US 11002639

I'll search for this specific patent number across USPTO and CAFC sources.

Let me run a few more targeted searches to confirm there's no litigation or appeal activity for this specific number.

US Patent 11,002,639 B2 — Verified Summary

Sourcing note: No CAFC 2026 docket entry or USPTO litigation/PTAB proceeding matching 11002639 appeared in any search result. Searches for that number returned only the patent itself plus unrelated CAFC 2026 activity (e.g., Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. Onesta IP, LLC, No. 2026-1338, order dated Apr. 20, 2026; and Toyo Tire design/trade-dress appeals involving USD626913S in Toyo Tire v. Svizz-One, No. 22-1817). I could not directly query PACER/Patent Center, so treat "no appeal found" as no evidence of one, not as proof of absence.

Bibliographic data

Abstract (verbatim)

"A tire distortion detection method includes a first step of forming a portion to be detected on a surface of an inner liner, a second step of detecting the portion to be detected in any two states from a formation of a product tire from a tire component including the inner liner to a change for a load condition on the product tire, and a third step of comparing positions of the portions to be detected in the two states obtained in the second step."

Independent claim 1 — plain language

Claim 1 is the only independent claim; claims 2–20 all depend (directly or indirectly) from it. In plain terms:

1. Mark it: create a detectable marker ("portion to be detected") on the surface of the inner liner — i.e., the tire's inner surface.
2. Look twice: detect that marker in any two states, where the two states are drawn from the continuum running from (a) formation of the finished product tire out of the uncured tire component that includes the inner liner, through (b) changes in the load condition on the finished tire.
3. Compare: compare the marker positions in the two states to derive a change in position of the marker.
4. Conclude distortion: detect distortion of the inner liner based on that position change.

This fourth step is notable: the abstract and the "Summary" section recite only three steps, but the granted claim 1 adds an explicit fourth step of detecting a distortion of the inner liner on the basis of the change. Anyone relying on the abstract alone would under-read the claim scope.

Dependent claim groupings

Specification highlights (context for the claims)

• The disclosed apparatus (FIGS. 2–4) is a tire support with a longitudinal load application mechanism (19A/19B) and a lateral load application member (20), plus a load cell (22); the support plate (23) is made of X-ray-transmissive material such as wood or acrylic.
• Detection is preferably a stereo camera (43) mounted inside the tire/wheel cavity; position changes are computed by digital image correlation (DIC) or sampling moiré. Alternatives: X-ray CT (metal marker, e.g., copper, density 6–10 g/cm³, thickness 0.1–10 mm, preferably ≤1 mm; density × thickness 0.1–50, preferably 0.1–10) or a laser/optical displacement meter (using molded groove/ridge features).
• Distortion may be assessed at any two of eleven enumerated states, including green tire, inflated, longitudinal load, lateral load, front-rear load, free rolling, braking, driving, and cornering (slip angle).
• The document also cites a sibling application's prosecution (U.S. Appl. No. 16/390,507) in its IDS non-patent citations, and lists related family publications JP2019196911A and US20190339178A1.

Uncertainty / caveats

• I found no authoritative evidence of any CAFC 2026 appeal, district court suit, or PTAB proceeding involving US 11,002,639. Absence of search hits is not confirmation of absence; a direct PACER and USPTO Patent Center query would be required to say so definitively.
• Bibliographic values above come from the Google Patents record for the patent and are reproduced literally (e.g., the assignment effective date of 2019-04-04 vs. recording date of 2019-04-22). "Anticipated expiration 2039-04-22" is Google's assumption, not an official USPTO determination.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 11,002,639 across patent litigation databases.

Initial searches returned unrelated documents (e.g., an EP application number and a Taiwanese literature bulletin). Let me query patent litigation databases directly.

Searches are returning unrelated results (Toyo tire design-patent/ITC litigation from 2013-2014, which concerns different patents). Let me query the litigation portals directly with tighter parameters.

Litigation Search Report — U.S. Patent No. 11,002,639

Bottom line

I found no litigation of any kind involving U.S. Patent No. 11,002,639. No district court case, no ITC Section 337 investigation, no PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR/CBM), and no Federal Circuit or other appellate proceeding asserting or challenging this patent has surfaced in my searches.

Because you asked for a per-case table, here is the complete record of what I found:

What I searched and what I did not find

• I searched patent-litigation aggregators (Unified Patents litigation portal caselist, Docket Alarm, PTAB docket materials, CourtListener-hosted RECAP documents) and general web sources for the identifiers "11002639," "11,002,639," and "US11002639."
• Zero hits tied to U.S. Patent 11,002,639.

Identifiers that were not auto-corrected and not conflated

Two search results superficially matched the string "11002639" but are different identifiers and are expressly excluded from the table above:

1. EP 11002639.0 — a European patent application number ([LG Electronics Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/LG%20Electronics%20Inc.), filed 30 March 2011, "G06T 19/00"). This is a European application serial number, not U.S. Patent 11,002,639. Unrelated.
2. A Taiwanese science-and-technology literature bulletin entry numbered 11002639 (2011, "生物技術新利器——CAS技術"). A bibliographic literature index number. Unrelated.

I also identified substantial Toyo Tire patent litigation (the 2013–2014 ITC design-patent investigation and companion district court cases, e.g., Toyo Tire & Rubber Co. v. Atturo Tire Corp.). Those cases do not involve the '639 patent — they asserted Toyo's design patents (D610,975; D610,976; D610,977; D615,031; D626,913; D653,200) and trade dress. They are included here only to explain why a "Toyo Tire patent litigation" search returns noise, and they are not attributable to the '639 patent.

Patent context relevant to litigation risk

• Patent: U.S. 11,002,639 B2, "Tire distortion detection method" — claims 1–20.
• Owner / assignee of record: Toyo Tire Corporation (assignment recorded 22 Apr 2019; inventor Koji Arakawa).
• Priority: 7 May 2018 (JP 2018-089101). Filed: 22 Apr 2019. Granted: 11 May 2021. Anticipated expiration: 22 Apr 2039.
• Family: JP7057206B2, CN110455209A, DE102019110469B4, US20190339166A1. No additional U.S. family members.
• Subject matter: a tire manufacturing/development test method (forming detectable marks on the inner-liner surface, imaging in two load states, comparing positions to detect strain). Notably, the specification cites competitor and third-party patents but no potentially-infringing commercial product is identified.
• Prosecution context (not litigation): The granted patent's file history reflects ordinary ex parte examination only — a non-final office action (mailed 2020-07-23), a response, and a notice of allowance (2021-03-04). The "Non-Patent Citations" citing office actions in U.S. Appl. No. 16/390,507 and in foreign counterpart CN/DE applications relate to a related but separate Toyo application and foreign prosecution — not to any adversarial proceeding against the '639 patent.
• Forward citations (e.g., JP7801557B2 to Yokohama Rubber; CN111307841B; CN117147187B) are later patent documents citing the '639 as prior art — these are citations, not litigation.

Evidentiary caveats — please read

• I do not have authenticated, subscription-level access to PACER, Docket Navigator, Lex Machina, or RPX/Unified Patents' full litigation database; those portals are heavily JavaScript-driven and their case lists are not fully retrievable via the search tool available to me. My conclusion rests on open-web searching plus docket documents surfaced indirectly.
• A null result is not a certification of non-litigation. Section 337 investigations, sealed complaints, and very recently filed cases (within days) may not yet be indexed. I also could not verify the absence of state-court or foreign (JP/CN/DE) enforcement actions with certainty; the counterparts JP7057206B2, CN110455209A, and DE102019110469B4 would be the vehicles for any non-U.S. enforcement.

Recommended verification steps before relying on this

1. Run a direct PACER/CM-ECF "party" and "patent" search against Toyo Tire Corporation and Toyo Tire Holdings of Americas for 2021–present, filtering for patent cases.
2. Query Docket Navigator or Lex Machina by patent number 11,002,639 (not the string "11002639," which picks up the EP and TW hits above).
3. Check the USPTO PTAB API / PTAB Portal for any IPR/PGR naming the '639 patent as the challenged patent.
4. Check the ITC EDIS database for any Section 337 complaint listing the '639 patent.

If any of those returns a hit, provide the case number and I will expand this report with the plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, filing date, and status.

Confidence: High that no reported, indexed litigation exists as of today's date (April 26, 2026). Moderate-to-high overall, given the access limitations noted above.

I'll verify the ODP default with targeted web searches before finalizing.

PTAB / AIA Trial Analysis — US 11,002,639 B2

Patent: US 11,002,639 B2 ("Tire distortion detection method")
Patent owner / current assignee: Toyo Tire Corporation (Toyo Tire & Rubber Co.)
Inventor: Koji Arakawa
Priority: 2018-05-07 (JP 2018-089101) · Filed: 2019-04-22 · Granted: 2021-05-11 · Anticipated expiration: 2039-04-22
Claim set: 20 claims; independent claim 1, all remaining claims depending from claims 1–4
Analysis date: 2026-09-29

---

Proceedings overview

There are zero (0) AIA trial proceedings on file against US 11,002,639 — the USPTO Open Data Portal ("PTAB proceedings on file") returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent, and targeted web searches surfaced no petitions, institution decisions, final written decisions, or Federal Circuit appeals; the breakdown by status is therefore not applicable, and the bottom-line defensive posture is the opposite of a hardened patent: this is an untested patent — no claim of the '639 patent has ever been challenged at the PTAB, none has been canceled, and no § 315(e) estoppel has been created against anyone. A defendant facing a demand letter on this patent gets no free invalidity win from the PTAB, but also inherits no petitioner's estoppel — the full prior-art field is open to it.

Caveat on confidence (stated plainly): the ODP ingest is a snapshot, and the source block notes it may lag. I could not find any petition number for this patent in four separate searches (patent number, patent + "IPR," Toyo Tire + IPR, and patent + "inter partes review"), and I have not identified any PTAB proceeding number, so I will not invent one. If a petition was filed within the last few weeks, it may not yet be indexed. Verify at PTAB E2E before relying on the "clean" status in a filing: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptab-web/#/search/patents

---

No proceedings on file

The structured PTAB-proceedings block supplied with this prompt is empty for US 11,002,639, and my searches produced no counter-evidence. Accordingly:

• No IPR (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319) has been filed or instituted.
• No PGR — and note the PGR window as a practical matter has closed. The patent granted 2021-05-11; the § 321(c) nine-month post-grant review window expired on or about 2022-02-11. Any future AIA challenge to this patent must therefore be an IPR (or, for older-style eligibility, a CBM, which is unavailable here — a tire-testing method claim is not a "covered business method," and the CBM program sunset on 2020-09-16 in any event).
• No FWD, no settlement/termination, no appeal. There is no PTAB E2E docket or CourtListener docket to link for this patent, because no proceeding exists to link to.

Note on a common mix-up when reading the Google Patents record: the "Non-Patent Citations" list on the '639 page mixes documents from two different Toyo applications filed the same day (2019-04-22). The U.S. Appl. No. 16/390,507, DE 102019110468.8, and CN 201910329209.5 items belong to the sibling divisional-family case (published as US 2019/0339178 A1, "Tire load application device and tire inspection device"), while DE 102019110469.6 and CN 201910328617.9 are the foreign counterparts of the '639 patent. None of these are AIA trial documents — they are foreign/prosecution office actions. Do not cite them as PTAB activity.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status. All 20 claims of US 11,002,639 stand issueless-but-untested: none is canceled, none has been held unpatentable, and none has been adjudicated valid by the PTAB. Independent claim 1 — the anchor for every other claim, since claims 2–20 all depend from claims 1–4 — recites a four-step method: (1) forming a "portion to be detected" on the inner-liner surface; (2) detecting it in "any two states from a formation of a product tire … to a change of a load condition"; (3) obtaining a change in the position of the portion; and (4) detecting a distortion of the inner liner on the basis of the change. Note that the granted claim 1 contains the fourth step ("obtaining a change" / "detecting a distortion"), which the specification's own summary of the invention phrases differently — evidence the claim was narrowed during prosecution to overcome art (non-final Office Action mailed 2020-07-23; response entered 2020-09-13; Notice of Allowance mailed 2021-03-04). That prosecution history is the most valuable non-PTAB source of claim-narrowing argument available to a defendant today, and it is fully public in the file wrapper.

Estoppel landscape — the good news for a defendant. Because no IPR/PGR was ever filed, § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to no one with respect to this patent. There is no petitioner-preclusion barring any invalidity ground, and there is no adverse FWD that would collaterally estop a district court from reaching the merits. Conversely, there is no petitioner-side win to borrow: a defendant cannot point to a canceled claim or an instituted ground and ride it. Practically, a defendant's invalidity case must be built from scratch on § 102/§ 103 art, plus § 101 and § 112 attacks that only a district court (not the PTAB) can fully hear. Also relevant: the sibling-family prosecutorial and foreign-office materials (the JP/DE/CN counterparts, JP 7057206 B2, CN 110455209 A, DE 102019110469 B4) are all family members of the same invention, not prior art to it — a common trap when assembling prior art from the citation list.

Pattern signals — there are none yet. No petitioner has filed once, let alone filed multiple petitions; this is not a serial-IPR target. Toyo Tire has not been an aggressive PTAB appellant on this patent family (there is no appeal to be aggressive about), and I found no defensive aggregator — no Unified Patents, RPX, or similar — in the chain for this patent. The only corroborating public signal is that a later third-party filing (Yokohama Rubber's JP 7801557 B2, priority 2021-10-04, "Tire strain measuring device and measuring method") cites this patent family, which shows the technology space is live but says nothing about validity challenges.

What the absence means. Well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs, and the absence of any PTAB filing here is itself a signal: either the patent has not been asserted in a way that made an IPR economically worthwhile, or it is young enough (granted 2021-05-11) and narrow enough in its asserted scope that no accused infringer has pulled the trigger. It is not a signal of strength. Nothing about this patent has been tested.

---

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant now facing assertion of the '639 patent:

1. Do not expect a free win, and do not assume the claims are weak because no one has challenged them. There is no FWD to link or quote — I will not manufacture one. Your validity case starts with the intrinsic record.
2. Mine the prosecution history first. The claim-1 language added before allowance (the "obtaining a change … and detecting a distortion" steps) is your best § 112 / claim-construction lever, and it is a narrowing amendment that may support prosecution-history estoppel arguments. Pull the file wrapper via USPTO Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
3. IPR is still available to you. Unlike PGR, there is no post-grant clock on IPR. But two gates matter: (a) § 315(b) — one year from service of a complaint alleging infringement of this patent, which is a hard bar; and (b) § 315(a)(1) — if you or a real party in interest previously filed a declaratory-judgment action of invalidity, IPR is barred entirely. Calendar the § 315(b) date the moment you are served.
4. Consider a § 102/§ 103 art search focused on the pre-2018 inner-liner/optical-strain-measurement art. The patent's own background cites JP 2006-308316 A (Bridgestone, X-ray tire internal-structure observation) and the specification expressly incorporates JP 2013-64709, JP 7-32829, and JP 6-218844 as known tire-support structures; the citation list also shows DE 10 2014 209 423 A1 (Continental), US 2015/0081613 A1 (Hattori), and US 2018/0172557 A1 (Pirelli) in the adjacent space. This is a starting map, not a validity opinion — I have not evaluated any reference against the claims.
5. If you file an IPR and it is instituted, the statutory clock is tight: the PTAB must issue a final written decision within one year of institution (§ 316(a)(11)), extendable up to six months for good cause, with the institution decision due within six months of the petition's filing (§ 314(b)). Build the schedule backward from the § 315(b) deadline.

If you are monitoring rather than defending: re-run the ODP/PTAB E2E check quarterly. A first petition against this patent, if it comes, would likely be filed by an accused competitor in the tire-testing/imaging space, and the institution decision — not the petition — is the first meaningful signal about the claim set's exposure. Report back if a proceeding appears; I will not speculate about one that does not exist.

Sources consulted (all negative for PTAB activity): Google Patents record for US 11,002,639 B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US11002639/en); USPTO Patent Center / PTAB E2E patent search (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptab-web/#/search/patents); CourtListener and Federal Circuit docket searches (no appeal found). No FWD or CAFC opinion exists to link for this patent.

I'll start by verifying the assignment record against the sources available to me.

Inventors

Unusual patterns: None detectable. There is exactly one named inventor, and the assignment instrument transfers his rights to his employer of record on the day of execution — the ordinary employee-invention pattern, not an inventor-retention or inventor-departure pattern. I could find no evidence of the inventor departing Toyo Tire within 12 months of filing, and I want to be explicit that this is an absence of evidence rather than affirmative verification: USPTO assignment records do not track employment, and I found no employment-related SEC disclosure or press coverage for this sole inventor. Anyone needing that datapoint should check Japanese corporate disclosures or LinkedIn-style sources, which are outside the scope of what I could verify here.

Original assignee

Toyo Tire Corporation (東洋ゴム工業 → renamed Toyo Tire Corporation, 2019) — the entity named on the face of the issued patent and the current owner of record.

• Primary line of business: Tire manufacturing and sale (passenger, light truck, SUV, commercial, and motorsport tires), plus automotive parts (air springs, anti-vibration rubber, seat cushions) under the Toyo Tire and Nitto brands. Listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange (TYO: 5105).
• Product embodying the claims: The patent claims a distortion detection method — a metrology/inspection method (form marks on the inner liner; detect in two load states; compare positions; detect distortion). It is a test-and-measurement method used in Toyo's own R&D and quality inspection, not a product sold to customers. Toyo Tire clearly ships tires, but the claimed subject matter is an internal inspection technique, so the "ships products embodying the claims" test is architecturally inapplicable. This matters for the verdict below — the patent is a defensive/process asset, not a monetization vehicle.
• Current status: Operating company, active. Patent status "Active"; 4th-year maintenance fee paid 2024-10-30 (large entity, event code M1551). No bankruptcy, no restructuring, no assignment of this asset on record.

Assignment timeline

I searched the USPTO Patent Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) / the legacy assignment index at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html against patent number 11002639 and application 16/390,236, cross-checked against Google Patents legal events for the same patent, and found exactly one recorded assignment in the entire chain. I could not retrieve the correspondent-of-record field for that single entry from any source available to me — see the caveat in the entry.

• 2019-04-04 (executed) / recorded 2019-04-22 — Reel 048954/0908
  • Conveyance: Assignment ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST")
  • Assignor: Arakawa, Koji
  • Assignee: Toyo Tire Corporation (Japan)
  • Correspondent: Not determinable from the sources I could access. Google Patents' legal-events feed for US 11002639 reproduces the reel/frame, the assignor, the assignee, and the effective date, but not the recording correspondent. The Assignment Center record is the only place this field lives, and its search interface is not retrievable through the tool set available to me. I am not going to guess an attorney name or firm — that is precisely the field where a fabricated entry would be most damaging, since the whole point of tracking it is recurrence across a chain. Verification step: pull reel 048954 frame 0908 directly in Assignment Center and read the correspondent field off the cover sheet.
  • Context: Routine employee-invention assignment to the employer. Executed 18 days before the US filing date and recorded the same day the application was filed (2019-04-22) — the standard "record at filing" practice for corporate applicants, not a transfer of an already-issued asset.

No further records exist. There is no post-issuance assignment, no security agreement, no merger, no change of name, and no release. The chain terminates at the original assignee.

Supporting negative findings:

• Family cross-check: The sibling family members — JP7057206B2, CN110455209A, DE102019110469B4 — all list Toyo Tire Corporation as applicant/patentee with no recorded transfers in the Google Patents family view.
• Related co-filed application: The non-patent citations reference U.S. Appl. No. 16/390,507 (published as US20190339178A1, "Tire load application device and tire inspection device") — a serially adjacent Toyo Tire filing, consistent with a single in-house R&D/inspection program rather than a portfolio assembled for sale.
• No litigation: I found no infringement suit naming US 11002639 in any court, and no entry in the RPX or Unified Patents high-frequency-plaintiff directories.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11002639
    2018 : JP priority application filed May 7
    2019 : Inventor assignment executed Apr 4
         : Assignment recorded Apr 22
         : US application filed Apr 22
    2021 : US patent granted May 11
    2022 : JP counterpart JP7057206B2 granted
    2024 : 4th year maintenance fee paid

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The only recorded transfer runs to an operating manufacturer, not away from one: Reel 048954/0908, executed 2019-04-04, assignee Toyo Tire Corporation, an entity with a public manufacturing address (2-2-13 Fujinoki, Itami-shi, Hyogo) and a listed equity. No LLC with an "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" suffix appears anywhere in the chain. No registered-agent service address appears.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. I checked the current and prior assignees against the named lists (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities) plus the RPX/Unified high-frequency plaintiff directories. Zero matches. The sole assignee is Toyo Tire Corporation.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not assessable. A chain of length one cannot exhibit recurrence, and — as noted above — I could not retrieve the correspondent field for the single entry. Recording this as unclear rather than not present is the honest call; the field exists and I simply could not read it.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. One transfer total, executed eleven months after the 2018-05-07 priority date and eighteen days before the US filing. There is no chain of consecutive assignments and therefore no window in which cascading could occur.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. No infringement suit naming this patent exists, so there is no litigation date against which to measure. The single assignment predates issuance by more than two years and is a hiring/employment transfer, not an assertion-enabling transfer.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. Toyo Tire Corporation is an operating, TSE-listed manufacturer with no Chapter 7/11 equivalent proceeding and no recorded sale of the asset. The 2024-10-30 maintenance fee payment (Reel/event M1551, large entity) is affirmative evidence the owner is solvent and maintaining the asset.
7. Privateering — Not present. There is no downstream NPE to assert on Toyo's behalf, and no SEC or Patent Progress / EFF coverage linking Toyo Tire to assertion of this patent. Toyo's known litigation history is in a different domain (trade-secret and competitor disputes) and does not involve this patent.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at the original operating assignee.

Verdict

Insufficient data — under the defined rubric, because the record contains only the original assignment and nothing post-issuance. To be clear about what that means here: the insufficiency is not ambiguity about who owns the patent. Ownership is unambiguous and fully documented — Arakawa assigned to Toyo Tire Corporation by instrument executed 2019-04-04 and recorded 2019-04-22 at Reel 048954/0908, and the chain has been static ever since. The verdict reflects the absence of a transfer history to analyze, not an absence of an owner. Every affirmative signal available points the same direction: the patent is held by a solvent operating manufacturer, appears on its face as an internal tire-inspection method rather than a product, is being actively maintained (2024-10-30 fee payment), and is the subject of zero litigation. There is no NPE pattern to report, and I found no evidence that would move this to "Operating-company assertion" either, since no suit has been filed at all.

Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 11002639; the single entry is Reel 048954 / Frame 0908). Retrieving the correspondent-of-record field from that cover sheet is the one open item in this analysis.

Caveats on sourcing. My searches did not return an independent rendering of the Assignment Center record itself, so the reel/frame, execution date, and effective date above rest on the Google Patents legal-events feed reproduced in the authoritative patent text and on the co-filed-application citations in that same document. Given the Google Patents page is itself a derived rendering of USPTO assignment data, confirming the reel/frame and reading the correspondent field directly in Assignment Center is a worthwhile one-minute check before anyone relies on this chain for a standing or ownership opinion.

I'll research US patent 11002639 and its cited prior art. Let me run searches to ground my analysis.

Let me research the remaining key prior art references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 11,002,639 B2

1. Patent identification (literal, as requested)

Important scoping note: the record also contains a separate but closely related Toyo Tire application — U.S. Appl. No. 16/390,507 (pre-grant pub. US20190339178A1, "Tire load application device and tire inspection device") and publication JP2019196911A ("Tire strain detection method and green tire with to-be-detected part"). These are not US11002639 and I have kept them separate. Several of the "Non-Patent Citations" below are office actions against 16/390,507 / the DE and CN counterparts, not against 16/390,236 itself.

2. The invention and the claims that must be met

Independent claim 1 requires four steps:

1. First step — forming a portion to be detected on a surface of an inner liner which is the inner surface of the tire;
2. Second step — detecting that portion in any two states spanning from formation of the product tire (from a tire component including the inner liner) to a change of load condition on the product tire;
3. Third step — obtaining a change in position of the portion by comparing the positions in the two states; and
4. Fourth step — detecting a distortion of the inner liner based on that change.

Dependent claims: 2/4 (no-load vs. load state; rolling/driving/turning/braking), 3 (load condition = rolling/driving/turning/braking), 5–8 (metal mark + X-ray CT), 9–12 (dotted/linear/random patterns at predetermined intervals), 13–16 (imaging means), 17–20 (optical displacement meter).

For §102 anticipation, a single reference must disclose all of these elements arranged as claimed. Most of the cited art discloses one or two of the four steps; true anticipation is therefore limited, and much of the art is more properly §103 (obviousness) material.

3. Cited prior art, reference-by-reference

A. The closest art

1. US 2003/0095050 A1 (also CN1358146A) — Pirelli / Mancosu

• Citation: US20030095050A1, "Device for continuously measuring deformations in a tyre during the travel movement of a motor vehicle"; priority 2000-01-25; published 2003-05-22; assignee Pirelli; family incl. CN1358146A (2002-07-10). Granted as US6967590B2.
• Description: A reflecting element is applied to a portion of the inner surface of the tire (the liner) — e.g., by colouring/coating — and an emitter + optical sensor mounted on the rim measure a reflected-light parameter that changes as that element deforms during rolling. Surface deformation is thereby obtained during revolution of the tire.
• Potentially anticipates: claim 1 (elements 1–2: a detectable mark on the inner liner, optically detected) and claims 13–16 (imaging/optical detection) and claims 17–20 (optical). It is the single most structurally on-point reference for the "portion to be detected on the inner-liner surface read optically from inside the tire" concept. It is weaker on the two-state position comparison and the internal (belt-region) distortion of the inner liner, so a §102 rejection of claim 1 would be close but incomplete; it is the natural §103 primary reference.
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030095050

2. US 2005/0081613 A1 — Hattori (Yokohama Rubber); granted US7302836B2

• Citation: US20050081613A1, "Method for detecting strain state of tire, device for detecting strain state, and the tire"; priority/filed 2002-08-02; published 2005-04-21; granted as US7302836B2 (2007-12-04).
• Description: Metal foils (conductor pieces) arranged in lines at predetermined intervals in the tire circumferential direction, embedded in two different layers; a monitor device radiates pulsed electromagnetic waves, measures round-trip time, stores the time at which no distortion occurs as a reference value, and compares the measured time with the reference value to detect tire distortion.
• Potentially anticipates: claim 1 (a detectable portion in the tire; comparison of a "reference/no-strain" state against an operating state to output distortion) and strongly supports claim 5/6/7/8 (metal mark detection — here by EM pulse rather than X-ray CT) and claim 9–12 (a plurality of linear/dotted elements at predetermined intervals). This is the strongest §102/§103 vehicle for the mark-plus-reference-comparison concept.
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050081613A1

3. EP 1239261 B1 — Stefan Dengler

• Citation: EP1239261B1, "Testing device and method for deformable objects" (family of DE10102232A1); filed 2001-03-09; granted 2008-06-25.
• Description: Test apparatus for elastic hollow bodies such as tires that may remain on their rim. The tire interior is placed under pressure and the tire is subjected to two different loadings (two different differential pressures Δp1, Δp2); resulting deformations of the tire surface (lamination and structural defects) are sensed with an interferometric/optical measuring head.
• Potentially anticipates: the "any two states … a change of a load condition" requirement of claim 1, and the no-load vs. load requirement of claim 2; combined with an optical detection head it maps onto claims 13–16/17–20. It does not itself require a mark formed on the inner liner, so it is best used in combination with references 1 or 2.
• URL: http://data.epo.org/publication-server/rest/v1.2/patents/EP1225435NWA3/document.pdf (search report citing DE19748544C1 as X-category against it)

4. DE 197 48 544 C1 — Ettemeyer GmbH & Co. Mes- und Prüftechnik

• Citation: DE19748544C1, "Non-contact testing of concave objects on inside from contour open side"; filed 1997-11-03; published 1999-07-08.
• Description: Interferometric (shearography/ESPI) non-contact inspection of the concave inner surface of a vehicle tire; the inner surface is scanned by a test head (sections scanned successively) and pressure conditions on the object are changed to obtain different fringe/interference images, defects being detected from their divergence. Spacers spread the tire's open side to expose inner side surfaces.
• Potentially anticipates: the concept of detecting the inner surface of a tire and of altering the pressure/load state to observe deformation — relevant to claim 1 (second step, "two states") and claim 2 (state change). It does not disclose a purpose-formed portion to be detected (a mark) nor a positional comparison of marks, so it is background/§103 rather than clean §102.
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/DE19748544C1/en

5. US 5,962,778 A / DE 69827708 T2 — Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin-Michelin & Cie (Billieres)

• Citation: US5962778A, "Device for monitoring stresses undergone by a tire"; priority 1997-07-23; published 1999-10-05; family member DE69827708T2 (2005-12-01).
• Description: A monitoring device with a very flexible thin support fixed to one of the walls of the tire (FIG. 5 shows it on the inner surface in the sidewall region), carrying wires sensitive to bending that permanently memorize that the structure has undergone intense bending cycles. Placed on a new tire during or after manufacture. FIG. 6 shows the tire under rolling conditions with intense bending.
• Potentially anticipates: the concept of fixing a detectable element to the tire inner surface before rolling and reading it afterwards (a portion to be detected on the inner liner) — relevant to claim 1 (first step). It is a passive irreversible damage-memorizing device rather than a positional/imaging comparison, so it does not anticipate the third/fourth steps.
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5962778

6. US 2018/0172557 A1 — Pirelli Tyre S.p.A.

• Citation: US20180172557A1, "Method and apparatus for analysing a surface of a tyre"; priority 2015-06-30; published 2018-06-21. Marked with an asterisk (cited by examiner).
• Description: Optical/stereoscopic analysis of a tyre surface (the family is directed to acquiring three-dimensional surface data of a tyre). Relevant to the patent's own use of a stereo camera to three-dimensionally capture the inner-liner surface.
• Potentially anticipates: claims 13–16 (imaging means) and generally supports the "detect surface features of a tyre optically and three-dimensionally" environment. It is the reference to watch for a §103 combination aimed at the stereo-imaging feature.
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180172557A1

B. X-ray CT / internal-structure observation art (relevant to claims 5, 6, 7, 8 and to the spec's "X-ray CT" embodiment)

7. JPH06218844A — Toshiba Corp.

• "CT equipment for tires"; priority 1993-01-28; published 1994-08-09. X-ray CT apparatus for tires — maps onto the X-ray CT detection recited in claims 5–8.
• URL (record): https://patents.google.com/patent/JPH06218844A/en

8. JPH0732829A — Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd.

• "CT-scanner apparatus for tire"; priority 1993-05-26; published 1995-02-03. Same mapping to claims 5–8.
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/JPH0732829A/en

9. JP 2006-308316 A — Bridgestone Corp.

• "Method and device for observing tire internal structure"; priority 2005-04-26; published 2006-11-09. This is the reference the specification itself cites as the conventional X-ray tire-internal-observation method (Description: "Conventionally, a method of irradiating a tire with an X-ray … has been known (for example, see JP 2006-308316 A)"), and the spec also states the tire support structure of JP 2006-308316 A can be used (rotating the tire on a belt).
• Potentially anticipates: background for claims 5–8 and the general environment of the second step; not a §102 reference to claim 1 (the spec expressly says the prior method "does not take into consideration what distortion occurs on an inner surface of the tire").
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2006308316A/en

10. JP 2009-250963 A — Bridgestone Corp.

• "System and method for measuring internal shape"; priority 2008-04-11; published 2009-10-29. Internal-shape measurement of a tire; relevant to the "inner surface shape of the inner liner" detection recited at claim 1 / claims 13–16.
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2009250963A/en

11. JP 2006-292450 A — Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd.

• "Method for measuring strain of tire reinforcing cord and pneumatic tire"; priority 2005-04-07; published 2006-10-26. Directly concerned with strain of a tire reinforcing cord — relevant to the belt-region distortion the patent observes (claim 1/claim 3) and to claims 5–8 if a metal cord is used as the detectable feature.
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2006292450A/en

C. Belt-tension / deformation art

12. DE 10 2017 209 677 A1 — Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH

• "Method for determining changes in tension in a belt layer of vehicle tires and commercial vehicle tires as such"; priority 2017-06-08; published 2018-12-13. Expressly directed to changes in tension in a belt layer — the very phenomenon the patent says it observes ("distortion of the belt 9 is observed by capturing an image of an inner surface of a region where the belt layer 7 is formed").
• Potentially anticipates: relevant to claim 1 (detecting distortion, belt layer) and claim 3 (load conditions). This is the most thematically on-point foreign reference in the set.
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/DE102017209677A1/en

13. DE 10 2014 209 423 A1 / US 2017/0087939 A1 — Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH

• DE102014209423A1 "Vehicle tires", priority 2014-05-19, published 2015-11-19; US20170087939A1 "Vehicle Pneumatic Tyre", published 2017-03-30. Vehicle pneumatic tyre with a sensor/marking-related structural feature; general background — I could not confirm the specific disclosure with high confidence (see §5).
• URLs: https://patents.google.com/patent/DE102014209423A1/en ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170087939A1/en

D. Earlier / general background

14. US 3,511,293 A — B.F. Goodrich Co.

• "Pneumatic tires"; priority 1968-03-20; published 1970-05-12. Early pneumatic-tire construction patent; general background only. I could not confirm any teaching of a detectable portion on the inner liner; treat as background, not a §102 reference.
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US3511293A](/patent/US3511293A)/en

15. JP 2013-064709 A — Toshiba IT & Control Systems Corp.

• "Tire inspection device"; priority 2011-09-16; published 2013-04-11. Tire inspection apparatus — cited alongside JP2006-308316A in the spec as an alternative known tire-support configuration; relevant background for the second step.
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2013064709A/en

16. US 2019/0339166 A1 — Toyo Tire Corporation — the applicant's own pre-grant publication of the same application (2018-05-07 / 2019-11-07). Not prior art (same family); listed for completeness.

17. DE 698 27 708 T2 — the German family member of US5962778A (Michelin); same substance as item 5, published 2005-12-01.

E. Non-patent citations (6) — prosecution documents, not prior art

• Final Office Action dated 2021-03-05 in U.S. Appl. No. 16/390,507 (18 pp.).
• Non-Final Office Action dated 2020-09-03 in counterpart U.S. Appl. No. 16/390,507 (11 pp.).
• Office Action dated 2020-08-19 in DE 102019110468.8 (9 pp.).
• Office Action dated 2020-12-21 in CN 201910329209.5 (12 pp.).
• Office Action dated 2020-05-06 in DE 102019110469.6 (9 pp.).
• Office Action dated 2020-10-20 in CN 201910328617.9 (13 pp.).

These are procedural papers. They are useful only as a pointer to what the examiner examined in the sibling/counterpart cases (note: U.S. 16/390,507, DE 102019110468.8 and CN 201910329209.5 belong to the related "tire load application device" family, not to 16/390,236).

4. Family-cited (third-party) art around this family

The record also lists third-party art cited as prior art in the wider Toyo family ("Family Cites Families," 18 documents), several of which are highly germane to the four-step concept and worth checking if you are building an invalidity position:

• JP 3628792 B2 — "Tire deformation detection device and vehicle driving support device using the same" (Honda).
• JP 2004-163140 A — "Tire deformation detector" (Honda).
• JP 4472363 B2 / JP 4680532 B2 / JP 4794368 B2 — Bridgestone tire-condition-estimation / tire-deformation-measuring family.
• JP 5371848 B2 — "Tire shape inspection method and tire shape inspection device" (Kobe Steel).
• US 8,818,078 B2 — "Apparatus and method for optically measuring creep" (Solar Turbines) — optical measurement of deformation of a marked surface.
• JP 6412348 B2 — "Method for observing deformation of elastic material and projection image photographing apparatus" (Sumitomo Rubber) — deformation observation by imaging.
• JP 6514620 B2 — "Tire contact surface measurement method" (Toyo Tire) — same assignee, contact-surface measurement.
• JP 6256380 B2 — "Strain sensor and strain amount measuring method" (Konica Minolta).
• KR 101484504 B1 — active contact-pressure measuring module and tire testing equipment.

Also, later documents citing this family (post-dating it, so not prior art): CN111307841B, JP7801557B2 ("Tire strain measuring device and measuring method," Yokohama Rubber, 2026-01-19), CN117147187B.

5. Summary judgment

Bottom line: No single one of the 19 cited documents appears to disclose all four steps of claim 1 as arranged, so clean §102 anticipation of claim 1 is unlikely on this record. The three references most likely to threaten the claims are US2003/0095050A1 (Pirelli/Mancosu) — mark on the inner liner read optically from the rim; US2005/0081613A1 → US7302836B2 (Hattori) — metal marks at predetermined intervals plus a stored reference value compared against a measured value to detect tire distortion; and EP1239261B1 (Dengler) — two different load/pressure states with optical deformation measurement. A Pirelli + Dengler or Pirelli + Hattori combination is the most plausible §103 attack, with the X-ray CT references (JPH06218844A / JPH0732829A) added against dependent claims 5–8 and the imaging claims 13–16.

6. Limitations of this analysis

• I worked from the Google Patents full text of US11002639B2 and the citations/non-patent items listed there; I did not retrieve the full USPTO PatentCenter file wrapper (Image File Wrapper) or the examiner's actual §102/§103 rejections for 16/390,236.
• For US3511293A, JPH06218844A, JPH0732829A, JP2006292450A, JP2009250963A, JP2013064709A, DE102014209423A1 / US20170087939A1 and DE69827708T2 I have only the bibliographic record and title/summary from the citation table, not verified full-text disclosure. Any statement of what they do or do not teach for those items should be confirmed against the documents before being relied on.
• Anticipation/invalidity is a legal conclusion requiring an element-by-element comparison against the claims as construed; the characterizations above are technical assessments, not legal opinions.

I'll research the key prior-art references cited on the patent page to ground the obviousness analysis.

Let me research additional key references.

Let me research a few more key references.

Obviousness Analysis — US 11,002,639 B2 ("Tire distortion detection method")

Patent: US 11,002,639 B2, Toyo Tire Corporation, inventor Koji Arakawa
Priority: JP 2018-089101, filed 2018-05-07 · US filing: 2019-04-22 · Grant: 2021-05-11 · Anticipated expiry: 2039-04-22
Statute applied: 35 U.S.C. § 103 (AIA), Graham v. John Deere, KSR Int'l v. Teleflex
Source page: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11002639/en

---

1. The claim to be tested

Claim 1 is a four-step method claim:

Dependents add: no-load vs. loaded states (2); rolling/driving/turning/braking (3, 4); metal mark + X-ray CT detection (5–8); dotted, linear, or random patterns juxtaposed at predetermined intervals (9–12); imaging means (13–16); optical displacement meter (17–20).

The critical observation for § 103 is that claim 1 is not tied to any particular sensing modality, marker chemistry, or load regime. Every element is a generic step expressed at the level of "put a marker somewhere, look at it twice, compare." That breadth materially enlarges the prior-art field.

---

2. The prior-art landscape (documents cited on the face of the patent)

All references below are from the "Citations (17)" section of the Google Patents page. Publication dates are taken literally from that page; two of them matter a great deal (flagged ⚠).

Two additional points that strengthen any § 103 position. First, the specification itself concedes the state of the art: "Conventionally, a method of irradiating a tire with an X-ray and observing the inside of the tire has been known (for example, see JP 2006-308316 A)," and it expressly names JP 2006-308316, JP 2013-64709, JP 7-32829 and JP 6-218844 as "conventionally known configurations" for the tire support device. Applicant's own admissions are usable as prior art. Second, the specification concedes the problem statement: "in the conventional method, it is not taken into consideration what distortion occurs on an inner surface of the tire."

---

3. Combinations that render the claims obvious

Combination A — Hattori (US20050081613A1) as primary, in view of Ettemeyer (DE19748544C1) and/or Michelin (US5962778A)

Meets claims 1, 3, 4, 9–12, 13–16 broadly.

• Hattori teaches every conceptual kernel of claim 1 except the location and the specific comparison math: metal detectable elements "embedded in lines at predetermined intervals" (→ claims 9–12's "dotted [or] linear … patterns juxtaposed at predetermined intervals"), a stored reference value "at which no distortion occurs on the tire," and detection of a distortion by comparing the measured value with that stored reference (→ steps 2 and 3).
• To place the marker, one need only look to Michelin '778, which teaches fixing a stress-sensitive thin support to a wall of the tire, including the inner surface, at or after manufacture — i.e., exactly the "first step" recited.
• Ettemeyer supplies the two-state concept in the tire-interior context by changing pressure conditions on the tire to obtain different images of the inner side.

Motivation (KSR rationales): same field (G01M 17/02, tire deformation/inspection); same problem (unseen internal tire distortion); the inner liner is the only inner surface of a pneumatic tire and thus the natural, accessible substrate for an internal marker; combining a known marker with a known detection-and-compare step is a predictable use of prior-art elements yielding no more than their expected sum.

Combination B — Michelin (US5962778A) as primary, in view of Hattori (US20050081613A1)

Meets claims 1, 9–12.

Michelin teaches the forming step almost literally — a thin detectable support applied to the inner wall of a new tire at manufacture — and even teaches that its memorized information "can be checked visually by an operator or else automatically." Hattori converts Michelin's qualitative, permanent-memory device into a quantitative two-state position comparison by teaching the reference-value/measured-value comparison. The combination of "marker on inner wall" (Michelin) + "compare two states to get distortion" (Hattori) yields claim 1.

Combination C — Pirelli/Mancosu (CN1358146A / US20030095050A1) in view of Hattori

Meets claims 3 and 4 ("load condition includes rolling, driving, turning, or braking").

The Mancosu/Pirelli device measures tire deformation continuously during the travel movement of the motor vehicle — i.e., under rolling, driving, turning and braking. A POSITA seeking to enumerate load states for the Hattori two-state comparison would find this disclosure directly on point.

Combination D — Metal mark + X-ray CT (claims 5–8)

Hattori (metal foils) + JPH06218844A or JPH0732829A (tire CT) or JP2006308316A (admitted art) + Michelin '778.

Claims 5, 6, 7 and 8 require only (i) the portion to be detected is a metal mark and (ii) detection by an X-ray CT device. Hattori's detectable elements are explicitly metal foils — a metal mark. Toshiba's "CT equipment for tires" and Yokohama Rubber's "CT-scanner apparatus for tire" are dedicated tire CT systems, and Bridgestone '316 is admitted by the applicant as a known X-ray tire-interior observation method. Using a radiopaque metallic fiducial/contrast marker with an X-ray CT scanner is a longstanding, common-sense pairing (cf. the specification's own teaching that the metal be one "having a density close to copper (density of 6 to 10 g/cm³)" and that density × thickness be 0.1–50 g/cm² — a plain radiographic-contrast design rule). The result is predictable and the combination is nothing more than the substitution of one known inspection modality for another.

Combination E — Pirelli (US20180172557A1, via WO2017001969A1) in view of Hattori

Meets claims 9–12 and 13–16.

Pirelli '557 discloses that the inner surface of the tire belongs to a layer of elastomeric material, usually called "liner," that the inner surface bears a relief "pattern … comprising a series of rectilinear and parallel spans … distributed with substantial periodicity along the circumferential direction," that this pattern is generated during the moulding and vulcanisation step, and that it is imaged (including 3-D/laser-triangulation images) and compared to a model. This is a disclosure of a linear pattern at predetermined intervals on the inner liner, detected by imaging means. That maps to claims 9–12 and 13–16 with only the purpose differing (Pirelli uses the pattern as a reference from which defects are to be distinguished; claim 1 uses the marker as the measurand). Converting a known periodic inner-liner relief into a deliberately applied tracking marker is a predictable design choice.

Combination F — Optical displacement / imaging modality variants (claims 13–20)

Ettemeyer (inner-surface interferometry), JP2009250963A (internal shape measurement), JP2013064709A (tire inspection device) and EP1239261B1 (testing device and method for deformable objects) collectively show that non-contact optical measurement of a deforming tire surface — including the inner surface — was routine. Substituting a stereo camera, a laser/optical displacement meter, or an X-ray CT device for another known tire-surface sensor is a classic KSR "known technique" substitution with a predictable result. (Caveat: I could not retrieve full text for EP1239261B1 or JP2013064709A; those two are characterized by title only.)

---

4. Why a POSITA would have combined these

1. Same field of endeavour. Every reference is classified in tire testing/inspection (G01M 17/02; G01N 23/18; G01B 11/16) and concerns detecting tire deformation, strain, or internal structure.
2. Same articulated problem. The patent's stated problem — "distortion on an inner surface of a tire which has conventionally been difficult to detect" — is the recognized problem Ettemeyer, Michelin and Bridgestone '316 each address from a different angle.
3. The inner liner is the only candidate surface. Claim 1's "surface of an inner liner which is an inner surface of the tire" is a tautological identification of the tire's sole inner surface. Selecting it as the substrate for a marker (Michelin '778) is not inventive selection; it is the only place to put it.
4. Predictable result. Each sub-combination is marker + detector + comparator, each element performing exactly its known function.
5. Design incentive / obvious-to-try. With Michelin '778 teaching that a sensor may be fixed to the inner wall "during or after manufacture," and Hattori teaching that a marker row plus a reference/measured comparison yields distortion, a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing the same on the inner liner of a tire.

---

5. Best anticipation/§103 risks and their weak points

Strongest single-reference attack: US20050081613A1 (Hattori) anticipates much of the concept but not the location — its metal foils are embedded in "two or more different layers" of the tire body, detected by reflected pulsed electromagnetic waves, and it is silent on the inner liner surface. It therefore needs a second reference for claim 1's first step, which is why the combinations above are framed as § 103 rather than § 102.

Weak points an applicant could press:

• Hattori's marker is embedded, not on a surface, and its measurand is round-trip time, not position. A patentee could argue the art teaches away from surface-mounted markers detectable by imaging.
• Pirelli '557 arguably teaches away. Its whole premise is that the inner-surface pattern masks defects and must be modelled and subtracted. Using that same pattern as the measuring feature inverts its stated purpose.
• Michelin '778 is a passive, permanent-memory device, not a two-state imaging system; it records that stress occurred, not where material moved.
• Dependent claims 5–8 rely on an X-ray CT reference that is not, on its face, combined with a metallic fiducial marker; the examiner would need the common-sense/contrast-marker rationale.
• Reference-date challenges. ⚠ DE102017209677A1 (published 2018-12-13) postdates the 2018-05-07 priority date and is a German publication, so it appears unavailable under § 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) absent a US counterpart; and the US publication US20180172557A1 (2018-06-21) postdates the priority date, so the available Pirelli art is the PCT publication WO2017001969A1 (2017-01-05), not the US publication. Any rejection built on those two documents as cited must be reconstructed around the earlier-published family members or dropped.

No evidence of secondary considerations appears on the face of the record — no unexpected results, no industry praise, no licensing or copying evidence, and no comments in the file history are reflected in the "Non-Patent Citations" (which lists only Office Actions in counterpart US 16/390,507, DE 102019110468.8, DE 102019110469.6 and CN 201910328617.9/201910329209.5).

---

6. Bottom line

Claim 1, as drafted, sits at the intersection of three well-developed prior-art streams that predate the 2018-05-07 priority date by 5–20 years: (a) marker/monitor applied to a tire wall and read out in two states (Michelin '778, Hattori US20050081613A1); (b) non-contact optical inspection of the tire's concave inner surface under differing pressure states (Ettemeyer DE19748544C1); and (c) X-ray CT and internal-shape measurement of tires (JPH06218844A, JPH0732829A, JP2006308316A — the last expressly admitted in the specification — and JP2009250963A).

Accordingly, my assessment is that claims 1, 3, 4, 9–16 are more likely than not obvious over Hattori in view of Michelin '778 and/or Ettemeyer, with Pirelli (WO2017001969A1) supplying the inner-liner pattern/imaging teaching; and claims 5–8 are more likely than not obvious over the metal-marker teaching of Hattori in view of a tire X-ray CT reference (JPH06218844A, JPH0732829A) or the admitted JP2006308316A. The strongest non-obviousness counterargument available to the patentee is the absence of any single reference that makes the inner liner surface the measurement datum — but under KSR, that is a predictable selection among a finite number of identified, obvious surfaces, not an inventive step.

Confidence and limitations

• High confidence on the content of US20050081613A1/US7302836B2, DE19748544C1, US5962778A and US20180172557A1 (full or substantial text retrieved).
• Moderate confidence on CN1358146A / US20030095050A1 and the two Japanese CT documents, which I characterized from titles, assignees and dates only.
• Low confidence / unverified: EP1239261B1, JP2006292450A, JP2013064709A, DE102014209423A1/US20170087939A1, US3511293A and DE102017209677A1 — I did not retrieve their disclosure text, and I have flagged them accordingly rather than asserting specific content.
• This is a technical obviousness assessment for analytical purposes, not a legal opinion or a prediction of litigation outcome.