ETAILED 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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “vision system” and “control unit” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “system” and “unit” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 11-16 and 20 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: camera described in paragraph [0037] functions of the so-called vison system; and a computer that is programmed to perform claim functions of the so-called “control unit” is described in paragraphs [0008] – [0010].
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see M.P.E.P. § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claims 1-10 and 17-19 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they are all method claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1 as a presentative claim, the 101 analysis is presented below.
Step 1: It is noted that claim 1 recites a method which is a process. Thus, claim 1 is directed to one of statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: Limitations “applying an Al-based model to the one or more images” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to an abstract idea of looking at or observing the images. Claim does not specifically define anything particular to such limitations that could not be performed in human mind. Thus, these limitations fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: It is noted that claim does include additional elements (i.e., “creating one or more images covering at least a portion of an apparatus for servicing the motor vehicle wheel or rim” and “AI-based model”). The first additional element “creating one or more images covering at least a portion of an apparatus for servicing the motor vehicle wheel or rim” is nothing more than data gathering which is insignificant extrasolution activity. The last additional element “AI-based model” is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a conventional computer and do not point to a specific improvement in computer itself. Thus, these additional elements do not amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The additional elements, as pointed out in Step 2A prong 2, are (i)nothing more than data gathering which is insignificant activity and (ii)recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a conventional computer and do not point to a specific improvement in computer itself. These additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
The advanced statements as an 101 analysis applied to claim 1 above are incorporated hereinafter.
Regarding claim 2, the additional limitations “wherein applying an Al-based model comprises the step of determining a current configuration of the apparatus and/or of the vehicle rim and/or of the vehicle wheel” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Claim does not specifically define anything particular to such limitations that could not be performed in human mind. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 2 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 3, the additional limitations “comprising the step of identifying an intended servicing operation a user intends to perform on the vehicle wheel or rim based on the current configuration of the apparatus and/or vehicle rim” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Claim does not specifically define anything particular to such limitations that could not be performed in human mind. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 3 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 4, the additional limitations “comprising the step of setting up the apparatus for the intended servicing operation” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Claim does not specifically define anything particular to such limitations that could not be performed in human mind. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 4 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 5, the additional limitations “wherein setting up the apparatus for the intended servicing operation comprises moving at least one servicing tool of the apparatus, and/or moving the wheel or rim, to a predefined position and/or orientation associated with the intended servicing operation” are nothing more than data gathering which is insignificant extrasolution activity. These additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the additional limitations “wherein determining a current configuration of the vehicle rim comprises the step of determining the presence and/or absence of a tire mounted on the rim” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Claim does not specifically define anything particular to such limitations that could not be performed in human mind. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 6 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 7, the additional limitations “wherein applying the Al-based model comprises the step of determining the presence of wheel and/or rim and/or tire features” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Claim does not specifically define anything particular to such limitations that could not be performed in human mind. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 7 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 8, the additional limitations “wherein the wheel and/or rim and/or tire features include an inflation valve and/or a TPMS sensor” are nothing more than data gathering which is insignificant extrasolution activity. These additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the additional limitations “wherein applying the Al-based model comprises the step of determining the presence and/or absence of a user in the one or more images covering at least the portion of the apparatus for servicing the motor vehicle wheel or rim” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Claim does not specifically define anything particular to such limitations that could not be performed in human mind. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 9 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 10, it recites an apparatus and thus falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. It is noted that claim recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 1. Thus, the advanced statements as applied to claim 1 above are incorporated herein. It is also noted that claim 1 recites addition elements “vision system” and “control unit”. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a conventional computer. The claim does not point to a specific improvement in computer itself. These additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 10 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 11, the additional limitations “wherein the vision system is operatively connected to the control unit and configured to send signals corresponding to the created one or more images to the control unit” are nothing more than data gathering which is insignificant extrasolution activity. These additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, the additional elements “at least one servicing tool for servicing the wheel or rim” are nothing more than data gathering which is insignificant extrasolution activity. These additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the additional elements “wherein the Al-based model is configured to detect a presence or absence of a tire mounted on the rim and/or a presence and position of wheel or rim features” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Claim does not specifically define anything particular to such limitations that could not be performed in human mind. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 13 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 15, the additional elements “wherein the apparatus is a wheel balancer” are nothing more than data gathering which is insignificant extrasolution activity. These additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16, the additional elements “wherein the apparatus is a tire changer” are nothing more than data gathering which is insignificant extrasolution activity. These additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, the advanced statements as applied to claim 1 are incorporated hereinafter. With regard to the additional elements “wherein the method for servicing the motor vehicle comprises vehicle body damage detection and/or ADAS sensor calibration and/or wheel alignment”, such additional elements are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Claim does not specifically define anything particular to such limitations that could not be performed in human mind. Thus, these additional elements also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 18, the additional elements “wherein applying the Al-based model comprises the step of determining the presence and/or absence of one or more calibration targets and/or of vehicle body damage and/or of one or more wheel alignment parameters” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Claim does not specifically define anything particular to such limitations that could not be performed in human mind. Thus, these additional elements also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 19, the additional elements “wherein applying the Al-based model comprises the step of identifying make and/or model of the vehicle” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Claim does not specifically define anything particular to such limitations that could not be performed in human mind. Thus, these additional elements also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 20, the advanced statements as applied to claim 10 are incorporated hereinafter. With regard to the additional elements “wherein the apparatus for servicing the motor vehicle is configured for vehicle body damage detection and/or ADAS sensor calibration and/or wheel alignment”, such additional elements are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Claim does not specifically define anything particular to such limitations that could not be performed in human mind. Thus, these additional elements also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vargo et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2023/0052365 A1, Art of record IDS filed 10/6/2025, referred Vargo hereinafter).
Regarding claims 1 as a representative claim, Vargo teaches a method for servicing a motor vehicle wheel or a motor vehicle rim comprising the steps of (see abstract; figures 1A-2B and 17-19): creating one or more images covering at least a portion of an apparatus for servicing the motor vehicle wheel or rim (see para. [0127] (images of the wheel are taken by the system 100); also see paras. [0129], and [0166]- [0167]); and applying an Al-based model to the one or more images (see para. [0168] (applying neural network (it is referred to the so-called AI based model) to identifying lug nut pattern from receiving image)).
Regarding claim 2, Vargo further teaches wherein applying an Al-based model comprises the step of determining a current configuration of the apparatus and/or of the vehicle rim and/or of the vehicle wheel (see para. [0168] (applying neural network (it is referred to the so-called AI based model) to identifying lug nut pattern from receiving image, wherein the lug nut pattern refers to the so-called configuration)).
Regarding claim 3, Vargo further teaches comprising the step of identifying an intended servicing operation a user intends to perform on the vehicle wheel or rim based on the current configuration of the apparatus and/or vehicle rim (see paras. [0153] – [0170] (confirming lug nut position and lug nut type; gripping the wheel for removal and install or removal and install lug nut); figures 17 - 19 & figures 7 – 8; paras. [0119] – [0123] and figure 7).
Regarding claim 4, Vargo further teaches comprising the step of setting up the apparatus for the intended servicing operation” (see analysis applied to claim 3 above; removal and install wheel; check lug nut, removal and install lug nut; these are intended serving operations, for examples).
Regarding claim 5, Vargo further teaches wherein setting up the apparatus for the intended servicing operation comprises moving at least one servicing tool of the apparatus, and/or moving the wheel or rim, to a predefined position and/or orientation associated with the intended servicing operation” (see analysis applied to claim 3 above; removal and install wheel; removal and install lug nut; set lug nut pattern (position and orientation) based on the number of lug nuts detected).
Regarding claim 6, Vargo further teaches wherein determining a current configuration of the vehicle rim comprises the step of determining the presence and/or absence of a tire mounted on the rim (see para. [0275] (removing a tire; so the presence of the tire is inherently determined in order for the robotic performs tire removal).
Regarding claim 7, Vargo further teaches wherein applying the Al-based model comprises the step of determining the presence of wheel and/or rim and/or tire features (see analysis applied to claim 6 above; para. [0174] (computer system employs AI model to identify lug nut pattern as described in paras [0165] – [0173]; such system instructs the robotic apparatus to function; one function of the robotic apparatus is to remove a tire as described in para. [0275]; thus the presence of the tire is inherently determined by computer system in order to perform tire removal by the robotic apparatus).
Regarding claim 8, Vargo further teaches wherein the wheel and/or rim and/or tire features include an inflation valve and/or a TPMS sensor (see paras. [0060] and [0067]).
Regarding claim 10, it is noted this claim recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 2. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 11, Vargo further teaches wherein the vision system is operatively connected to the control unit and configured to send signals corresponding to the created one or more images to the control unit (see para. [0174] (computer system employs AI model to identify lug nut pattern as described in paras [0165] – [0173]; such system instructs the robotic apparatus to function according to the lug nut pattern detected based on the image; thus, the system sends signal to the robotic apparatus).
Regarding claim 12, Vargo further teaches at least one servicing tool for servicing the wheel or rim (see rejection as applied to claim 6 above; removal and install tire/wheel; removal and install lug nuts).
Regarding claim 13, Vargo further teaches wherein the Al-based model is configured to detect a presence or absence of a tire mounted on the rim and/or a presence and position of wheel or rim features (see rejection as applied to claim 7 above).
Regarding claim 14, Vargo further teaches wherein the control unit, based on the presence or absence of the tire mounted on the rim and/or the presence and position of wheel or rim features, is configured to correspondingly and automatically set the apparatus for servicing the motor vehicle wheel (see para. [0275] (removing a tire; so the presence of the tire is inherently determined in order for the robotic performs tire removal).
Regarding claim 15, Vargo further teaches wherein the apparatus is a wheel balancer (see item 880 of figure 8: balance tire; para. [0063]: balancing machine).
Regarding claim 16, Vargo further teaches wherein the apparatus is a tire changer (see para. [0063]: tire change job; para. [0071]).
Regarding claim 17, Vargo further teaches the advanced statements as applied to claim 1 are incorporated hereinafter. With regard to the additional elements “wherein the method for servicing the motor vehicle comprises vehicle body damage detection and/or ADAS sensor calibration and/or wheel alignment” (see para. [0145]: determining alignment; para. [0278]).
Regarding claim 18, Vargo further teaches wherein applying the Al-based model comprises the step of determining the presence and/or absence of one or more calibration targets and/or of vehicle body damage and/or of one or more wheel alignment parameters (see para. [0145]: determining alignment; para. [0278] (offset values)).
Regarding claim 19, Vargo further teaches wherein applying the Al-based model comprises the step of identifying make and/or model of the vehicle (see paras. [0059], [0073]).
Regarding claim 20, the advanced statements as applied to claim 10 are incorporated hereinafter. With regard to the additional elements “wherein the apparatus for servicing the motor vehicle is configured for vehicle body damage detection and/or ADAS sensor calibration and/or wheel alignment (see para. [0145]: determining alignment; para. [0278]).
).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 9, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vargo.
The advanced statements set forth in the preceding paragraphs with regard to Vargo are incorporated hereinafter
Regarding claim 9, Vargo does not further teaches claim limitations “wherein applying the Al-based model comprises the step of determining the presence and/or absence of a user in the one or more images covering at least the portion of the apparatus for servicing the motor vehicle wheel or rim”.
However, such claim limitations are well known in the art (Official Notice).
The motivation for doing so is to improve image capturing so the image would not be covered by user.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitations in combination with Vargo for that reasons.
Regarding claim 17, the advanced statements as applied to claim 1 are incorporated hereinafter. With regard to the additional claim limitations “wherein the method for servicing the motor vehicle comprises vehicle body damage detection and/or ADAS sensor calibration”, Vargo does not specifically teach these claim limitations.
However, such claim limitations are well known in the art (Official Notice).
The motivation for doing so is to prevent damage and/or allow ADAS sensor calibration to be adjusted for improving the function of the robotic apparatus.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitations in combination with Vargo for that reasons.
Regarding claim 18, Vargo does not further teach claim limitations wherein applying the Al-based model comprises the step of determining the presence and/or absence of vehicle body damage.
However, such claim limitations are well known in the art (Official Notice).
The motivation for doing so is to prevent future damage.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitations in combination with Vargo for that reasons
Regarding claim 20, the advanced statements as applied to claim 10 are incorporated hereinafter. With regard to the additional elements “wherein the apparatus for servicing the motor vehicle is configured for vehicle body damage detection and/or ADAS sensor calibration and/or wheel alignment (see rejection applied to claim 17 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Breed (U.S. Pat. No. 8,019,501 B2) teaches predicting failure in vehicle components including mounting sensors (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY M DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 7:00AM to 3:00PM.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at 571-272-3382. 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.
DMD
3/2026
/DUY M DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662