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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“On-vheicle” (page 2 line 12) should be –On-vehicle--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 32: “a anti-torsion stiffening arm” should be --an anti-torsion stiffening arm--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 17-32 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “suitable to be fixed stably” in line 7. The examiner is unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of “suitable to be fixed stably”. It is unclear what is considered “suitable”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “being designed to allow mutual angular regulation…” in line 12. The examiner is unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of “being designed to allow”. It is unclear what is required by “being designed to allow”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the vehicle" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the motion" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the vehicle engine" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the vehicle wheel" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "said flange" in lines 10 and 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the central rotation axis" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “designed to allow…” in line 2. The examiner is unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of “designed to allow”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the central rotation axis" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "said flange" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “in correspondence of at least one between said flange and said end of said load shaft” in lines 2-3. The examiner is unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of “in correspondence of”. It is unclear as to what structural feature this would require from the end plunge joint.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "said flange" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "said flange" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "said flange" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "said flange" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "said chassis" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "said connecting shaft" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "said flange" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "said inclination planes" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "said maximum inclination angle" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "said inclination planes" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “designed to interfere” in line 2. The examiner is unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of “designed to interfere” and it is unclear what structural features are required for something to be “designed to interfere”.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "said front support plate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "said connection shaft" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "said maximum inclination angle" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the movement" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 23 and 29 are rejected based on their dependency to claims 21 and 25, respectively.
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) 17-21 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arseneau (US 8,505,374) in view of Breton (US 12,298,200).
Regarding Claim 17, Arseneau teaches a portable on-vehicle dynamometer, comprising: a containment chassis 64; a drum 54 rotatably housed in said containment chassis 64 to rotate around a load shaft 16 (Fig. 1); mechanical transmission means (Fig. 9) adapted to connect said load shaft 16 to the hub of a wheel of the vehicle being measured to transfer the motion of the vehicle engine to said drum 54 (col. 4 lines 50-60); wherein said mechanical transmission means comprise a connection flange 18 provided with a central axis of rotation and suitable to be fixed stably but removably to the hub of the vehicle wheel (col. 2 lines 20-34); in that said mechanical transmission means comprise joint having adapted to connect said flange 18 with one end of said load shaft 54 (col. 4 lines 50-60), said joint being designed to allow mutual angular regulation between said load shaft and the central rotation axis of said flange (col. 4 lines 50-60)
Arseneau remains silent as to characterized in that said mechanical transmission means comprise a constant velocity joint having an axially extendable structure and adapted to connect said flange with one end of said load shaft, said constant velocity joint being designed to allow mutual angular regulation between said load shaft and the central rotation axis of said flange.
Breton teaches an automobile wheel hub adapter system for use in testing a vehicle wherein said mechanical transmission means comprise a constant velocity joint (col. 3 lines 55-67 and col. 4 lines 1-27) having an axially extendable structure (telescoping) and adapted to connect said flange with one end of said load shaft (col. 3 lines 55-67), said constant velocity joint being designed to allow mutual angular regulation between said load shaft and the central rotation axis of said flange (col. 4 lines 4-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portable dynamometer of Arseneau to include the CVJ of Breton in order to compensate for the dynamic changes in distance between the connection point at the vehicle hub end and the dynamometer as the steering angle changes, as taught by Breton (col. 4 lines 4-20).
Regarding Claim 18, Arseneau as modified by Breton teaches the portable dynamometer according to claim 17, characterized in that said constant velocity joint is designed to allow reciprocal angulation between said load shaft and the central rotation axis of said flange with respect to at least two mutually perpendicular planes of inclination (Breton, col. 3 lines 60-67 and col. 4 lines 1-3).
Regarding Claim 19, Arseneau as modified by Breton teaches the portable dynamometer according to claim 17, characterized in that said constant velocity joint comprises an end plunge joint 23 with axial freedom in correspondence of at least one between said flange 19 and said end of said load shaft 37 (Breton, Fig. 1E).
Regarding Claim 20, Arseneau as modified by Breton teaches the portable dynamometer according to claim 17, characterized in that said constant velocity joint is provided with end plunge joints 23 with axial freedom at both said flange 19 and said end of said load shaft 37 (Breton, Fig. 1E).
Regarding Claim 21, Arseneau as modified by Breton teaches the portable dynamometer according to claim 17, characterized in that said constant velocity joint is connected at one end to an articulated bearing 47 adapted to connect said constant velocity joint with said flange in an adjustable manner (Breton, Fig. 1E).
Regarding Claim 32, Arseneau as modified by Breton teaches the portable dynamometer according to claim 17, characterized in that said containment chassis 64 is provided with a anti-torsion stiffening arm 36 (Arseneau, Fig. 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW V DO whose telephone number is (571)270-3420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Walter L Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/A.V.D/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights