DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Para. [0036] recites “the SACD 123 may be a stator angle correction device described in U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0278318 A1.” Examiner has reviewed, considered, and cited this particular publication in the attached PTO-892.
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 27, 2023, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. [0034] recites "the SACD 123". Although the specification expands the abbreviation to be "stator angle correction device (SACD) in para. [0036], the specification does not expand the abbreviation on the first occurrence in the specification. Applicant is required to expand all abbreviations at first occurrence with its respective abbreviation. 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.
5. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamaha (WO 2017099124 A1; provided in IDS submitted on November 27, 2023 - new machine translation supplied by Examiner).
In regard to claim 1, Yamaha discloses a wheel measurement system [recognition unit 200, as described on page 14 paras. 7-8], comprising: a wheel position and orientation system (WPOS) [measurement information input unit 201 (unit 201) comprising sensors 101-120, as described on page 14 paras. 7-8] including: a linear sensor configured [front suspension stroke sensor 105, page 13 para. 10 describes a linear encoder] to connect with a vehicle and extend between a body of the vehicle and a wheel of the vehicle [page 13 para. 10 describes that front suspension stroke sensor 115 is in the vicinity of the fork 72/suspension 74, as shown in Fig. 2] to measure linear motion therebetween while the vehicle is in motion [page 13 para. 10, measures displacement of the front suspension 74]; and
two or more rotary sensors [front wheel speed sensor 106 and rear wheel speed sensor 116, described in page 13 para. 10 and page 14 para. 3 as rotary encoders; steering angle sensor 104 measures the rotation angle of the steering shaft 70, described in page 13 para. 9] configured to monitor angular changes [front and rear wheel speed sensors 106 and 116 measure rotational speed of their respective wheels - as described in page 13 para. 10 and page 14 para. 3] at a mounting position of the linear sensor at the body of the vehicle [Fig. 2 shows that the suspension 74 is connected to the driveshaft 70 via its connection to the head pipe 61, (page 13 para. 3 describes that connection), page 13 para. 9 describes that the steering angle sensor 104 is mounted in the vicinity of the driveshaft 70 to measure its rotation angle; thus, the steering angle sensor 104 is configured to monitor angular changes of the driveshaft 70 at the mounting position of the linear sensor (front suspension stroke sensor 105) at the body of the vehicle (via connection of the suspension 74)] and a mounting position of the linear sensor at the wheel of the vehicle while the vehicle is in motion [page 13 para. 10 describes that the front wheel speed sensor 106 is mounted in the vicinity of the front wheel 73, (where the fork 72 connects as shown in Fig. 2); thus, the front wheel speed sensor 106 is monitoring angular changes of the wheel (wheel speed) where the linear sensor (front suspension stroke sensor 105) mounts to the wheel (via connection of the fork 72)], wherein the linear motion and the angular changes determine movements of the wheel relative to the body while the vehicle is in motion [front and rear wheel speed sensors 106 and 116 measure rotational speed of their respective wheels - as described in page 13 para. 10 and page 14 para. 3; front suspension stroke sensor 105 measures displacement of front wheel].
In regard to claim 2, Yamaha discloses that the two or more rotary sensors are three or more rotary sensors [front wheel speed sensor 106, rear wheel speed sensor 116, and steering angle sensor 104].
In regard to claim 3, Yamaha discloses that the two or more rotary sensors are four or more rotary sensors [front wheel speed sensor 106, rear wheel speed sensor 116, steering angle sensor 104, and engine speed sensor 108 – page 13 para. 11 describes sensor 108 as a rotary encoder].
In regard to claim 5, Yamaha discloses that the linear sensor has a length and an axis extends through the length of the linear sensor [function of linear encoders - they slide along a length in a direction of an axis to measure displacement], and the linear sensor measures movement of the wheel relative to the body along the axis [front suspension stroke sensor 105 measures displacement of the front suspension 74 - page 13 para. 10].
In regard to claim 6, Yamaha discloses that the linear sensor in combination with the two or more rotary sensors measures a distance of movement between the body and the wheel [front suspension stroke sensor 105 measures displacement of the front suspension 74 - page 13 para. 10; thus, the front suspension stroke sensor 105 and the two or more rotary sensors measure said distance].
In regard to claim 8, Yamaha discloses that the linear sensor measures from a center of the wheel [Fig. 2 shows the fork 72 connected to the center of wheel 73] and a fender of the body [Fig. 2 shows the end of the suspension 74 connected to head pipe 61 which has a fender].
In regard to claim 9, Yamaha discloses one or more guide shafts [fork 72/suspension 74] that extend between the body and the wheel of the vehicle and support the linear sensor [Fig. 2 shows the fork 72 and suspension 74 between the body and the wheel, and supporting the front suspension stroke sensor 105].
In regard to claim 10, Yamaha discloses that the one or more guide shafts carry a load [suspension 74 endures a damping force; page 16 para. 9] when the wheel moves relative to the body [described as stroke amount in page. 13 para. 10] so that the linear sensor moves axially without carrying a load [page 16 para. 9 describes calculating a damping force endured by the suspension 74 based on the displacement of the front suspension stroke sensor 105 as well as a brake pressure measured by a front wheel brake pressure sensor].
In regard to claim 11, Yamaha discloses that the WPOS (unit 201) includes a vehicle mount configured to connect an upper portion of the WPOS to the body [Fig. 2 shows that image sensor 101 is mounted to a fender of the body; page 13 para. 8 describes that the image sensor 101 is mounted is provided on a front part of the body of a vehicle] and a lower portion of the WPOS to the wheel [page 13 para. 10 describes that the front wheel speed sensor 106 is mounted in the vicinity of the front wheel 73; Fig. 2 shows that the front wheel speed sensor 106 is lower than the image sensor 101].
In regard to claim 12, Yamaha discloses that the body includes a fender [shown in Fig. 2, the top left portion comprises a fender and a light] and the vehicle mount is configured to connect to the fender of the vehicle [image sensor 101 is connected to the fender].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claims 4, 7, 13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaha in view of Olesky (US 20140245623 A1).
In regard to claim 4, Yamaha further teaches that the movements comprise a steering angle [page 13 para. 9], and an X-axis position, Y-axis position, and Z-axis position [page 14 paras. 1-2 describe a 3-axis sensor 111 measures acceleration in the 3-axis directions (vertical direction, front-rear direction, left-right direction), a triaxial angular velocity sensor 112 that measures angular velocities around the three axes, an orientation sensor 113, and a position information sensor 114 such as GPS].
Yamaha does not teach a camber angle.
However, Olesky teaches a wheel measurement apparatus [measurement apparatus 200], also configured to provide measurements of a position in an X-axis position, Y-axis position, and Z-axis position {para. [0006]}, as well as a camber angle {paras. [0004]-[0005]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Olesky’s measurement apparatus with Yamaha’s measurement system in order to better measure the dynamic camber on a vehicle tire in an operating environment, as taught by Olesky {para. [0001]}, which are important to factors to determine tire wear and ride characteristics, as taught by Olesky {para. [0002]}.
In regard to claim 7, Yamaha is not explicit that the linear sensor includes a first end and a second end and the first end, the second end, or both include a ball joint.
However, Olesky teaches a wheel measurement apparatus [measurement apparatus 200], where the linear sensor {vertical elongated member 215 combined with the sensor of paras. [0030] and [0036]} can be coupled to lower elongated member 210 with a ball joint {para. [0029]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Olesky’s method of coupling a linear sensor of a measurement apparatus with a ball joint with Yamaha’s measurement system in order to better rotate a linear sensor about a vertical axis, as taught by Olesky {para. [0029]}.
In regard to claim 13, Yamaha is not explicit that the vehicle mount is configured to form a connection that is sufficiently strong to bias one or more guide shafts, the linear sensor, or both and to be removable from the vehicle without damaging the vehicle.
However, Olesky teaches a wheel measurement apparatus [measurement apparatus 300], wherein the vehicle mount [upper connector 380] biases two guide shafts {upper elongated member 320 and lower elongated member 310; paras. [0052]-[0053] describe how the apparatus can only translate in the X and Y directions, and rotation around the Y direction is restricted} and can be removed from the vehicle without damaging the vehicle {para. [0050] describes a plurality of upper connector embodiments that can be safely removed from a vehicle such as a suction cup, glue, and tape}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Olesky’s upper connector as Yamaha’s measurement system’s vehicle mount in order to better attach a measurement system to a vehicle through a variety of methods, as taught by Olesky {para. [0050]}.
In regard to claim 16, Yamaha further teaches that the linear sensor has a length and an axis extends through the length of the linear sensor [function of linear encoders - they slide along a length in a direction of an axis to measure displacement], and the linear sensor measures movement of the wheel relative to the body along the axis [front suspension stroke sensor 105 measures displacement of the front suspension 74 - page 13 para. 10].
In regard to claim 17, Yamaha further teaches that the linear sensor has a length and an axis extends through the length of the linear sensor [function of linear encoders - they slide along a length in a direction of an axis to measure displacement], and the linear sensor measures movement of the wheel relative to the body along the axis [front suspension stroke sensor 105 measures displacement of the front suspension 74 - page 13 para. 10].
In regard to claim 18, Yamaha is not explicit that the linear sensor includes a first end and a second end and the first end, the second end, or both include a ball joint.
However, Olesky teaches a wheel measurement apparatus [measurement apparatus 200], where the linear sensor {vertical elongated member 215 combined with the sensor of paras. [0030] and [0036]} can be coupled to lower elongated member 210 with a ball joint {para. [0029]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Olesky’s method of coupling a linear sensor of a measurement apparatus with a ball joint with Yamaha’s measurement system in order to better rotate a linear sensor about a vertical axis, as taught by Olesky {para. [0029]}.
In regard to claim 19, Yamaha further teaches that the linear sensor measures from a center of the wheel [Fig. 2 shows the fork 72 connected to the center of wheel 73] and a fender of the body [Fig. 2 shows the end of the suspension 74 connected to head pipe 61 which has a fender].
In regard to claim 20, Yamaha further teaches one or more guide shafts [fork 72/suspension 74] that extend between the body and the wheel of the vehicle and support the linear sensor [Fig. 2 shows the fork 72 and suspension 74 between the body and the wheel, and supporting the front suspension stroke sensor 105].
7. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yamaha in view of Cook
(US 20190368960 A1).
In regard to claim 14, Yamaha does not teach a stator angle correction device (SACD) connected to the body of the vehicle or a wheel force transducer (WFT) system connected to the wheel.
However, Cook teaches a measurement apparatus [Abstract] comprising a stator angle correction device connected to the body of the vehicle [SAC module 200; shown in Figs. 1A, 2A, and 3-7] and a wheel force transducer system connected to the wheel {WFT system 100; shown in Figs. 1A and 2A and described in at least paras. [0019]-[0027]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Cook’s measurement apparatus with Yamaha’s measurement system, which measures and calculates a variety of forces on a vehicle, in order to better measure forces imparted on a vehicle wheel through a WFT system as taught by Cook {para. [0019] describes that a WFT system are best used to measure such forces by the road during operational events such as a vehicle durability test} and in order to better increase the accuracy of those same wheel force measurements, as taught by Cook {paras. [0027]-[0028] describe that the SAC module can be used to measure an angle of an encoder stator of a WFT system such that it corrects errors of a rotary encoder during operational events such as a vehicle durability test}.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-2690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30 PST.
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, JOHN BREENE can be reached at (571)272-4107. 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.
/DANIEL M QUINN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855