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 . Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 11/29/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the application CN202311625567.3 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Applicant was informed of this fact by the communication posted to the file wrapper on 4/29/2025 indicating the request for the priority document failed.
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.
Claims 5, 7, 10, 18 and 20 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.
Regarding Claim 5, it is unclear how the first connection end can be configured to fix the four-wheel alignment measuring device. From the context of the application, it appears that it is likely that the intention was for the end to be affixed or affixable to another object and the claim has been rejected according to this understanding.
Regarding Claims 7 and 18, it is unclear how a lens can reduce a focal length of a camera body as a typical camera body doesn’t inherently include an initial focal length.
Regarding Claim 10, it is unclear what the phrase “magnetically adsorb to the lift” means since magnetic adsorption refers to chemical/physical adhesion between atoms/molecules to a surface rather than standard magnetic attraction. This seems likely to be a translation error. Amending the claim to read that the sensor base is magnetically attached or coupled to the lift would address the lack of clarity.
Regarding Claim 20, it is unclear if the claim intends for the lift to be attached to another lift other than the one introduced in Claim 12, since Claim 20 uses the phrase “a lift” instead of “the lift”. Claim 20 has been examined with the understanding that the lift limitation in claim 20 refers to the lift from Claim 12.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,657,711 (hereinafter Kitagawa).
Regarding Claim 1, Kitagawa discloses a four-wheel alignment measuring device, comprising:
a support base (FIG. 23 shows a base at the bottom of cross-shaped fixed member 170), a support rod (170) connected to the support base (base of support rod 170), and a camera device (identified as photodetecting device 7 in text accompanying FIG. 20) arranged on the support rod, a lengthwise direction of the support rod (170) and a lengthwise direction of the support base forming a first inclination angle (FIG. 23 shows a 90 degree angle between 170 and it’s base); and
a laser device (laser beam source 4, identified in FIG. 20) configured to project a laser image (laser beam control device 6 defines a size / shape of the laser to form the laser image) toward a surface of a tire, and the camera device being configured to acquire the laser image and obtain alignment information of the tire using the laser image (FIGS. 7A-7B illustrate how the laser illumination is used to determine wheel alignment).
Regarding Claim 2, Kitagawa discloses the four-wheel alignment measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the laser device is disposed on the support base or the support rod (FIG. 23 shows multiple lasers 7 disposed on 170);
alternatively, the laser device and the camera device are an integrated device (FIG. 20 labels detectors 8 sub 1 to 8 sub 3 all as discrete integrated devices mounted to 154).
Regarding Claim 3, Kitagawa discloses the four-wheel alignment measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the first inclination angle ranges from 45° to 90° (FIG. 23 shows an angle of 90 degrees between 170 and its base).
Regarding Claim 7, Kitagawa discloses the four-wheel alignment measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the camera device includes a camera housing, a camera main body located inside the camera housing, and a lens connected to a camera head of the camera main body (FIG. 23 of Kitagawa shows each photodetecting device 7 including a sensor body and lens combination); and
wherein the camera housing is provided with an accommodating cavity for accommodating the camera main body and a camera opening communicating with the accommodating cavity, the lens is provided in the camera opening, a convex surface is provided on a side of the lens away from the camera head, and the lens is configured to reduce a focal length of the camera main body so as to expand a viewing angle of the camera main body (col 9 lines 28-29 describe the barrel-shaped lens as a spreading lens allowing it to view the entire tire, which would have a lens with a convex surface and focal length appropriate to gathering light from a wide field of view).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
534
357
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa in view of WO 2021111359 (hereinafter Corghi).
Regarding Claim 4, Kitagawa discloses the four-wheel alignment measuring device according to claim 1, and in FIGS. 11-14 illustrates that the particular distribution of sensors shown in FIG. 23 is not essential to its operation but does not teach the specific laser and camera device positioning in the remainder of claim 4.
However, Corghi teaches a modular wheel alignment device rod and base combination with three optical devices locations wherein when the laser device (Corghi teaches the inclusion of an optical device 103 in its base but not specifically a laser) is disposed on the support base (see marked up version of FIG. 4A of Corghi showing an analogous base), the laser device is located on an end of the support base close to the support rod; and
the camera device is located on an end of the support rod away from the support base (Corghi shows an uppermost optical device location on an end of the rod away from the support base).
Corghi and Kitagawa both describe optical non-contact means for measuring the alignment of a vehicle’s wheel / tire. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the rod and base combination shown in FIG. 23 of Kitagawa with the modular rod and base configuration taught by Corghi due to the flexible way it allows for sensors to be rearranged and to distribute power and electrical signals using the inter-module connectors (203, 205, 207, 209 of Corghi) since Kitagawa is silent as to the routing of sensor signals and power. This modification would have moved the three detector modules 8(1) – 8(3) from FIG. 23 of Kitagawa into the locations shown by FIG. 4A of Corghi since FIGS. 12 and 13 of Kitagawa also recognize the utility of a vertical stack of sensors for wheel/tire alignment. Modifying Kitagawa in this way would still satisfy the limitations from claim 1 since Col 10 lines 15-17 of Kitagawa notes that the photodetecting devices are able to monitor the location of the various different lasers illuminating the tire, thereby allowing the top-most sensor to detect laser emissions from the bottom-most laser emitter.
Regarding Claim 5, Kitagawa discloses the four-wheel alignment measuring device according to claim 1, however Kitagawa is silent as to how its sensors are powered and so fails to teach the rest of the claim.
However, Corghi teaches wherein the support base (101/102, see FIG. 5A) includes a support case and a power supply component located inside the support case (outlets 113/114 are power supply components at least partially within respective support bases 101/102, see FIGS. 4A/4B) ; and
wherein the support case is provided with a first connection end (101A) and a second connection end (101B) in the lengthwise direction thereof, the first connection end is configured to fix the four-wheel alignment measuring device (It’s unclear as indicated above in the 112(b) section how a connection end of a device fixes anything. Assuming the intention is for the first connection end to be affixed to something, 111 also at the first connection end (see page 12 lines 14-18 of Corghi, refer to page numbers at the top of each publication page) is described including holes for receiving bolts to fasten the first connection end to a working surface), the second connection end is configured to connect with the camera device and the laser device (connection end includes connectors 115/116 that allow a connection to optical devices disposed in the sensor column), and the power supply component is located inside the support case at the first connection end and is configured to electrically connect with the camera device and the laser device (outlet 113 is electrically connected to the optical devices in the sensor column as it provides power to said devices).
As described in the rejection of claim 4, Corghi and Kitagawa both describe optical non-contact means for measuring the alignment of a vehicle’s wheel / tire. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the rod and base combination shown in FIG. 23 of Kitagawa with the modular rod and base configuration taught by Corghi due to the flexible way it allows for sensors to be rearranged and to distribute power and electrical signals using the inter-module connectors (203, 205, 207, 209 of Corghi) since Kitagawa is silent as to the routing of sensor signals and power. This modification would include a power and signal connector in the base of the modified wheel alignment sensor, satisfying the power component in the base limitation in this claim.
Regarding Claim 6, Kitagawa discloses the four-wheel alignment measuring device according to claim 1, the combination of Kitagawa and Corghi as applied to claim 4 teaches wherein the support rod includes a first support part and a second support part connected to the first support part (see annotated FIG. 4A above showing 4 different support parts making up the support rod); and
wherein the first support part is configured to fix the four-wheel alignment measuring device, the second support part is configured to connect with the measuring device, and the second support part extends from the first support part in a direction away from the tire, a part of the second support part that is away from the first support part is configured to support the measuring device (the support rod extends vertically in a direction that moves away from a tire that is being measured and so the upper-most support part that incorporates a laser / detector pair, per the combination of Kitagawa and Corghi as described in the rejection of claim 4, satisfies the limitations of claim 6).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,657,711 (hereinafter Kitagawa) in view of US 20220073326 (hereinafter Elliot)
Regarding Claim 8, Kitagawa discloses the four-wheel alignment measuring device according to claim 1, but Kitagawa does not specifically teach an oblique support for the support rod that supports a sensor.
However, Elliot teaches an oblique support for a laser and imaging sensor, similar to the camera / laser pair taught by Kitagawa, meeting the criteria of an oblique support and a laser module mounted on the oblique support (see LIDAR 248 in FIG. 6B mounted on fork plate coupling 240, which Examiner considers analogous to an oblique support); and
wherein the oblique support is configured to support the laser module so that a central axis of the laser module and a plane where a wheel hub of the tire to be measured is located form a second inclination angle (the portion of fork plate coupling 240 teaches the use of a non-vertical oblique angle to give LIDAR 240 standoff from a tire held by fork adapters 216/218 shown in FIG. 2), and the laser module projects the laser image from the oblique support toward the surface of the tire to be measured.
Elliot and Kitagawa both describe laser measurement sensors for the determination of alignment of a tire. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify one or more of the arms of support rod 170 to bend backwards at an oblique angle to allow for support rod 170 to be mounted closer to the wheel being measured without losing standoff distance ([0077] of Elliot describes how fork plate coupling 240 allows for a configuration in which the car can be lifted without impairing operation of the sensor).
Claims 9, 12-14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,657,711 (hereinafter Kitagawa) in view of US 20200348129 (hereinafter DeBoer).
Regarding Claim 9, Kitagawa discloses the four-wheel alignment measuring device according to claim 1, FIG. 23 of Kitagawa also shows how the rod 170 of the alignment sensor is secured to a longitudinal travel guide to assist with aligning the sensor with the wheel. However, it does not describe attachment of the sensor to a lift carrying a vehicle.
However, DeBoer teaches wherein the four-wheel alignment measuring device further comprises a fixing member arranged at an end of the support base away from the support rod, and the fixing member is configured to connect to a lift carrying a vehicle (FIG. 5 of DeBoer shows attachment of wheel sensors 28 to lift 22 and also shows its incorporation into longitudinal rails 50, similar to the longitudinal travel guide system described by Kitagawa).
DeBoer and Kitagawa both teach the use of wheel alignment sensors and systems for laterally maneuvering the sensors to properly line up with a vehicle. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to secure the wheel alignment sensors of Kitagawa to a lift since FIG. 23 of Kitagawa is silent as to what structure the sensor should be mounted on and in order to, as described in [0042] of DeBoer, use the alignment system with vehicles of varying sizes wheelbases and width while also allowing access to an underside of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 12, Kitagawa teaches a four-wheel alignment apparatus, comprising
a four-wheel alignment measuring device (,
wherein the four-wheel alignment measuring device comprises:
a support base (FIG. 23 shows a base at the bottom of cross-shaped fixed member 170), a support rod (170) connected to the support base, and a camera device (identified as photodetecting device 7 in text accompanying FIG. 20) arranged on the support rod, a lengthwise direction of the support rod and a lengthwise direction of the support base forming a first inclination angle (FIG. 23 shows a 90 degree angle between 170 and it’s base); and
a laser device (laser beam source 4, identified in FIG. 20) configured to project a laser image (laser beam control device 6 defines a size / shape of the laser to form the laser image) toward a surface of a tire, and the camera device being configured to acquire the laser image and obtain alignment information of the tire using the laser image (FIGS. 7A-7B illustrate how the laser illumination is used to determine wheel alignment).
Kitagawa fails to teach whether the vehicle carriage assembly (supporting wheel 1 in many of the figures) is part of a vehicle lift and therefore does not explicitly teach attachment of the alignment measuring device being installed on vehicle lift as claimed.
However, DeBoer teaches attachment of wheel alignment sensors 28 being attached to vehicle lift 22 in FIG. 5.
DeBoer and Kitagawa both teach the use of wheel alignment sensors and systems for laterally maneuvering the sensors to properly line up with a vehicle. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to secure the wheel alignment sensors of Kitagawa to a lift since FIG. 23 of Kitagawa is silent as to what structure the sensor should be mounted on and in order to, as described in [0042] of DeBoer, use the alignment system with vehicles of varying sizes wheelbases and width while also allowing access to an underside of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Kitagawa and DeBoer teaches the four-wheel alignment apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the laser device is disposed on the support base or the support rod (FIG. 23 shows multiple lasers 7 disposed on 170);
alternatively, the laser device and the camera device are an integrated device (FIG. 20 labels detectors 8 sub 1 to 8 sub 3 all as discrete integrated devices mounted to 154).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Kitagawa and DeBoer teaches the four-wheel alignment apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the first inclination angle ranges from 45° to 90° (FIG. 23 shows an angle of 90 degrees between 170 and its base).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Kitagawa and DeBoer teaches the four-wheel alignment apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the camera device includes a camera housing, a camera main body located inside the camera housing, and a lens connected to a camera head of the camera main body (FIG. 23 of Kitagawa shows each photodetecting device 7 including a sensor body and lens combination); and
wherein the camera housing is provided with an accommodating cavity for accommodating the camera main body and a camera opening communicating with the accommodating cavity, the lens is provided in the camera opening, a convex surface is provided on a side of the lens away from the camera head, and the lens is configured to reduce a focal length of the camera main body so as to expand a viewing angle of the camera main body (col 9 lines 28-29 describe the barrel-shaped lens as a spreading lens allowing it to view the entire tire, which would have a lens with a convex surface and focal length appropriate to gathering light from a wide field of view).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Kitagawa and DeBoer teaches the four-wheel alignment apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the four-wheel alignment measuring device further comprises a fixing member arranged at an end of the support base away from the support rod (FIG. 23 of Kitagawa shows the base secured to longitudinal travel guide 172), and the fixing member is configured to connect to a lift carrying a vehicle (FIG. 5 of DeBoer shows attachment of wheel sensors 28 to lift 22 and also shows its incorporation into longitudinal rails 50, similar to the longitudinal travel guide system described 172 of Kitagawa).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,657,711 (hereinafter Kitagawa) in view of US 20200348129 (hereinafter DeBoer) and further in view of US 20220189067 (hereinafter Vianello).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Kitagawa and DeBoer teaches the four-wheel alignment measuring device according to claim 9, but fails to describe a magnetic coupling between the sensor and a support surface.
However, Vianello teaches wherein the fixing member is a magnetic member disposed on the support base, and the magnetic member is configured to magnetically adsorb to the lift carrying the vehicle (FIG. 6 & [0052]-[0053] of Vianello describe how the optical imager 4, configured for tire alignment, can include a magnetic coupling for securing base of optical imager 4 to a support surface).
Vianello and the combination of Kitagawa and DeBoer both describe a tire alignment sensors using emitters and detectors. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the system described by the combination of Kitagawa and DeBoer with a magnetic coupling described by Vianello as doing so would allow for the removal and coupling to be performed quickly and simply as pointed out in [0052] of Vianello.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,657,711 (hereinafter Kitagawa) in view of US 20200348129 (hereinafter DeBoer) and further in view of US 20220073326 (hereinafter Elliot).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Kitagawa and DeBoer teaches the four-wheel alignment measuring device according to claim 9, but does not teach the incorporation of a sliding wheel.
However, Elliot teaches wherein the fixing member is a sliding wheel arranged at a bottom portion of the support base, and the sliding wheel is configured to contact a ground on which wheel alignment is performed and is movably relative to the ground (Elliot teaches the incorporation of wheels 222/224 into the base of a wheel alignment measurement device in order to ease movement of the measuring device).
Elliot and the combination of Kitagawa and DeBoer teach wheel alignment measurement systems. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have realized the measurement systems were large and difficult to move and would have found it obvious to add at least one wheel to a bottom of the system taught by the combination of Kitagawa and DeBoer in light of the description in [0050] of Elliot describing how the wheels 222/224 increase the ease and accuracy with which column 200 can be repositioned.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Kitagawa and DeBoer teaches the four-wheel alignment apparatus according to claim 12, but the combination of Kitagawa and DeBoer does not specifically teach an oblique support for the support rod that supports a sensor.
However, Elliot teaches an oblique support for a laser and imaging sensor, similar to the camera / laser pair taught by Kitagawa, meeting the criteria of an oblique support and a laser module mounted on the oblique support (see LIDAR 248 in FIG. 6B mounted on fork plate coupling 240, which Examiner considers analogous to an oblique support); and
wherein the oblique support is configured to support the laser module so that a central axis of the laser module and a plane where a wheel hub of the tire to be measured is located form a second inclination angle (the portion of fork plate coupling 240 teaches the use of a non-vertical oblique angle to give LIDAR 240 standoff from a tire held by fork adapters 216/218 shown in FIG. 2), and the laser module projects the laser image from the oblique support toward the surface of the tire to be measured.
Elliot and the combination of Kitagawa and DeBoer both describe laser measurement sensors for the determination of alignment of a tire. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify one or more of the arms of support rod 170 to bend backwards at an oblique angle to allow for support rod 170 to be mounted closer to the wheel being measured without losing standoff distance ([0077] of Elliot describes how fork plate coupling 240 allows for a configuration in which the car can be lifted without impairing operation of the sensor).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,657,711 (hereinafter Kitagawa) in view of US 20200348129 (hereinafter DeBoer) and further in view of WO 2021111359 (hereinafter Corghi).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Kitagawa and DeBoer teaches the four-wheel alignment apparatus according to claim 12, and in FIGS. 11-14 of Kitagawa illustrates that the particular distribution of sensors shown in FIG. 23 of Kitagawa is not essential to its operation but does not teach the specific laser and camera device positioning in the remainder of claim 12.
However, Corghi teaches a modular wheel alignment device rod and base combination with three optical devices locations wherein when the laser device (Corghi teaches the inclusion of an optical device 103 in its base but not specifically a laser) is disposed on the support base (see marked up version of FIG. 4A of Corghi above with the rejection of claim 4, showing an analogous base), the laser device is located on an end of the support base close to the support rod; and
Corghi and the combination of Kitagawa and DeBoer both describe optical non-contact means for measuring the alignment of a vehicle’s wheel / tire. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the rod and base combination shown in FIG. 23 of Kitagawa with the modular rod and base configuration taught by Corghi due to the flexible way it allows for sensors to be rearranged and to distribute power and electrical signals using the inter-module connectors (203, 205, 207, 209 of Corghi) since Kitagawa is silent as to the routing of sensor signals and power. This modification would have moved the three detector modules 8(1) – 8(3) from FIG. 23 of Kitagawa into the locations shown by FIG. 4A of Corghi since FIGS. 12 and 13 of Kitagawa also recognize the utility of a vertical stack of sensors for wheel/tire alignment and this configuration works with the modular configuration taught by Corghi. Modifying Kitagawa in this way would still satisfy the limitations from claim 1 since Col 10 lines 15-17 of Kitagawa notes that the photodetecting devices are able to monitor the location of the various different lasers illuminating the tire, thereby allowing the top-most sensor to detect laser emissions from the bottom-most laser emitter.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Kitagawa and DeBoer teaches the four-wheel alignment apparatus according to claim 12, however the combination of Kitagawa and DeBoer is silent as to how its sensors are powered and so fails to teach the rest of the claim.
However, Corghi teaches wherein the support base (101/102, see FIG. 5A) includes a support case and a power supply component located inside the support case (outlets 113/114 are power supply components at least partially within respective support bases 101/102, see FIGS. 4A/4B) ; and
wherein the support case is provided with a first connection end (101A) and a second connection end (101B) in the lengthwise direction thereof, the first connection end is configured to fix the four-wheel alignment measuring device (It’s unclear as indicated above in the 112(b) section how a connection end of a device fixes anything. Assuming the intention is for the first connection end to be affixed to something, 111 also at the first connection end (see page 12 lines 14-18 of Corghi) is described including holes for receiving bolts to fasten the first connection end to a working surface), the second connection end is configured to connect with the camera device and the laser device (connection end includes connectors 115/116 that allow a connection to optical devices disposed in the sensor column), and the power supply component is located inside the support case at the first connection end and is configured to electrically connect with the camera device and the laser device (outlet 113 is electrically connected to the optical devices in the sensor column as it provides power to said devices).
As described in the rejection of claim 15, Corghi and the combination of Kitagawa and DeBoer both describe optical non-contact means for measuring the alignment of a vehicle’s wheel / tire. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the rod and base combination shown in FIG. 23 of Kitagawa with the modular rod and base configuration taught by Corghi due to the flexible way it allows for sensors to be rearranged and to distribute power and electrical signals using the inter-module connectors (203, 205, 207, 209 of Corghi) since Kitagawa is silent as to the routing of sensor signals and power. This modification would include a power and signal connector in the base of the modified wheel alignment sensor, satisfying the power component in the base limitation in this claim.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Kitagawa and DeBoer teaches the four-wheel alignment apparatus according to claim 12, the combination of Kitagawa, DeBoer and Corghi as applied to claim 15 teaches wherein the support rod includes a first support part and a second support part connected to the first support part (see annotated FIG. 4A above showing 4 different support parts making up the support rod); and
wherein the first support part is configured to fix the four-wheel alignment measuring device, the second support part is configured to connect with the measuring device, and the second support part extends from the first support part in a direction away from the tire, a part of the second support part that is away from the first support part is configured to support the measuring device (the support rod extends vertically in a direction that moves away from a tire that is being measured and so the upper-most support part that incorporates a laser / detector pair, per the combination of Kitagawa, DeBoer and Corghi as described in the rejection of claim 15, satisfies the limitations of this claim).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 7:00pm.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571)270-5227. 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.
/BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights