DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 20, 2022 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Abstract
The Abstract filed December 20, 2022 has been entered.
Specification
The amendment to the specification filed February 17, 2023 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “A rolling master fixture for calibration of a wheel alignment station and/or measurement devices thereof” which is considered indefinite because the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired cannot be fully ascertained. The use of “and/or” is considered indefinite because it raises a question or doubt as to what particular measurement devices are required by the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2 – 9 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “A method for calibrating a wheel alignment station and/or measurement devices thereof” which is considered indefinite because the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired cannot be fully ascertained. The use of “and/or” is considered indefinite because it raises a question or doubt as to what particular measurement devices are required by the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is rejected due to their dependency on claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (CN 113218671 A).
With respect to claim 1, Wang et al. discloses a rolling master fixture (Figure 1) for calibration of a wheel alignment station and/or measurement devices thereof, the rolling master fixture comprising a support frame (1); two rear wheels (3) mounted to the support frame; two front wheels (2) mounted to the support frame through a front wheel mounting arrangement; and a steering arrangement (4, 41) for steering the front wheels.
PNG
media_image1.png
602
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Referring to claim 7, Wang et al. sets forth a rolling master fixture wherein the steering arrangement (4, 41) comprises a steering column (41) and a motor (i.e. robot 84) connected to the steering column (See Figure 9) for controlling steering of the front wheels.
PNG
media_image2.png
414
544
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 9, Wang et al. teaches a rolling master fixture further comprising a control panel (See Specification below) for controlling operation of the rolling master fixture and/or one or more components thereof, the control panel being in wired or wireless communication with the rolling master fixture and/or the one or more components thereof.
PNG
media_image3.png
412
894
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 113218671 A) in view of Liu et al. (CN 110044644 A).
Wang et al. discloses a rolling master fixture as recited in paragraph above.
Wang et al. does not disclose the aluminum frame as recited in claim 8.
In regards to claim 8, Liu et al. teaches a fixture comprising a support frame (1) at least partly made of aluminum or aluminum alloy (See Specification below).
PNG
media_image4.png
476
920
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Wang et al. by using aluminum or an aluminum alloy as taught by Liu et al. in order to provide an affordable, durable and lightweight frame.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 6 are would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10 - 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 2 – 6 are allowable because the prior art fails to teach or suggest a rolling master fixture wherein the front wheel mounting arrangement comprises a physical king pin axis; wherein the physical king pin axis is provided with an opening at each end in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
Claims 10 – 11 are allowable because the prior art fails to teach or suggest a method for calibrating a wheel alignment station and/or measurement devices thereof, the method comprising the steps of arranging a rolling master fixture in the wheel alignment station, and calibrating the wheel alignment station and/or the measurement devices thereof based on a comparison of the caster angle and king pin angle as determined from the measurements, using the wheel alignment station with calibration values of caster angle and king pin angle determined through probe measurements on the physical king pin axis in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are considered relevant but fail to teach the combination as claimed:
Naruse (US 7,415,770) discloses a wheel alignment apparatus comprising a frame but fails to teach a fixture with the combination as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YARITZA GUADALUPE-MCCALL whose telephone number is (571)272-2244. The examiner can normally be reached Mon -Thu, 8:00am - 6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Laura E Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
YARITZA GUADALUPE-MCCALL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
November 4, 2025
/YARITZA GUADALUPE-MCCALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855