum, a carcass sleeve.
Regarding claim 32, Blasko further discloses said subsequent operations comprise assembling said carcass sleeve with said crown sleeve during an operation of shaping said tyre being processed (Pages 2-4: Summary of the Invention).
Regarding claim 35, Blasko further discloses executing, after a stop caused by said stop signal, a restoration operation on said tyre being processed (Pages 2-4: Summary of the Invention: “ The evaluation unit then sends a control pulse or a command to the control unit via a data bus to stop or to resume the production process. In addition, the evaluation unit informs the operator, through a wired or wireless communication system, about the analysis results, current state of the manufactured semi-finished product and about any other operator's operations, such as a manual adjustment of the splice, or continuing with the follow up production cycle.”).
Regarding claim 36, Blasko further discloses said restoration operation comprises one of: a manual intervention to repair the identified junction zone and make the tyre being processed suitable for the subsequent operations (Pages 2-4: Summary of the Invention: “ The evaluation unit then sends a control pulse or a command to the control unit via a data bus to stop or to resume the production process. In addition, the evaluation unit informs the operator, through a wired or wireless communication system, about the analysis results, current state of the manufactured semi-finished product and about any other operator's operations, such as a manual adjustment of the splice, or continuing with the follow up production cycle.”).
Regarding claim 37, Blasko further discloses said two-dimensional image is acquired in the visible spectrum (Pages 2-4: Summary of the Invention: “camera operating in the visible, infrared and ultraviolet light spectrum”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33-34 and 38-46 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 33, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 29-33. In particular, the limitations “the assembling of said carcass sleeve with said crown sleeve occurs on said second forming drum.”
Regarding claim 34, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 29-32 and 34. In particular, the limitations “transferring the carcass sleeve from said second forming drum to a shaping drum; transferring the crown sleeve from said first forming drum to said shaping drum; and executing the shaping operation on said shaping drum.”
Regarding claim 38, no prior art of record is considered to teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claims 29-32 and 35-38. In particular, the limitations “identifying said at least one junction zone comprises: training a first Artificial Intelligence, Al, agent with a multiplicity of training images, each one representing a different junction zone, so that the first Al agent can recognize presence of a junction zone; and activating the trained first Al agent so that it operates on said two-dimensional image and identifies, in said two-dimensional image, the junction zone.”
Claims 39-46 are allowable by dependence on claim 38.
The closest prior art of record is considered to be Blasko et al. (WO 2018226167) and Krolczyk et al. (US 20160225128).
Blasko, optionally in view of Krolczyk, discloses the limitations of claims 29-32 and 35-37 as discussed above. Blasko further discloses that the carcass and belt (i.e., crown sleeve) are formed and assembled on the building drum and then moved to the shaping on the shaping drum (Pages 2-4: Summary of the Invention). In other words, Blasko does not teach or suggest either: the assembling of said carcass sleeve with said crown sleeve occurs on said second forming drum; or transferring the carcass sleeve from said second forming drum to a shaping drum; transferring the crown sleeve from said first forming drum to said shaping drum; and executing the shaping operation on said shaping drum. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not have found it obvious to modify Blasko contrary to its express disclosure, especially without a motivation or teaching to do so.
Furthermore, Blasko does not teach or suggest “identifying said at least one junction zone comprises: training a first Artificial Intelligence, Al, agent with a multiplicity of training images, each one representing a different junction zone, so that the first Al agent can recognize presence of a junction zone; and activating the trained first Al agent so that it operates on said two-dimensional image and identifies, in said two-dimensional image, the junction zone.” As no prior art of record teaches or suggests training and using an AI agent, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not have found it obvious to modify Blasko to include such claimed steps.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakamura (JP 2004009339, see machine translation) discloses a process for building tyres for wheels of vehicles, comprising the following building operations: a) providing a first forming drum (Fig. 1: 2) configured to rotate about its central axis (Fig. 1); b) winding around a radially external surface of said first forming drum (Fig. 1: 2) a cut-to-size semifinished element (Fig. 1: 3A, 3B, 3c), thereby forming a corresponding component of a tyre being processed, wherein said semifinished element has, after having been wound around said first forming drum, opposite ends juxtaposed with each other to form a junction zone (Fig. 1: 3Aa, 3Bb, 3Cc) ([0008], [0019], [0025]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEDEF PAQUETTE whose telephone number is (571) 272-5031. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST - 4:00 PM EST.
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, KATELYN SMITH can be reached on (571) 270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. The fax phone number for the examiner is (571) 273-5031.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
