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 .
Drawing Objection
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “third roller” (claim 14), which the aligning means is somehow configured to position the vehicle at a predetermined location” on that roller must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
112(a) Rejection
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
As to claim 14, nothing in the specification/drawings expresses how the aligning means positions the vehicle at a predetermined location on the “third roller”. It appears that the “third roller” may be one of “the set of rollers” (line 3). There are no examples, no reference provides for such, no visible manner of experimentation how one of ordinary skill can so position the third roller at all to accomplish such.
112(b) Rejection
Claims 1-9,13,14 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.
As to claims 1,13,14, what exact structure does the aligning means correspond to in the specification/drawings. Understand, the means plus function is limited to that exact structure, and any equivalents to that same extract structure. The specification is not clear on that point.
As to claim 7, “the aligning rollers” is confusing, as base claim 1 does not call for such. (Was such overlooked in claim 1?) Are “the aligning rollers” somehow the few rollers of claim 1?
As to claim 8, the claim is directed to a “device, but the “wherein” (lines 1-3) clause neither adds structure nor function. Also, stating that the rollers “are tuning … before … pushes” (line 2) is confusing, as it’s confusing if the “device” is limited such that it is limited to structural components that are moving (i.e. “turning” and “pushes”) at different times. The time sequence (i.e. “are turning” before “pushes”) seems to say that the device may be limited to the rollers “turning” at one time, and pushing (“pushes”) at a different time, but an operating device operates from one moment in time to the next moment in time. It is confusing that this apparatus claim may be actually operating at 2 different times. What is one of ordinary skill to make of this?
As to claim 13, how is the “wherein” clause of the last 3 lines related to the claimed “system”, if at all? The preamble states that the system is “for testing … assistance system” (line 1), while the wherein clause provides no structure, does not add a function, and seems to either (1) maybe provide for a state of the system, or (2) express an intended use which is not a limiting element in an apparatus claim. It certainly does not state that the system is configured to carry out that wherein clause. What is Applicant’s intent?
As to claim 14, is “a set of rollers” (line 3 from last) one of those of the “sets of rollers” (line 3)? The claim suggests maybe not, so where is there “a set” (line 3 from last) (i.e. a plurality of rollers) in the disclosure/drawings that includes a third roller? Such is not apparent.
102/103 Rejection
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jacek 6,257,054.
Jacek teaches testing a brake, differential and transmission systems of a vehicle, which device has a platform on which the vehicle is placeable, wherein the platform is provided with a plurality of sets 10 of rollers 54 wherein a respective wheel of the vehicle is positionable on each respective set of rollers, wherein the plurality of sets of rollers are drivable by a respective drive (“the dynamometer rollers are rotatably driven by a motor”) with a measuring device 202 which is configured to measure a force exerted on the roller for the purpose of performing the test of the brake system on the vehicle, wherein the device comprises at the position of each pair of rollers an aligning means (note the tapered surface 54 which causes the rollers to move, causing the vehicle to be positioned a predetermined location on the rollers, such being a surface that applied/receives force per the disclosed aligning means) which is configured to position the vehicle at a predetermined location on the rollers so that the at least one driving assistance system can be tested.
As to claim 1, either (1) differential and transmission elements provide driving assistance (or one of ordinary skill considers such), or (2) the device is capable of allowing a driver to remove the vehicle while looking at a camera when backing out and evaluating operation (and thus the device is so configured as claimed). Finally, the sensor provides an indication that a force is applied.
103 Rejection
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacek in view of Piccinini IT 19922369.
As to claim 14, it would have been obvious to employ third wheel to detect slippage in a brake tester because Pic ‘369 teaches (Figure 3) employing such in brake testing.
“Between the front rollers 6a and the rear rollers 6b d1 each pair of rollers 6 there are slip detection devices 20 d1 each wheel 7”
Prior art cited (not applied)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reference 3026416 (listed 1449) teaches a device to test driver assistance systems on a vehicle, the device including rollers that support the vehicle. However, there is no suggestion of an aligning means that is “configured to position the vehicle at a predetermined location on the rollers” (line 2 from last, claim 1; line 4 from last, each of claims 13,14). Note that the vehicle’s predetermined location is “on the rollers”; that the predetermined location is not - - of the rollers - - . The claimed position is relative to the rollers. Such is consistent with Applicant’s specification and drawings.
Reference 10211005935 (listed 1449) appears to teach holding elements 130a,130b. However, they do not position the vehicle at “a predetermined location on the rollers”. (The elements 130a,130b each have bolt holes 142, are secured to the rivet holes of the platform 100 with pegs wherever the vehicle might happen to be positioned on the rollers at that time. The supports 130a and 130b are individually and separately movable. Thus, the elements 130a,130b do not suggest aligning the vehicle at a “predetermined location on the rollers” (italics added).
Lahuis DE 10333762 teaches (ABSTRACT) testing a cruise control system of a vehicle on rollers. However, there is not aligning means.
Cho et al KR 20160115887 teach (Figure 6) pressing plates 32 to hold a vehicle (wheel). However, the wheel is not on rollers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Fri from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855