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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 13 “cars” should be --car--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
5. With respect to Claims 7 and 8, the phrase “detect a predetermined correlation” is unclear. Predetermined implies that the correlation is already known while the detection seems to generate the correlation based on the detected measurements.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. A plurality of rollers already implies two or more rollers. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seibl (U.S. Patent No. 5,289,718, hereinafter Seibl) in view of Mosseau (U.S. Patent No. 5,289,718, hereinafter Mosseau) and Jahn et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2004/0050150, hereinafter Jahn).
With respect to Claim 1, Seibl discloses a device [see fig 1 unless otherwise noted] for applying vibrations to a passenger car and for testing a brake system of the passenger car, which device has a platform on which the passenger car is placeable, wherein the platform is provided with a plurality of rollers [L] wherein a respective wheel [R] of the passenger car is positionable on each respective roller, wherein the plurality of rollers are respectively driven by a drive [A] with a measuring device [S] which is configured to measure a force exerted on the roller. See column 3, lines 33-41.
Seibl does not disclose that each roller has for each wheel positioned thereon a first zone provided with relief and a second, relief-free zone, so that in a first position on the device the passenger car is located with the wheels on the first zones and in a second position on the device is located with the wheels on the second zones, and so that in the first position vibrations are applied to the passenger car by the relief of the roller by rotation of the rollers under the wheels and so that in the second position the brake system of the passenger cars can be tested by measuring a force exerted by the brake system with the measuring device.
Mousseau shows a car testing system with two zones, in fig 1. Zone 22 is provided with relief with respect to zone 20. Force transducers 24 and 26 measure the force as the tire moves between the two zones, see column 3, lines 6 and 7. Note that the force measures vibrations induced by the tire moving over the surface.
Seibl and Mousseau only show one tire being tested, but Jan shows a similar device that uses a plurality of rollers to test multiple wheels at once. See fig 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to duplicate Seibl to have a pair of rollers for each tire to test all four tires at once and to have that each roller has for each wheel positioned thereon a first zone provided with relief and a second, relief-free zone, so that in a first position on the device the passenger car is located with the wheels on the first zones and in a second position on the device is located with the wheels on the second zones, and so that in the first position vibrations are applied to the passenger car by the relief of the roller by rotation of the rollers under the wheels and so that in the second position the brake system of the passenger cars can be tested by measuring a force exerted by the brake system with the measuring device for the benefit of testing the brakes as they move over a variety of surfaces.
With respect to Claim 2, Seibl discloses that the measuring device comprises a force measuring device which measures a braking force exerted on the roller. See column 3, lines 34-41.
With respect to Claim 3, Seibl discloses further comprising a frame [housing surrounding A and S] which is configured to support the drive [S] and wherein the force measuring device [S] is provided between the frame and the drive [S would have to be inside the housing, with access to a moving component of the drive in order to function].
With respect to Claim 4, although Seibl does not disclose that the force measuring device is arranged between the drive and the roller, it would have been obvious to place the force measuring device at any position near a moving element of wheel L or drive A to determine the speed. See column 1, lines 6-24 for a discussion on how a roller brake test dynamometer functions).
With respect to Claim 6, Seibl discloses that the device is further provided with a communication interface [connection from E to S and A] which is configured to communicate with a vehicle control system [E] of the passenger car on the device in order to control the brake system in a predetermined manner. See column 3, lines 43-45
With respect to Claim 7, Seibl discloses further comprising a control device [E is both an evaluation and control device] which is configured to detect a correlation between a braking action performed by the passenger car and a force measured by the measuring device. Figure 2 plots the braking force.
With respect to Claim 9, Seibl discloses that the plurality of rollers are at least two rollers. See fig 1.
With respect to Claim 10, Jahns shows a similar roller-based vehicle tire testing system that uses four rollers to test multiple tires simultaneously.
With respect to Claim 11, Seibl discloses that the plurality of rollers are provided in pairs. See fig 1.
With respect to Claim 13, Seibl does not disclose any specific rollers speeds. The examiner takes official notice that 50 km/h is a common speed that vehicles can travel at. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that Seibl’s drive comprises a control device which is configured to rotate the roller at a speed which corresponds to a driving speed up to 50 km/h for the benefit of testing common city driving speeds.
With respect to Claim 14, Seibl does not disclose that the rollers are provided at least partially with a coating.
Jahns disclose coating the rollers to simulate road textures, see para 20.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to coat Seibl’s rollers with materials to more accurately simulate driving conditions.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seibl,Mosseau and Jahn in further view of KR20110057212, hereinafter KR.
With respect to Claim 5, Seibl does not disclose what type of motor is used, nor a current measuring device to measure a supply current to the motor.
KR shows a similar roller-based vehicle testing system that uses an electric motor 54 and shows that a current sensor is a known alternative to visually observing the rotational speed. See page 4, second full para.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that Seibl would consider using an electric motor as the drive motor, as they are a common type of motor that pollutes less than gas powered motors and that the rotational speed could be derived from the supply current.
With respect to Claim 12, Seibl does not disclose that a distance between rollers in pairs is adjustable.
KR shows rollers with adjustable distances, see page 5, 4th full para.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Seibl to have adjustable distances between rollers in pairs to accommodate a wide variety of tires.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to Claim 8, no prior art shows that the control device is further configured to compare, when detecting the predetermined correlation, the detected correlation to a steering signal which was sent to the brake system in the predetermined manner and a signal which indicates whether the detected correlation corresponds with the steering signal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX T DEVITO whose telephone number is (571)270-7551. The examiner can normally be reached 12pm- 8 pm EST M-S.
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.
/ALEX T DEVITO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855