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 .
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.
Claims 1 – 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 1, the claim recites “the handheld device and encasement are able to”. It is unclear as to if the device and encasement are capable of performing the recited function or are configured to do so, thus rendering the claim indefinite. Similar can be said regarding Claims 2 – 5, 19, and 20.
Regarding Claims 2 – 5, 19, and 20, the claims recite functionality which do not appear to be attributable to an encasement, thus rendering the claims indefinite. How does the encasement perform the claimed functions?
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites “determine and mitigate error”. It is unclear as to what error is determined and how measurements are used to “mitigate error”, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites “the sensors are able to measure in any number of axes”. It is unclear as to if the sensors are capable of performing the recited function or are configured to do so, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim recites “the protrusions are positioned such that they can make contact”. It is unclear as to if the contact actually occurs or is merely capable of occurring, thus rendering the claim indefinite
Regarding Claim 14, the claim recites “one or more extrusions”. It is unclear as to if this language is attempting to recite some structure in general or a structure produced via extrusion, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 17, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 19, the claim recites “particular characteristics of the data”. It is unclear as to what are “particular characteristics “ of the data, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim recites “sensor error”. It is unclear as to what specifically is sensor error, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim recites “can be mitigated”. It is unclear as to how “particular characteristics” and “sensor error” are mitigated, thus rendering the claim indefinite. Furthermore, it is unclear as to if the mitigation actually occurs or must simply be capable of occurring.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim recites “predict error” and “remove error”. It is unclear as to how the error is predicted, how the error is removed, what the error is, and how determination of measurement specifications results in a an error prediction, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims dependent upon a rejected claim are therefore rejected as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minnetti, E.; Chiariotti, P.; Paone, N.; Garcia, G.; Vicente, H.; Violini, L.; Castellini, P. A Smartphone Integrated Hand-Held Gap and Flush Measurement System for in Line Quality Control of Car Body Assembly. Sensors 2020, 20, 3300. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20113300.
Regarding Claim 1, Minnetti discloses system, capable of being for wheel alignment, comprising: an encasement (cover) (Page 6), wherein the encasement includes: one or more protrusions (hood) (Page 6); a handheld device (smartphone) (Page 6), wherein the handheld device is encased in the encasement (Figure 4b) and includes: a display (Figure 4b) and a user interface (inherently present in a smartphone); an operating system and software (inherently present in a smartphone); sensor data from one or more sensors (camera) (Pages 6, 7); and wherein the handheld device and encasement are able to: take a measurement of a surface using the one or more protrusions and the one or more sensors such that a disposition of the measured surface can be determined in relation to a disposition of the handheld device and encasement (Page 9) (Figure 3); and determine one or more measurement specifications (gap and flush measurement) (Page 5).
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minnetti, E.; Chiariotti, P.; Paone, N.; Garcia, G.; Vicente, H.; Violini, L.; Castellini, P. A Smartphone Integrated Hand-Held Gap and Flush Measurement System for in Line Quality Control of Car Body Assembly. Sensors 2020, 20, 3300. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20113300, in view of Nagornov (US 2016/0018209).
Regarding Claim 1, under a narrower claim interpretation, Minnetti discloses system comprising: an encasement (cover) (Page 6), wherein the encasement includes: one or more protrusions (hood) (Page 6); a handheld device (smartphone) (Page 6), wherein the handheld device is encased in the encasement (Figure 4b) and includes: a display (Figure 4b) and a user interface (inherently present in a smartphone); an operating system and software (inherently present in a smartphone); sensor data from one or more sensors (camera) (Pages 6, 7); and wherein the handheld device and encasement are able to: take a measurement of a surface using the one or more protrusions and the one or more sensors such that a disposition of the measured surface can be determined in relation to a disposition of the handheld device and encasement (Page 9) (Figure 3); and determine one or more measurement specifications (gap and flush measurement) (Page 5).
Minnetti fails to expressly disclose the system is a wheel alignment system.
Nagornov teaches a wheel alignment system [Abstract, 0021].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Minnetti with the wheel alignment system of Nagornov for the purpose of setting all wheel sensors for one or more vehicle axles simultaneously to the reference plane in order for further calculation of the angles to be performed simultaneously, wherein all the sensors take into account the sensors' mutual position, so the measurement and/or adjustment of all wheels is performed simultaneously. Thus, it is not necessary to separately adjust alignment angles of each wheel sensor or separately initialize a sensor before measuring. Calculation of the angles of alignment is based on the relative position of the vehicle wheel sensors or relative position of the vehicle sensors and sensors on the frame of the vehicle, see Nagornov [0031].
Regarding Claim 2, Minnetti fails to expressly disclose wherein the handheld device and encasement are able to additionally: take any number of subsequent additional measurements of a surface, wherein the additional measurements are used to determine and mitigate error.
Nagornov teaches wherein the handheld device and encasement are able to additionally: take any number of subsequent additional measurements of a surface, wherein the additional measurements are used to determine and mitigate error [0027].
The combination would have been obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 3, Minnetti fails to expressly disclose wherein the handheld device and encasement are able to additionally: take any number of subsequent additional measurements of a surface, wherein the additional measurements are used to determine a change in disposition of the measured surface and results in the determination of the one or more measurement specifications.
Nagornov teaches wherein the handheld device and encasement are able to additionally: take any number of subsequent additional measurements of a surface, wherein the additional measurements are used to determine a change in disposition of the measured surface and results in the determination of the one or more measurement specifications [0021].
The combination would have been obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 4, Minnetti discloses the handheld device and encasement are able to additionally: take any number of measurements of one or more additional surfaces (Page 13).
Regarding Claim 5, Minnetti discloses the handheld device and encasement are able to additionally: determine a difference in disposition between the measurements of any of the measured surfaces which results in the determination of the one or more measurement specifications (Page 10).
Regarding Claim 6, Minnetti discloses the measurement specification is the difference in angle between the measurement of a surface and that of data from a sensor (Page 10).
Regarding Claim 7, Minnetti discloses disposition includes the orientation or angle in 2D or 3D space (Page 9).
Regarding Claim 8, Minnetti discloses disposition includes the position in 2D or 3D space (Page 9).
Regarding Claim 9, Minnetti discloses the one or more sensors include at least one of the following: gyroscope; accelerometer; gyrometer; compass; magnetometer; camera; barometer; pressure sensor; hall sensor; proximity sensor; lidar sensor camera sensor; sonar sensor; ultrasonic sensor; or gps sensor (Page 6).
Regarding Claim 10, Minnetti discloses the sensors are able to measure in any number of axes (Page 6).
Regarding Claim 11, Minnetti discloses the handheld device is a mobile phone or tablet (Page 6).
Regarding Claim 12, Minnetti discloses the surface measured is at least one of the following: the exterior surface of a vehicle; the surface of a wheel; a vehicle frame or chassis rail (Pages 2, 3).
Regarding Claim 13, Minnetti discloses the protrusions are positioned such that they can make contact with a surface to be measured (Page 6).
Regarding Claim 14, Minnetti discloses the one or more protrusions have one or more extrusions of a geometry that aides in the contact of the surface to be measured (Page 6).
Regarding Claim 15, Minnetti discloses the protrusions have a sleeve or cover (Page 6).
Regarding Claim 16, Minnetti discloses the sleeve or cover reduces scratching between the protrusions and a surface to be measured (Page 6).
Regarding Claim 17, Minnetti discloses the sleeve or cover is made of a thermoplastic such as polyolefin (PLA) (Page 6).
Regarding Claim 18, Minnetti fails to explicitly disclose wherein the determined measurement specifications include at least one of: camber; toe; caster; Ackermann; thrust angle; bump steer; steering axis inclination; scrub radius.
Nagornov teaches wherein the determined measurement specifications include at least one of: camber; toe; caster; Ackermann; thrust angle; bump steer; steering axis inclination; scrub radius [0069 - 0071].
The combination would have been obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minnetti, E.; Chiariotti, P.; Paone, N.; Garcia, G.; Vicente, H.; Violini, L.; Castellini, P. A Smartphone Integrated Hand-Held Gap and Flush Measurement System for in Line Quality Control of Car Body Assembly. Sensors 2020, 20, 3300. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20113300, in view of Nagornov (US 2016/0018209), in further view of Braghiroli (US 2008/0037012).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination fails to expressly disclose the handheld device and encasement are able to additionally: filter the data from the one or more sensors such that particular characteristics of the data, including sensor error, can be mitigated.
Braghiroli teaches filtering data from one or more sensors such that particular characteristics of the data, including sensor error, can be mitigated [0042].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination so that the handheld device and encasement are able to additionally: filter the data from the one or more sensors such that particular characteristics of the data, including sensor error, can be mitigated for the benefit of providing a method and an apparatus with which the alignment of the automotive vehicle wheel can be determined in a simpler manner where the apparatus is able to handle a variety of different automotive vehicle wheels with respect to design and size, to measure and adjust the wheel alignment with high accuracy and which is free of maintenance for a long period of time, which requires to be mechanical robust and simple in order fit in the rough environment of an automotive garage or shop, as taught by Braghiroli [0008 – 0010].
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minnetti, E.; Chiariotti, P.; Paone, N.; Garcia, G.; Vicente, H.; Violini, L.; Castellini, P. A Smartphone Integrated Hand-Held Gap and Flush Measurement System for in Line Quality Control of Car Body Assembly. Sensors 2020, 20, 3300. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20113300, in view of Nagornov (US 2016/0018209), in further view of Rogers et al. (US 5208646).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination fails to expressly disclose the handheld device and encasement are able to additionally: predict error when the measurement specifications are determined and remove the error from the determined measurement specifications.
Rogers predicting error when the measurement specifications are determined and remove the error from the determined measurement specifications (Figure 7A) (Col 10, line 63 – Col 11, line 37)
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify Minnetti so that the handheld device and encasement are able to additionally: predict error when the measurement specifications are determined and remove the error from the determined measurement specifications for the benefit of providing improved accuracy measurement of vehicle wheel alignment characteristics, guidance for an operator through known yet obscure adjustment procedures, an interface between system alignment sensors and the system controller which provides efficient handling of system generated data and system inputs and outputs, and live measurements and display of all alignment quantities so that interdependent changes between adjustable alignment quantities are observable, as taught by Rogers [Abstract].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am - 4pm EST.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
ALEXANDER A. MERCADO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/ALEXANDER A MERCADO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights