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 .
Formal Matters
The examiner notes that the claim set filed most recently, i.e. the claims filed on 9 January 2025, are not labeled with the heading “AMENDMENTS TO THE CLAIMS” and accordingly the claims filed on 12 July 2024 which do have such a heading are those claims which the examiner is prosecuting both due to the heading as well as the amendments therein such as the amendments to claims 3-7. In particular, it appears that Applicant’s claims filed 12 July 2024 removed improper multiple claim dependencies from claims 4-7 and accordingly this is the set of claims being prosecuted by the examiner.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 claim 3: The claim refers to “a blower” in line 2 but refers in line 3 to “a side of the blower of the measuring device” and thus appears to both lack antecedent basis in the claim (as well as parent claim 1) while also lacking clarity at least by virtue of introducing ambiguity of whether “a blower” in line 2 and “the blower” in line 3 refer to the same blower component or a different component. In particular, in line 2, “a blower” is recited and is not linked to any specific component of Applicant’s claimed invention and thus appears to be consistent with Applicant’s as-filed specification ¶ 61 which notes that the configuration of the blower device 1 is not particularly limited and publicly known blower devices can be used. However, Applicant’s as-filed specification ¶ 46 appears to refer to “blower 1” in a specific manner, i.e. the blower therein appears to be linked specifically to measuring device 2 via the recitation, “the blower 1 and the measuring device 2 are separated and configured to be movable”. Accordingly, because it is unclear whether such a blower must be specifically associated with a measuring device and further unclear due to the recitations in claim 3 of “a blower” in line 2 and “the blower of the measuring device” in line 3, the scope of the claim is unclear.
Because the scope of the claim cannot be determined at this time for the above-mentioned reasons, a proper and complete prior art search for the claimed subject matter of claim 3 could not be carried out at this time. The examiner recommends responding to this office action by indicating how Applicant believes the claim scope to be definite, preferably by providing evidence from Applicant’s disclosure, and/or amending the claim to obviate the above noted issues. In the event that Applicant’s reply overcomes/obviates the above noted 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues of claim 3, the rejection thereto shall be withdrawn and a prior art search for the claimed subject matter would be carried out at that time.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Langer US Pat 5,111,685 (hereafter Langer).
As to claim 1: Langer discloses an assembly system of a measuring device (10; see fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 10-17) that supports a vehicle (13; see fig. 1 and details in col. 2, lines 48-58) for a wind tunnel test (see col. 6, lines 38-45), the assembly system comprising:
a plurality of measurement modules (see fig. 4 and col. 5, lines 61-67 and col. 6, lines 1-2) in which at least one load cell (120; see fig. 4 and col. 5, lines 61-65) is accommodated; and
at least one coupling module (not labeled but see col. 5, lines 10-32 regarding the various components and in particular with regard to coupling components such as spherical coupling 103 and coupling pin 75), wherein
by using at least one of a first coupling mode in which the plurality of measurement modules are coupled to each other (see col. 5, lines 21-32) and a second coupling mode in which the plurality of measurement modules are coupled to each other by the coupling module, the measuring device in which each of the measurement modules is arranged at a position corresponding to each wheel of the vehicle can be configured (see col. 5, lines 10-32 in view of previous details in col. 2, lines 21-39).
As to claim 2: Langer discloses the assembly system according to claim 1, wherein
the measurement module (see fig. 4 and col. 5, lines 61-67 and col. 6, lines 1-2) and the coupling module (not labeled but see col. 5, lines 10-32 regarding the various components and in particular with regard to coupling components such as spherical coupling 103 and coupling pin 75) are formed in a rectangular shape in plan view, and have side surfaces that can be coupled to each other (see fig. 1; the measurement module and coupling modules are depicted as being rectangular in plan view so as to encompass a vehicle 13 and each of the measurement module and coupling module components are connected as depicted in fig. 1 and as disclosed in col. 5, lines 10-32 and 61-65).
As to claim 5: Langer discloses the assembly system according to claim 1, wherein if the vehicle (13; see fig. 1) is a four-wheeled vehicle (see fig. 1), the measuring device (10; see fig. 1) is configured using at least four of the measurement modules (see fig. 4 and col. 5, lines 61-67 and col. 6, lines 1-2 in view of the previously disclosed details in col. 2, lines 20-39).
As to claim 6: Langer discloses the assembly system according to claim 1, wherein if the vehicle (13) is a two-wheeled vehicle, the measuring device is configured using at least two of the measurement modules (see fig. 4 and col. 5, lines 61-67 and col. 6 lines 1-2 in view of the previously disclosed details in col. 2, lines 20-39; the number of measurement modules utilized is at least two).
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.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langer US Pat 5,111,685 (hereafter Langer) in view of and Friesel US Pat 9,221,557 B1 (hereafter Friesel).
As to claim 7: Langer teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including an assembly system according to claim 1 (see the above 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection regarding element 10 depicted in fig. 1), but does not explicitly teach:
a wind tunnel test device comprising the assembly system according to claim 1 and a movable blower.
However, Friesel teaches a wind tunnel test device (see fig. 2) with a movable blower (see col. 5, lines 13-23 regarding fan portion 50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Langer such that it is disposed as a wind tunnel test device comprising the assembly system and a movable blower because such a configuration allows for dynamic adjustment and position of a direction of airflow as well as positioning of a fan portion in order to allow for more potential airflow configurations to be measured when carrying out aerodynamic testing, such as suggested in col. 5, lines 13-23 of Friesel. Such a modification would allow for Langer’s assembly system to produce more potential airflow configurations to simulate more possible scenarios that may be encountered by a vehicle be tested therein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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:
As to claim 4: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan an assembly system wherein each of the measurement modules comprises a flat lid boy that supports a wheel of the vehicle and the lid body comprises a disk-shaped second positioning member having a second through hole into which the first positioning member is rotatably fitted, and a support body portion having a third through hole into which the second positioning member is rotatably fitted wherein the wheel support member can be arranged immediately below the wheel by rotation of the first and second positioning members, when considered in combination with the other limitations of the instant claim and with those of parent claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
