US 11402299

I'll run targeted searches for this patent number, including litigation/docket checks.

Let me check for litigation/docket activity and confirm the claim set and legal status.

Let me confirm the granted claim set and check for any EP counterpart opposition/post-grant activity.

US 11,402,299 B2 — Summary (searched: Google Patents full text, Justia, FPO, PatentCenter-family data, PTAB/CAFC docket searches)

Important scoping note up front: I found no CAFC 2026 docket entry, no district court complaint, and no IPR/PGR petition naming U.S. Patent No. 11,402,299. Searches for the number returned only generic tire-industry matters (e.g., In re Vehicle Tires Antitrust Litigation, S.D.N.Y. Master File 24-cv-00881, and an Ohio price-fixing case), none of which assert this patent. Absence of hits is not proof of absence — docket coverage varies — but I have no authoritative evidence of litigation involving this patent, and I will not infer any.

Bibliographic data

Abstract (as published)

Method for setting up a tyre checking apparatus, the apparatus comprising a support base (34) for a tyre (2); a first acquisition device (430) and a second acquisition device (43a) for acquiring images representative of the tyre on the support base; and a first robotic member (40a) for moving the second acquisition device. The method comprises providing a setup device (100) comprising a first wall (110) with first predefined shapes (F1); a second wall (120) with second predefined shapes (F2), the second wall being substantially parallel and non-coplanar to the first wall; a top surface (130); and a central reference (140) on the top surface. The method also comprises executing at least one of a first set-up and a second set-up. The first set-up sets the first acquisition device (430) and comprises positioning the setup device in a first position (P1), carrying out a first group of movements, and calibrating the first acquisition device as a function of F1 and F2. The second set-up sets the first robotic member (40a) and comprises positioning the setup device in a second position (P2), carrying out a second group of movements, and configuring the first robotic member as a function of positions taken by the central reference (140). A setup device adapted for use in the method is also described.

Claim analysis

The granted patent carries 8 claims, all to the device (apparatus) category. There is exactly one independent claim (claim 1); claims 2–8 are dependent. Notably, no method claims were granted in this patent, even though the specification is framed around a method and the pre-grant publication (US 2021/0025785 A1) presented both method claims (1–13) and device claims (14–22). That divergence is consistent with a divisional/continuation allocation of subject matter between this patent and its parent US 10,837,868 B2, but I am flagging it as an observation from the record rather than a verified prosecution history fact.

Claim 1 (independent) — plain language. A calibration/setup jig for tyre-inspection machines, comprising four cooperating elements:

1. a first wall carrying first predefined shapes (e.g., a checkerboard pattern) usable as a calibration target;
2. a second wall carrying second predefined shapes, where the second wall is substantially parallel to and non-coplanar with the first wall (i.e., two parallel but vertically offset target planes);
3. a top surface; and
4. a central reference arranged on that top surface (the physical datum the robot touches to learn where it is);
5. plus a substantially cylindrical portion that has the top surface — i.e., the top surface is provided on a cylindrical body.

Dependent claims (2–8), plain language:

• 2 — the top surface is defined on the first wall (the first wall forms the top of the cylindrical portion).
• 3 — the first and second walls extend substantially horizontally.
• 4 — the substantially cylindrical portion extends from the second wall.
• 5 — the cylindrical portion and the second predefined shapes sit substantially side by side on the second wall (in plan view, the target pattern faces the cylinder).
• 6 — the central axis of the cylindrical portion is offset from the geometric centre of the second wall (an asymmetric/eccentric layout, which matters for rotating the jig off-centre).
• 7 — the first predefined shapes are substantially equal to the second predefined shapes.
• 8 — the central reference comprises (a) a pointed protrusion extending from the top surface and (b) an alignment element with a substantially cylindrical through cavity axially slidable around the protrusion (the sliding sleeve that the robot's reference spike mates with).

Method described in the specification (context, not claimed in this patent). Two set-ups: (i) a first set-up in which the jig is placed eccentrically on the rotary support table, the table is indexed through equal angular steps (e.g., twelve images at 30°) plus a translation to a further position, and the overhead camera is calibrated (first and second centres of rotation computed from the image pairs; a straight line through them checked against the table's vertical axis Y; correspondence established between real-space points and image pixels); and (ii) a second set-up in which the jig is centred, then translated and rotated (preferably 45°–135°), and the robotic arm touches its reference spike to the central reference at each position to store coordinates and generate a 3D virtual reference frame for the robot, with the centred position defining the axes' origin. Per the specification, at least one of the two set-ups is performed, and preferably both.

Vetting notes / uncertainties

• The numbers, dates, and claim text above are taken from the authoritative patent full text supplied and corroborated by Google Patents, Justia, FreePatentsOnline, and the family/priority data. I did not auto-correct any identifier.
• Litigation/IPR status is unverified as to absence: no CAFC 2026 activity and no PTAB or district court case asserting this patent appeared in my searches. Treat this as "nothing found," not as an authoritative negative.
• I could not independently verify any EP opposition to the counterpart EP 3397934 B1; my search on that point was cut off, so I make no representation either way.
• The priority list shows both IT 102015000088039 and IT UB20159224 with the same 2015-12-28 date; I have reported them literally as listed without reconciling them.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 11402299 across patent litigation databases.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases for this specific patent number.

Litigation Search Results: US Patent No. 11,402,299

No litigation involving US Patent No. 11,402,299 was found.

I ran targeted searches across patent-litigation-oriented sources (patent litigation aggregators, patent docket/monitoring outlets, Federal Circuit and PTAB-adjacent materials surfaced via general web search, and litigation trackers) for the literal identifier 11402299 / 11,402,299. Every hit returned by those searches concerned different patent numbers or unrelated matters. Below is what surfaced and why it is not responsive:

Assessment / Current Status

• Plaintiff(s): None identified.
• Defendant(s): None identified.
• Jurisdiction: N/A.
• Case number: N/A.
• Filing date: N/A.
• Outcome / status: N/A.

Based on the sources searched, US Patent No. 11,402,299 (Pirelli Tyre S.p.A., "Method for setting up a tyre checking apparatus, setup device used in said method") does not appear to have been asserted in any patent litigation, and no reexamination, IPR, or PGR proceeding naming it was surfaced either.

Important caveats (per the strict operating rules)

1. This is a negative finding from the sources reachable in this search, not proof of absence. I was unable to directly query the Unified Patents litigation caselist, PACER, or Docket Navigator's full-text database with the exact docket-level query, so a recently filed or low-profile suit could exist that my searches did not index.
2. The patent is part of a family. US 11,402,299 is a continuation of US 10,837,868 (US 16/064,867), which shares the same specification and priority (Italian application 102015000088039, filed 2015-12-28). If you are assessing freedom-to-operate or enforcement exposure, the sibling/related family members — US 10,837,868, EP 3 397 934 B1, CN 108463705 B, and BR 112018012511 B1 — should each be searched separately for litigation, as a party could assert the sibling patent rather than '299 itself.
3. The only active Pirelli enforcement activity I found is European (UPC), not US, and it involves different patents (EP3519207 and EP2519412) against tire manufacturers (e.g., Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber), not the setup-device patent at issue here.

If you need a definitive answer, the recommended next step is a direct docket-level query of PACER (all district courts, full-text), Unified Patents' litigation caselist, and Docket Navigator / Lex Machina using the exact patent number, plus a parallel check of PTAB proceedings. I can run additional targeted searches on those specific platforms if you'd like.

I'll verify the structured data against live sources before drafting.

PTAB Activity Report — U.S. Patent No. 11,402,299 B2

"Method for setting up a tyre checking apparatus, setup device used in said method"
Patent Owner / Current Assignee: Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. · App. No. 17/070,393 · Filed 2020-10-14 · Granted 2022-08-02 · Priority 2015-12-28 · Adjusted expiration 2037-01-04
Report date: 2026-09-29

---

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0 (zero). There are no IPRs, no PGRs, and no CBM reviews — active, terminated, settled, or denied — on U.S. Patent No. 11,402,299 as reflected in the USPTO Open Data Portal structured block supplied with this task; the breakdown is therefore 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied. The bottom-line defensive posture is that all eight claims of the '299 patent are UNTESTED — there is no claims-invalidated precedent to exploit, no FWD to cite against the patent owner, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel to leverage, but equally no PTAB record showing the claims are strong. A defendant today holds a completely clean slate: every validity ground, including art that would be foreclosed had an earlier petitioner lost, remains available.

Because there are no proceedings, the usual per-proceeding sections (### IPR####-#####) are omitted rather than fabricated. What follows is the substitute analysis.

Scope and verification caveats

• Canonical source: the "PTAB proceedings on file" structured block (USPTO ODP), which returns no AIA trial proceedings. Per the operating instruction, this is the default and controlling answer.
• Independent verification: targeted searches on 2026-09-29 for "11402299" inter partes review, PTAB petitions naming Pirelli Tyre S.p.A., and IPR petitions touching the '299 parent (U.S. 10,837,868) returned no petition, institution decision, FWD, or appeal. A third-party PTAB analytics summary (last updated 2026-05-28) lists zero PTAB cases faced by Pirelli Tyre — consistent with the ODP result.
• Residual uncertainty (stated honestly): I cannot rule out a petition filed so recently that it has not been docketed in ODP or indexed by search engines. IPR petitions are public on filing at PTAB E2E / PTAB Decisions, so a filing more than a few days old should have surfaced. Treat the zero count as reliable as of 2026-09-29, and re-run the ODP query before relying on it.
• Adjacent enforcement, not PTAB: the only adversarial activity I could identify involving Pirelli as plaintiff in this time frame is a UPC proceeding in Milan — Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v. Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. and CCPIT, UPC CFI No. 770/2024 (consolidated with No. 556/2025), asserting EP 3 519 207 — a different patent on tread/carcass structure, with SYR counterclaiming for revocation. This is not an AIA trial, is not on the '299 patent, and carries no estoppel or preclusive effect for a US defendant. I flag it only so it is not mistaken for PTAB activity.

---

Claim status of the '299 patent — the short table

The '299 patent issued with 8 claims, all apparatus (device) claims. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim; claims 2–8 all depend from claim 1. The method claims of this family live in the parent, U.S. 10,837,868 B2 (App. 16/064,867).

Because no claim has been cancelled or confirmed by the Board, there is no "surviving claim" subset to work from and no claim the patent owner has been forced to defend on narrowed ground. Note the structural consequence of the continuation filing: the '299 claims are directed to the setup device itself, not to the method of using it. A party accused of using a setup method is pointed at the '868 parent; a party accused of making/selling/offering/importing the physical setup/calibration fixture is pointed at the '299. Confirm which of the two (or both) is asserted before building an invalidity theory — the two sets of claims have different scopes and different prior-art mappings.

---

Strategic summary

Canceled vs. sustained vs. untested. All eight claims of U.S. 11,402,299 are untested. There is no PTAB record — no FWD determining any claim unpatentable, no FWD determining any claim patentable, no adverse judgment, no disclaimer, and no certificate cancelling claims. The same appears true of the parent U.S. 10,837,868 and the European counterpart EP 3 397 934 B1 (granted 2020-02-12, in force), for which I likewise found no EPO opposition on record; one third-party dataset reports zero oppositions faced by Pirelli Tyre since 2018 (last updated 2026-05-28). The practical read: this family has never been validity-challenged in a contested post-grant forum in any jurisdiction I can verify. That cuts both ways — it means the claims are untested and potentially vulnerable (the "setup device / calibration artifact" space is crowded, as the specification's own cited art shows), but it also means there is no public roadmap of what a competent petitioner tried and failed to prove.

Estoppel landscape. There is no estoppel. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches only to a petitioner that obtains an instituted IPR that reaches a final written decision; with zero institutions, no party — and no party's privies — is barred from raising any ground under §§ 102/103 in a district court or ITC proceeding on the '299 patent. Conversely, a defendant has no "free bite" already taken on its behalf either: whatever art a defendant wants to run, it must run itself, and if it petitions and loses, it picks up the estoppel. For a defendant currently facing assertion, all prior-art grounds remain available, including: (a) art already cited on the face of the '299 patent that the Examiner did not substantively rely on — notably US 5,506,683 (Kumho), US 7,177,740 (Beihang), US 2009/0161122 A1 (United Technologies), JP 2009-262757 (Bridgestone), and US 2014/0180620 A1 (Hexagon Metrology) — all of which are calibration/coordinate-measurement-artifact references and therefore directly germane to claims 1–8; (b) EP 1 120 640 A1 (Bridgestone) and US 2012/0134656 A1 (Nihon Kizai), cited in the specification's own background as prior inspection apparatuses; and (c) art never before the Office at all, including real-world calibration fixtures/targets (device art, which cannot be the basis of an IPR ground but is fully available in district court — see Intuitive Surgical v. Ethicon, 25 F.4th 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2022)). Because the Board would decide § 325(d) discretion in the first instance, the cleanest petition strategy is to lead with art that is not already of record and to use the on-face references only as secondary teachings, avoiding an Advanced Bionics fight.

Pattern signals. No repeat petitioner exists because no petitioner exists. Patent owner behavior: Pirelli has not needed to defend any of these inspection/checking patents at the PTAB, and it does not appear to be a serial IPR filer in this space — one competitive-intelligence summary reports Pirelli as a petitioner in a small number of PTAB cases and a respondent in none. There is no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) anywhere in the chain for this family; Unified's activity in the "868-style" patent numbers that surfaced in my searches belongs to entirely unrelated patents (JustService.net, Omni MedSci, etc.) and must not be confused with the '299. The absence of any IPR, any EPO opposition, and any ex parte reexamination across US, EP, CN, BR and WO family members is itself a meaningful signal: either the family is not commercially threatening enough to attack, or potential infringers are choosing to litigate/design around rather than challenge validity. For a defendant, that argues for a careful cost-benefit analysis before being the first to open a PTAB front — but it also means the first petitioner would face no General Plastic follow-on bar and no § 325(d) recidivism concerns.

---

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant and you were hoping to lean on an existing FWD — you cannot. There is nothing to cite. No claim of U.S. 11,402,299 has been held unpatentable, and any demand letter you have received asserting claims 1–8 is asserting live, never-challenged claims. Do not represent to a court or to opposing counsel that any claim of this patent has been invalidated; the only accurate statement is that the patent has no PTAB history.

Concrete actions:

1. Preserve your § 315(b) clock. If you have been served with a complaint alleging infringement of the '299 patent, an IPR petition must be filed within one year of service (35 U.S.C. § 315(b)). That is the hard gate. Confirm the service date on the docket and calendar the bar date immediately.
2. The PGR window is closed. Post-grant review was available only within 9 months of grant; the '299 issued 2022-08-02, so the PGR deadline expired 2023-05-02. PGR is no longer an option. CBM is doubly unavailable — it applies only to financial-services "covered business methods," which a tyre-inspection calibration fixture is not, and the transitional program sunset for new petitions on 2020-09-16. IPR is the only AIA route left for this patent.
3. Widen the lens before filing. Check whether the asserted claims are actually the '299 device claims or the '868 method claims (parent, App. 16/064,867, granted 2020-11-17). They are separate patents with separate claim scopes; a petition against the wrong one is wasted money. Also confirm whether EP 3 397 934 B1 is being asserted in any UPC/EPO forum, where the available attack is EPO opposition or a UPC revocation counterclaim, not IPR.
4. Build the petition around fresh art. Candidate starting points: the calibration-artifact and 3-D coordinate-measurement references cited on the '299 face (US 5,506,683; US 7,177,740; US 2009/0161122; JP 2009-262757; US 2014/0180620) plus the inspection-apparatus art in the '299 specification's own background (EP 1 120 640 A1; US 2012/0134656 A1) — but structure the lead ground on art never substantively evaluated by the Examiner to defuse § 325(d). Also note that claim 1's recitation of a "substantially cylindrical portion having the top surface" with the central axis offset from the geometric centre of the second wall (claims 1 + 6) is the kind of geometry that may support a narrow, mechanical design-around — evaluate non-infringement in parallel with invalidity, because nothing in the file history suggests the patent owner has had to defend these limits.
5. Re-verify the zero count on the filing date. Before committing to a petition strategy, re-run the ODP AIA-trial query for US 11,402,299 and check PTAB E2E and the USPTO PTAB Decisions docket. If a first petition appears from another party, the calculus changes materially: a parallel or prior petition raises General Plastic / § 314(a) discretionary-denial risk for a follow-on filer and opens the possibility of a joinder strategy rather than an independent petition. Conversely, if you file first, you are free of those constraints.
6. Monitor the Federal Circuit. There is no appeal to track on this patent, and no CAFC docket number exists. If a future IPR produces an FWD, the losing party's notice of appeal under 37 C.F.R. § 90.2 / Fed. Cir. R. 15 is the point at which to check CourtListener for the appeal docket.

I'll research the assignment record and ownership chain for US 11402299 before building the analysis.

Let me check for recorded assignments and any litigation involving this patent family.

Let me verify the assignment records directly and check the parent patent and family.

Assignment Record Analysis — US 11,402,299 B2

Bottom line up front: US 11,402,299 has no recorded post-issuance assignments. The chain consists only of the original vesting of rights in the applicant, and the patent remains with the original operating-company assignee. I found zero NPE/troll signals. Details and caveats below.

Source / access caveat: I was unable to open a live USPTO Assignment Center session in this run (Patent Assignment Search at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/, mirrored at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). The conclusions below rest on the patent's own Google Patents legal-events record (authoritative text supplied), which shows no "AS" (assignment) entries — only prosecution (STPP), grant (STCF), and maintenance-fee (MAFP) events — plus corroborating family/priority data. If you pull the Assignment Center reel/frame directly, treat any inventor→applicant record as the one link below.

---

Inventors

Seven named inventors, all Pirelli R&D personnel based in the Milan (Italy) area, per the corresponding PCT publication WO 2017/115239 (Pirelli Tyre S.p.A., Viale Piero e Alberto Pirelli 25, 20126 Milano):

Pattern note (no red flag): These are career Pirelli inventors, not a group that departed ahead of a sale. Cross-referencing the inventors' granted-patent histories shows the same names continuing to file for Pirelli well after this 2015 priority date — e.g. Marchini accumulates 100+ Pirelli US patents through 2025, and Di Stefano/Boffa/Ballardini continue on later Pirelli tyre-inspection grants (US 11,346,792; US 11,215,567, etc.). There is no signal of a coordinated inventor exit within 12 months of filing that would precede a portfolio fire-sale.

---

Original assignee

Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. (Viale Piero e Alberto Pirelli 25, 20126 Milano, Italy) — named as applicant on the PCT and as assignee of record on both the parent (US 10,837,868) and this continuation.

• Primary line of business: Design, manufacture, and sale of tires for cars, motorcycles, and industrial vehicles (the tyre operating arm of the Pirelli & C. S.p.A. group; Pirelli & C. owns 100% of Pirelli Tyre).
• Does it ship a product embodying the claims? The patent claims a setup/calibration device used to set up a tyre-checking apparatus (an inspection-tool artifact, not a consumer product). Pirelli builds and operates such tyre-inspection lines internally; the device itself is not a standalone commercial product. Pirelli unambiguously ships tyres and is a large, active operating manufacturer.
• Current status: Operating. No bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition of the applicant is reflected anywhere in the record. The patent is Active, with a 4th-year maintenance fee paid 2026-02-02 (event MAFP, large entity), and the sibling continuation US 10,837,868 is likewise Active — both by Pirelli Tyre S.p.A.

---

Assignment timeline

No recorded assignments exist for this patent. The Google Patents legal-events record for US 11,402,299 B2 lists only:

• 2020-10-14 — Application filed (continuation of US 16/064,867)
• 2020-10-21 — Dispatched from pre-exam
• 2021-08-20 — Docketed / ready for examination
• 2021-12-23 — Non-final office action mailed
• 2022-03-17 — Response entered
• 2022-04-01 — Notice of allowance mailed
• 2022-07-13 — Patent grant (STCF)
• 2026-02-02 — Maintenance fee paid, 4th year (MAFP)

There is no conveyance of any type (Assignment, Security Agreement, Merger, Change of Name, License, Release, Correction) recorded against US 11,402,299, and none against its parent US 10,837,868. The applicant/assignee field reads Pirelli Tyre SpA on both the original filing and the issued patent — i.e. no change of ownership occurred between filing and grant, or since.

• Correspondent of record: Not determinable — there is no assignment recording, hence no assignment correspondent. (A prosecution attorney of record may exist in the file wrapper, but that is distinct from an assignment correspondent and is not evidence of any NPE chain.)

Interpretation: The only ownership link that may exist off the Google record is the routine inventor→applicant (Pirelli Tyre S.p.A.) assignment that Pirelli typically records for PCT national-phase entries. Even if present, it is a single internal vesting step, not a transfer to a third party, and it does not alter the analysis. No acquisition, fire-sale, securitization, transfer-to-asserter, or defensive-aggregation event appears.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11402299
    2015 : Priority IT filing by Pirelli Tyre
    2016 : PCT application filed by Pirelli Tyre
    2018 : US national phase entered
         : Parent case US 16064867 filed
    2020 : Parent US 10837868 granted to Pirelli
         : Continuation US 17070393 filed
    2022 : US 11402299 granted to Pirelli Tyre
    2026 : 4th year maintenance fee paid

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

---

Verdict

Insufficient data (only the original assignment).

Justification: No assignment of any type is recorded against US 11,402,299 B2 — the Google Patents legal-events record contains only prosecution, grant (STCF, 2022-07-13), and maintenance-fee (MAFP, 2026-02-02) entries, with Pirelli Tyre SpA as assignee from filing through the present, and its continuation parent US 10,837,868 equally unencumbered. The absence of any recorded transfer, combined with Pirelli's status as a large operating tyre manufacturer still paying maintenance fees on the live family, yields zero NPE signals; accordingly the chain cannot be classified as NPE, privateering, or defensive aggregation — there is simply nothing beyond the original (applicant) vesting. This is itself the finding: the original operating assignee retains ownership, and there is no evidence of any assertion or monetization activity involving this patent.

Verify at: USPTO Patent Assignment Search — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (or https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html), query patent number 11402299; cross-check the parent 10837868 (Family ID 55795032) under the same query.

I'll search the USPTO and related databases for this specific patent number and its cited references.

Let me verify the key prior-art references that are most relevant to the granted device claims.

Prior-Art Analysis for US 11,402,299 B2

A. USPTO record check (literal identifier 11,402,299)

The record for US 11,402,299 B2 is confirmed as follows (from the Google Patents mirror of the USPTO record; I could not open a live PatentCenter/PAIR session, so this is the published bibliographic data, not an authenticated PAIR screenshot):

• Patent No.: US 11,402,299 B2 — "Method for setting up a tyre checking apparatus, setup device used in said method"
• Application No.: 17/070,393 — filed 2020-10-14; granted 2022-08-02
• Assignee: Pirelli Tyre S.p.A.; Earliest priority: 2015-12-28 (IT 102015000088039)
• Continuity: continuation of Ser. No. 16/064,867 (US 10,837,868 B2), itself the §371 national phase of PCT/IB2016/057921 (WO 2017/115239 A1)
• Class: G01M17/027; G01B11/25; G01B21/042; G01M11/0264
• Adjusted expiration: 2037-01-04; 4th-year maintenance fee paid 2026-02-02

No result for a different number was substituted. (As previously noted, no US litigation, IPR, or PGR naming this exact number was found.)

Claim set that matters for § 102: the granted patent has 8 claims, all device/apparatus claims (one independent — claim 1 — and dependents 2–8). This is important: the "most relevant prior art" must be assessed against a calibration-jig structure, not against a set-up method.

Flagged nuance vs. the earlier summary: the earlier section stated the pre-grant publication "presented both method claims (1–13) and device claims (14–22)." The published record for US 2021/0025785 A1 shows the opposite arrangement of numbering — claims 1–22 are marked "(canceled)" and the live set is claims 23–31 (all device), which corresponds to the granted set. I report this literally as retrieved; it refines, rather than reverses, the earlier observation that the method subject matter did not survive into this patent.

---

B. How § 102 is applied here

For a reference to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single reference must disclose every element of a claim, arranged as claimed. Claim 1 requires all of:

• (a) a first wall with first predefined shapes;
• (b) a second wall with second predefined shapes, the second wall being substantially parallel and non-coplanar to the first wall;
• (c) a top surface;
• (d) a central reference arranged on the top surface; and
• (e) a substantially cylindrical portion having the top surface.

Claims 2–8 add: top surface on the first wall (2); horizontal walls (3); cylindrical portion extending from the second wall (4); cylindrical portion and second shapes side-by-side on the second wall (5); cylindrical-portion axis offset from the second-wall geometric centre (6); first shapes equal to second shapes (7); and central reference = pointed protrusion + slidable cylindrical alignment sleeve (8).

Bottom line up front: none of the 15 cited references discloses the full combination of (a)–(e). The two structurally closest references are US 2014/0180620 A1 (Hexagon Metrology) and US 2009/0161122 A1 (United Technologies) — both are generic calibration artifacts, not tyre-setup jigs, and both lack the "central reference on a top surface of a cylindrical portion." They are strong § 103 references, not § 102 anticipants.

---

C. Reference-by-reference analysis

Table — citations listed on the face of US 11,402,299

Family citation (not in the US face list)

• EP 2,112,465 A1 — Snap-on Equipment Srl a unico socio — "Parameter detection system for wheels," published 2009-10-28 (priority 2008-04-24). Listed as a "family cites" reference (i.e., cited during prosecution of a family member, likely EP 3397934 B1). Wheel-parameter detection systems commonly employ reference/target fixtures, so this warrants a full-text check; I did not retrieve its claims and therefore assert no § 102 mapping.

Non-patent citations on the face

• EPO International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/IB2016/057921, both dated 2017-03-30 — these are where the search-category (X/Y/A) designations for the family live; the categories are not reproduced in the '299 record I retrieved.
• China National IP Administration First Office Action, counterpart CN 201680078567.8, dated 2019-10-31.
• Brazilian Patent Office Office Action, counterpart BR112018012511.3, dated 2020-05-28.
• These three documents may name additional art beyond the face list; their substantive citations were not available in the retrieved record.

---

D. Ranking — most relevant prior art for US 11,402,299

1. US 2014/0180620 A1 (Hexagon Metrology) — only cited reference that squarely discloses two parallel, non-coplanar planes each carrying calibration targets, i.e., the (a)+(b) core of claim 1. Best § 103 reference.
2. US 2009/0161122 A1 (United Technologies) — multi-surface targeted artifact with a flat upper surface (maps to (a)/(b)/(c) loosely; the antecedent "artifacts" concept).
3. JP 2009-262757 A (Bridgestone) — a 3-D coordinate-system calibration method; relevant to the calibration function, disclosure unverified.
4. US 2016/0054200 A1 (Kobe Steel) — examiner-cited shape-inspection device; check against the cylinder/target geometry.
5. EP 1,120,640 A1 (Bridgestone) — the rotary-table + central-camera environment cited in the '299 background.
6. US 10,837,868 B2 (Pirelli) — the parent; relevant to ODP, not anticipation.

The remaining tyre-inspection citations (US 5,506,683; US 7,177,740; US 2012/0134656; CN 102478527; WO 2014/020485; WO 2015/004587; WO 2015/044196; US 2016/0238488; WO 2015/079370) are background to tyre metrology/inspection and do not teach the claimed setup-jig geometry.

---

E. Conclusion on § 102

• No cited reference anticipates any of claims 1–8 on the record available. Each lacks at least the "central reference on the top surface" datum (d) and/or the "substantially cylindrical portion having the top surface" (e), and none discloses both parallel non-coplanar walls with those two elements.
• The most relevant prior art is the calibration-artifact cluster: Hexagon US 2014/0180620 A1 and United Technologies US 2009/0161122 A1, with JP 2009-262757 A and Kobe Steel US 2016/0054200 A1 as secondary candidates. These are § 103-grade references bearing on claims 1, 3, 5 and 7.
• The examiner's own asterisked citations on the '299 face are US 2016/0054200 A1 and the parent US 10,837,868 B2 — a useful signal of where the examiner focused, though the parent is a double-patenting reference, not § 102 art.

---

F. Caveats and flagged issues

1. Sourcing. I confirmed the patent through the Google Patents mirror of the USPTO record; I did not run a live PAIR/PatentCenter or full-text PACER/PTAB query. Descriptions for JP 2009-262757 A and CN 102478527 A rest on titles/abstracts only (native-language full texts not retrieved) and are flagged as unverified.
2. Date inconsistency in the prompt. The task header states "Current Date: April 26, 2026" while the session date supplied above is 2026-09-29. I did not reconcile these; all bibliographic reasoning here is date-independent apart from noting the 4th-year fee paid 2026-02-02.
3. Claim-set nuance (noted in §A) between the earlier summary's "method claims 1–13 / device claims 14–22" and the retrieved pre-grant publication showing claims 1–22 canceled with device claims 23–31 live.
4. § 102 vs § 103 framing. Because all eight claims are device claims and no reference discloses the complete claimed jig, the "which claim does it anticipate" question yields, honestly, "none fully" for the cited art; the value of these references is as § 103 combinations. Stating an anticipation mapping where none exists would fabricate a legal conclusion.
5. Further work recommended: obtain the JP 2009-262757 A and CN 102478527 A full texts; pull the EP 3397934 B1 ISR/Written Opinion search categories; and check EP 2,112,465 A1 (Snap-on) claims — any of these could change the § 103 picture, though on present evidence the § 102 conclusion stands.

I'll research the cited prior-art references so the obviousness analysis is grounded in what they actually disclose.

Good detail on the Hexagon and UTC artifacts. Now let me pull the remaining cited references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 11,402,299 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Patent: US 11,402,299 B2 (Pirelli Tyre S.p.A.) — "Method for setting up a tyre checking apparatus, setup device used in said method"
Claim set analyzed: Claims 1–8 (all device claims; claim 1 independent)
Analysis date: April 26, 2026

---

0. Important framing notes (read before the analysis)

1. The asserted claim set is device-only. Although the specification is drafted around a method, this continuation issued with eight device claims and zero method claims. Everything below is directed to the physical setup device (the calibration/setup jig), not to the method steps. The method described in the specification (rotating the table, touching a spike to the central reference, etc.) is not claimed here and is therefore relevant only as context and as evidence of the intended use of the claimed structure.
2. Not every "prior art" listed on the Google Patents page is § 102/§ 103 prior art. Two entries are the patent's own family and cannot be used against it:
   • US 10,837,868 B2 — the parent patent (same applicant, same 2015-12-28 priority). Not prior art.
   • WO 2017/115239 A1 — the family's own PCT publication. Not prior art.
     The remaining cited documents all have effective filing dates before 2015-12-28 and qualify as prior art (US 2016/0054200 A1 qualifies as AIA § 102(a)(2) art by virtue of its 2013-04-08 priority even though it published 2016-02-25).
3. I do not have the full text of every cited reference. The disclosures of the two most important references (Hexagon US 2014/0180620 A1 and UTC US 2009/0161122 A1) were retrieved and read directly. For JP 2009-262757 A, CN 102478527 A, US 5,506,683 A, US 7,177,740 B1, WO 2014/020485 A1, WO 2015/004587 A1, WO 2015/079370 A1, and US 2016/0238488 A1 I rely on the titles/abstracts supplied in the patent's citation list plus corroborating records, and I flag where my confidence is lower.
4. The claims are already granted. There is a statutory presumption of validity, and the combination must be evaluated against the granted claim language, not the specification's broader disclosure.

---

1. Claim 1 decomposed into elements

The dependent claims add: 2 (top surface on the first wall), 3 (walls horizontal), 4 (cylinder extends from second wall), 5 (cylinder and F2 side-by-side), 6 (cylinder axis offset from geometric centre of second wall), 7 (F1 ≈ F2), 8 (central reference = pointed protrusion + axially slidable cylindrical-cavity alignment element).

Net structural characterization of claim 1: a base plate bearing a calibration pattern → a pedestal rising from the base whose top carries a second calibration pattern → a datum feature on top of the pedestal. That is the entire independent claim.

---

2. Prior-art references and what each supplies

2.1 US 2014/0180620 A1 — Hexagon Metrology (Hicks et al.), filed 2012-12-21

Read in full.

• A calibration artifact for an optical/machine-vision coordinate measuring machine comprising "a base … and a surface defining a base plane; a first optically visible target coupled to the base and disposed in a first plane, the first plane parallel to the base plane; and a second optically visible target … disposed in a second plane that is parallel to the first plane" — and expressly, "the second plane is displaced from the first plane in a direction normal to the first plane."
• Further: "a vertical support coupled to the base, and configured to extend from the base into the object volume. The vertical support is coupled to the first target and suspends the first target within the object volume."
• Targets may be "a plurality of concentric rings around a center point" or a bull's-eye.
• Method includes rotating the artifact and repeating measurement to compute/compare distances.
• Base length may be "controllably adjustable," with first base member movable with respect to the second base member.

Supply: elements A, B, C almost verbatim (two calibration targets on parallel, non-coplanar planes, one carried by a support upstanding from the base), plus element D (surfaces of the base/support), plus the motivation (calibrating a camera in a measuring machine). This is the closest single reference and is the natural primary reference.

2.2 US 2009/0161122 A1 (and US 7,869,026 B2) — United Technologies (Boyer et al.), filed 2007-12-21

Read in full.

• A targeted artifact for evaluating 3-D coordinate measurement accuracy of optical measuring systems, comprising "a base; and target dots located on the base."
• Expressly: "the base comprises: a flat upper surface; and an interchangeable post connected to the flat upper surface operative to accommodate various measuring volumes" (claim 14).
• Targets come in different sizes; the artifact is measured from multiple positions/orientations, including a repeated "home" position, to validate that the measuring system repeatably creates the 3-D coordinate system formed by the target dots.

Supply: a base with a flat upper surface carrying target marks, and — critically — a post upstanding from that upper surface carrying further targets, i.e., the "pedestal with a target on top" architecture and the interchangeable/adaptable support concept. Also supplies the motivation of multi-position calibration for repeatability.

2.3 US 2016/0054200 A1 — Kobe Steel, priority 2013-04-08

Read from the record/snippets (medium confidence on exact wording, high confidence on gist).

• A shape inspection device for tyres uses a metal "master disk" that simulates a tyre, on which raised/depressed plates of known shape values are mounted, mounted on the machine, and the measurement accuracy of the shape inspection device is checked by comparing measured data against the known values of the plates. The plates are fixed to the master disk and arranged relative to a central axis.

Supply: the crucial tire-machine-specific motivation — placing a known-geometry master with predefined shapes on the tyre-checking machine's own support to calibrate/verify the inspection optics. This is the bridge between the generic CMM artifact art (2.1, 2.2) and the tyre-checking apparatus of the '299 patent.

2.4 EP 1 120 640 A1 — Bridgestone, priority 1999-12-28

Tyre appearance/shape inspection with the tyre on a rotary table and a support structure carrying light emitters and cameras. Supplies the apparatus environment (rotary support base + overhead/positioned cameras) that the '299 patent presupposes.

2.5 JP 2009-262757 A — Bridgestone, priority 2008-04-24

Titled "Three-dimensional coordinate system calibration method" (per citation list). Supplies the concept of calibrating a 3-D coordinate system for a measurement setup using reference features. (I did not retrieve the full text; confidence in specific teachings is moderate.)

2.6 EP 2 112 465 A1 — Snap-on Equipment, priority 2008-04-24

A parameter detection system for wheels in which a wheel/tyre is mounted on a rotary mounting device (balancer/tyre changer), imaged by two cameras, and which expressly provides "a reference position to which the mobile unit can be placed to perform calibration or presetting of the system" and a reference plane perpendicular to the wheel axis.

Supply: the notion of a calibration/presetting reference feature on the tyre-handling machine — the closest cited art to the "central reference" concept (element E), though it is a reference position rather than a robot-touch datum pin.

2.7 US 2012/0134656 A1 / CN 102478527 A (Nihon Kizai / Toyo)

Illumination and inspection devices for tyres. Background only; useful to show that camera-based tyre inspection with projected light was a mature field.

---

3. The § 103 combinations

Combination 1 — Hexagon '620 (primary) + UTC '112 (secondary): renders claims 1–5 and 7 obvious

Mapping:

Motivation to combine (KSR / reasonable expectation of success):

• Both references are in the same field (verifying/calibrating optical 3-D measuring systems by measuring an artifact of known geometry) and address the same problem the '299 patent identifies — accurate, repeatable setting of optical tools before measurement.
• Both expressly contemplate multi-position/multi-orientation measurement of the artifact (Hexagon: rotate and re-measure; UTC: measure from several positions and re-measure at "home"). A designer seeking a single artifact that provides targets at two different, vertically separated planes so that a fixed overhead camera sees targets at more than one depth would naturally look to both.
• UTC '112 explicitly discloses the post-upstanding-from-a-base topology, which is exactly the missing structural piece needed to place Hexagon's suspended first target on a cylindrical pedestal rather than on a thin frame. Substituting a cylindrical post for Hexagon's "vertical support," and placing a bull's-eye/checkerboard on its top face, is a predictable mechanical variation with no change in principle of operation.
• Replacing Hexagon's bull's-eye with a checkerboard (claim 1's F1/F2 in the disclosed embodiment; and claim 7's "substantially equal" shapes) was, by 2015, a notorious, well-documented camera-calibration technique and thus an obvious design choice for a person of ordinary skill calibrating a camera — the target pattern type is a result-effective variable only insofar as it is detectable by the camera, and checkboards and dot/bull's-eye targets were interchangeable in the art (Hexagon itself lists both concentric-ring and bull's-eye alternatives).

Result: Claim 1 obvious; claims 3, 4, 5, 7 fall with it (horizontal walls = Hexagon's base/parallel-plane layout; cylinder "extending from the second wall" and "side by side" with F2 = the UTC base+post layout; F1 ≈ F2 = routine, and directly suggested by the desire to use identical camera-calibration patterns at two depths). Claim 2 (top surface on the first wall) is a mere recitation of where the top face of the pedestal lies.

---

Combination 2 — Adding Kobe Steel '200 and/or EP 2 112 465 A1: supplies element E and completes claim 1 (and claim 6)

Element E ("central reference on the top surface"). No single cited reference discloses a robot-touch datum pin. But the combination of:

• EP 2 112 465 — a "reference position … to which the mobile unit can be placed to perform calibration or presetting of the system" on a tyre/wheel machine; and
• Kobe Steel '200 — a master placed on the tyre-inspection machine with known-geometry reference features used to check measurement accuracy; and
• JP 2009-262757 — a 3-D coordinate system calibration method using reference features,

establishes that it was known and conventional in the tyre/optical-inspection field to place a reference datum feature on a master artifact at the machine so that the machine's optics and/or an associated positioning system could be calibrated to a known point. Placing that datum on the top surface of the upstanding pedestal (the highest, most visible, least occluded point of the artifact — and the point that in the '299 embodiment is where the robot spike lands) is an obvious placement choice driven by the very purpose of the datum, and confirmed by the '299 specification's own explanation that the centred position of the central reference defines the origin of the robot's axes.

Element F + claim 6 (cylinder axis offset from the geometric centre of the base). Claim 6's eccentric layout is the device-side reflection of the method's need to rotate the artifact off-centre on the rotary table so the two target patterns sweep different circles (this is why the '299 spec computes two centres of rotation). Hexagon '620 already discloses a base whose length is adjustable, with first and second base members relatively movable — i.e., a deliberately asymmetric/adjustable artifact geometry. Adjusting the position of an upstanding feature relative to a base centre to vary the swept radius is a matter of obvious design choice with a clear design incentive (sampling a larger field of the camera's view). Claim 6 is therefore obvious over Hexagon '620 alone, or over Hexagon '620 in view of the '299 device's own stated purpose.

Result: Claim 1 (full) obvious over Hexagon '620 + UTC '112 + Kobe Steel '200 and/or EP 2 112 465 A1; claim 6 obvious over Hexagon '620 (adjustable base) or as a design choice.

---

Combination 3 — Claim 8 (the slidable alignment sleeve): the weakest link

Claim 8 recites that the central reference comprises (a) a pointed protrusion extending from the top surface and (b) an alignment element with a substantially cylindrical through cavity, axially slidable around the protrusion.

• UTC '112 discloses an "interchangeable post" on the base — i.e., a removable/slidable member mounted on a post, which anticipates the idea of a member that is fitted onto a projection.
• The claimed sliding sleeve is otherwise the classic self-centering spigot-and-sleeve / plug-and-socket kinematic datum, ubiquitous in metrology and fixturing: a tapered point received in a cylindrical bore is the standard way to establish a repeatable point contact. Under KSR, "a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions," and the substitution of a sliding self-centering sleeve for a fixed datum point is such a predictable use.
• Nevertheless, I have not found a cited reference that expressly discloses a sleeve slidable away from the top surface to receive a robot spike. This limitation is the most plausible basis on which claim 8 (and, derivatively, no broader claim) could be argued to be non-obvious.

Assessment: Claim 8 is not clearly obvious on the cited-of-record art alone; a combination with art directed to robot tool-center-point (TCP) calibration or self-centering kinematic datum sleeves would be needed, and no such reference appears in this record.

---

4. Claim-by-claim conclusion

---

5. Anticipated counter-arguments and how they fare

Applicant's likely rebuttals:

1. "None of the references relate to tyre-checking setup." — Weak. Hexagon '620 and UTC '112 are directed to the identical problem of calibrating an optical measuring system by measuring a structured artifact, and Kobe Steel '200 and EP 2 112 465 expressly place such a master/reference on a tyre machine. The field of endeavour and the problem to be solved overlap; KSR permits combination across fields where the references are "reasonably pertinent."

2. "The references disclose flat artifacts / single-plane targets, not two parallel non-coplanar target planes." — Factually wrong as to Hexagon '620, which recites precisely a first and second target in parallel, relatively displaced planes, with the second plane displaced normal to the first.

3. "The central reference and the cylindrical portion are not suggested." — Partially fair. This is the strongest point for element E, but the incentive to place a datum on the artifact is supplied by Kobe Steel '200/EP 2 112 465, and the placement on the top surface of the highest member is dictated by the datum's function.

4. Secondary considerations (objective indicia). The specification asserts speed and precision/repeatability of setup as advantages. To be probative these must be shown to be unexpected and attributable to the claimed structure, not to the (unclaimed) method. A claimed jig that merely performs faster, more repeatable calibration — the very purpose of all calibration artifacts — is a result that the prior art already aimed at (UTC '112 aims at repeatability of the created 3-D coordinate system; Hexagon aims at accuracy verification). No unexpected result is apparent from the record. A nexus between the alleged advantage and the claim elements is also not established for every element (e.g., the claimed eccentricity of claim 6 is described as enabling the method's off-centre rotation, not as producing an independent technical effect).

Strength of the position overall: Combination 1 alone is a formidable § 103 challenge because Hexagon '620 recites the two-parallel-offset-target-planes core of claim 1 almost in the claim's own words. Element E (central reference) and claim 8 (sliding sleeve) are the only limitations for which no cited reference squarely discloses structure, and Element E is bridged by the tyre-machine master-art (Kobe Steel '200 / EP 2 112 465).

---

6. Caveats and confidence levels

• High confidence: the content and relevance of US 2014/0180620 A1 and US 2009/0161122 A1 — I read these directly. Claim 1's elements A–D are squarely met by Hexagon '620.
• Medium confidence: US 2016/0054200 A1 — I read only record summaries; the "master disk with known-value raised/depressed plates mounted on the machine" gist is clear, but I did not verify whether it discloses a datum pin.
• Lower confidence / unverified: JP 2009-262757 A, CN 102478527 A, US 5,506,683 A, US 7,177,740 B1, and the Pirelli WO applications — I rely on titles/summaries. Any of these could increase or decrease the strength of the combinations; JP 2009-262757 in particular could be important for the "3-D coordinate system calibration" teaching and should be read in full before relying on this analysis.
• No litigation or PTAB record involving US 11,402,299 was found (see the prior Litigation section), so there is no adversary's claim-construction or validity position to react to.
• The parent US 10,837,868 B2 and the family PCT publication are not prior art and were excluded from all combinations above. The Google Patents citation list flags US 10,837,868 B2 with an asterisk; it is a family member, not a § 103 reference.
• This is a patentability/validity analysis, not a legal opinion; a formal invalidity contention would require full-text retrieval and English translation of the Japanese, Chinese, and WO references and, for claim 8, a dedicated search into robot TCP-calibration and kinematic-datum art.

---

7. Bottom line

Under § 103, claims 1–7 of US 11,402,299 B2 are, in my assessment, likely obvious over a combination of Hexagon Metrology US 2014/0180620 A1 as primary reference (two parallel, non-coplanar calibration targets, one suspended on a support upstanding from a base, for a machine-vision measuring machine) in view of United Technologies US 2009/0161122 A1 (base with flat upper surface and an interchangeable post carrying targets), further in view of Kobe Steel US 2016/0054200 A1 and/or Snap-on EP 2 112 465 A1 (the routine practice of mounting a known-geometry master with a reference feature on a tyre machine to calibrate/verify measurement accuracy). Claim 8 is the only claim I would hesitate to call obvious on this record, because the recited axially slidable alignment sleeve is not squarely shown by any cited reference, though it is arguably a predictable self-centering datum expedient under KSR.