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 April 29, 2024 and October 15, 2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed September 21, 2023 are accepted.
Abstract
The Abstract filed September 21, 2023 is accepted.
Specification
The specification filed September 21, 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 10 – 18 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.
Claims 10 – 18 recite in their preamble “A four-wheel alignment system, comprising an image acquisition apparatus and the alignment target” which is considered indefinite with respect to claims 1 - 8 because the claim language creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs as the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter cannot be fully ascertained.
Specifically, the preamble of claims 1 – 8 is directed to the alignment target, while the preamble of claims 10 – 18 recite a four-wheel alignment system comprising an image acquisition apparatus and the alignment target. In addition, claims 10 – 18 are dependent from claims 1 – 8. The dependency of claim 10 creates a conflict with respect to claim 1 because claim 1 does not include and/or positively claims a four wheel alignment or image acquisition apparatus. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter is not clear and cannot be fully ascertained.
The same issue exists in claims 11 – 18 with respect to claims 2 – 8. Accordingly, the claims are also considered indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luo et al. (CN 111879263 A).
With respect to claim 1, Luo et al. discloses an alignment target (See Figures 1 and 2), comprising a target plate (200), the target plate being provided with a position indication pattern (See Figures 1 and 2), and the position indication pattern being used for indicating position information of the alignment target; a flexible protective member (120), the flexible protective member being arranged around a periphery of the target plate (See Figure 2); and a housing (110), the housing (110) comprising a main body portion and a frame arranged around the periphery of the main body portion, the frame enclosing an accommodating space, the target plate and the flexible protective member being disposed in the accommodating space, the flexible protective member being located between the target plate and the housing, and the flexible protective member being used for buffering an interaction force between the housing and target plate (See Figures 1 and 2, disclosure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
452
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Referring to claim 10, Luo et al. sets forth a four-wheel alignment system, comprising an image acquisition apparatus and the alignment target wherein the image acquisition apparatus is configured to acquire the position indication pattern of the alignment target so as to acquire position information of the alignment target according to the position indication pattern (See specification below).
PNG
media_image2.png
342
894
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
172
918
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jackson et al. (US 7,373,726 B2).
With respect to claim 1, Jackson et al. discloses an alignment target (See Figure 2), comprising a target plate (10), the target plate being provided with a position indication pattern (See Figure 2), and the position indication pattern being used for indicating position information of the alignment target; a flexible protective member (24), the flexible protective member being arranged around a periphery of the target plate (See Figures 4A and 4B); and a housing (20), the housing comprising a main body portion and a frame (36) arranged around the periphery of the main body portion, the frame (36) enclosing an accommodating space, the target plate (10) and the flexible protective member (24) being disposed in the accommodating space, the flexible protective member being located between the target plate and the housing, and the flexible protective member being used for buffering an interaction force between the housing and target plate (See Figure 6B).
Referring to claim 2, Jackson et al. sets forth an alignment target wherein the target plate (10) comprises a support layer, a reflective layer (14), and a pattern layer (16) located between the support layer and the reflective layer arranged in a stacking manner (See Figure 2), wherein the pattern layer is provided with the position indication pattern, and the support layer is located on one face of the pattern layer facing the main body portion; the flexible protective member is provided on the periphery of the target plate in a fitting manner to seal a lamination gap between the support layer, the pattern layer, and the reflective layer (See Figures 2 and 5).
In regards to claim 5, Jackson et al. teaches an alignment target wherein an outer wall face of the frame (36) is further provided with a plurality of anti-collision protrusions (i.e. ledge 22 in combination with scratch resistant, non-breakable outer layer 16), the plurality of anti-collision protrusions (ledge 22) being provided around the periphery of the frame (Columns 3 and 5, lines 51 – 52 and 34 – 39, respectively).
Regarding claim 8, Jackson et al. shows an alignment target further comprising an adhesive member (Columns 4 and 5, lines 66 – 67 and 1 – 3, respectively) for adhering the housing (20) to the flexible protective member.
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.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. (US 7,373,726 B2).
Jackson et al. discloses an alignment target as recited in paragraph 10 above
Jackson et al. does not disclose the integral structure anti-collision protrusion and frame as recited in claim 6.
Regarding claim 6, Jackson et al. shows an alignment target wherein the anti-collision protrusion (ledge 22) and the frame (36) are secured together by screws to form a tight and sealed structure. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide an integral anti-collision structure between the protrusion/ledge and the frame, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
With regards to claim 7, Jackson et al. discloses an alignment target wherein the anti-collision protrusion/ledge extends around the periphery of the target. The use of the particular type of anti-collision protrusion claimed by applicant, absent any criticality, is considered to be nothing more than a choice of engineering skill, choice or design because 1) neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e., results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the alignment target is protected from blunt force damage, as already suggested by Jackson et al., 2) the anti-collision protrusion claimed by Applicant and the ledge and scratch resistant non-breakable outer layer used by Jackson et al. are well known alternate types of anti-collision protrusion which will perform the same function, if one is replaced with the other, of protecting the alignment target from blunt force damage, and 3) the use of the particular type of anti-collision protrusion by Applicant is considered to be nothing more than the use of one of numerous and well known alternate types of anti-collision protrusion that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to provide using routine experimentation in order to protect the alignment target from blunt force damage as already suggested by Jackson et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 9 is allowable because the prior art fails to teach or suggest an alignment target wherein the flexible protective member comprises a first wall and a second wall arranged around the periphery of the first wall; the target plate also has a connecting face facing the main body portion, the first wall is located between the connecting face and the main body portion, and the second wall is located between an outer peripheral wall of the target plate and an inner peripheral wall of the frame; and, wherein the flexible protective member further comprises a third wall, and the third wall and the first wall are provided opposite at two ends of the second wall, wherein the first wall, the second wall, and the third wall enclose a groove for being in sleeve joint and mating with an edge of the target plate, and the third wall is provided with a receding opening for exposing the position indication pattern in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
Claim 9 is allowable because the prior art fails to teach or suggest an alignment target wherein one face of the main body portion facing the target plate is provided with a plurality of first reinforcing ribs, wherein a plurality of the first reinforcing ribs is arranged in a staggered manner and forms a plurality of accommodating grooves, a part of at least one of the adhesive members is located in the accommodating grooves and is fixedly connected to the main body portion, and another part is located outside the accommodating grooves and is fixedly connected to the target plate and/or the flexible protective member; and/or a reinforcing protrusion is further provided on one face of the main body portion facing away from the accommodating space, and the reinforcing protrusion encloses a closed-loop region on the main body portion 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:
D’Agostino et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0293415 A1) discloses a target and a wheel alignment system, said target comprising a pattern and frame for mounting to the wheel but fails to teach 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
February 5, 2026
/YARITZA GUADALUPE-MCCALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855