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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed 06/08/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 5-7, 15, and 16 have been amended; claim 19 has been canceled; no claims have been added or withdrawn. Claims 1-18 and 20 are now pending and under consideration.
The previous objections to the drawings have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to Fig. 5.
The previous rejections of claims 5-7, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been mostly withdrawn, in light of the amendments to the claims. A remaining rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) was neither addressed by amendment nor argument and has been updated and maintained.
The previous rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn, in light of the cancellation of the claim.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-15 of the remarks with respect to the prior art rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0055405 to Lau et al. have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Lau, Applicant first asserts on pages 11-12 of the remarks that “Lau’s ‘message’ or ‘information’ does not relate to a wheel rotation step of a tire” (see page 11 of the remarks), and “Lau’s information that snow chains are required relates to an automatic snow-chain deployment decision, not to a message relating to a step of rotation a vehicle wheel as part of a tire chain deployment process” (see page 12 of the remarks). Applicant goes on to assert that “[reading] any information that chains are required as the claimed message would read the phrase ‘relating to a wheel rotation step’ out of the claim” (see page 12 of the remarks).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner first notes that the ordinary and customary meaning of “message” to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would include “a communication by signals” (e.g., see: Merriam-Webster dictionary).
As discussed in detail by the current anticipation rejection of claim 1, Lau teaches processing circuitry (apparent from at least Fig. 1 in view of at least ¶ 0023 & 0031-0032) of an in-vehicle control computer 150 (e.g., “computer system”) that is structured to perform functions to receive, via a snow chain determination module 165, information (e.g., “message”) that snow chains are required as a vehicle 105 is driven along a driving path prior to deploying snow chains (e.g., “relating to a wheel rotation step of a tyre chain deployment process for a vehicle”) (as depicted by at least Figs. 1-3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0019-0021, 0023, 0025-0026, 0031-0050, 0053-0057 & 0063-0064 of Lau). Therefore, Lau fully teaches “[a] computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to: receive a message relating to a wheel rotation step of a tyre chain deployment process for a vehicle,” as recited by independent claim 1, under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
As further discussed in detail by the current anticipation rejection of claim 1, Lau teaches, in a first interpretation, that the processing circuitry of the in-vehicle control computer 150 is structured to perform functions to cause a wheel of the vehicle 105 to spin as the vehicle 105 is driven along the driving path, responsive to the received information that the snow chains are required (as depicted by at least Figs. 1-3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0019-0021, 0023, 0025-0026, 0031, 0037, 0039, 0041-0042, 0046-0050 & 0059-0061 of Lau). Alternatively, as further discussed in detail by the current anticipation rejection of claim 1, Lau teaches, in a second interpretation, that the processing circuitry of the in-vehicle control computer 150 is structured to perform functions to cause a wheel of an Insta-Chain snow chain device of the vehicle 105 to spin as the vehicle 105 is driven along the driving path, responsive to the received information that the snow chains are required (as depicted by at least Figs. 1-3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0019-0021, 0023, 0025-0026, 0031, 0037, 0039, 0041-0042, 0046-0050 & 0059-0061 of Lau). Therefore, in each of the first interpretation and the second interpretation, Lau also fully teaches that the “processing circuitry [is] configured to: […] in response to receiving the message, cause a rotation of at least one wheel of the vehicle,” as recited by independent claim 1, under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
The examiner respectfully cannot agree with any of Applicant’s assertions that the received “information” of Lau “does not relate to a wheel rotation step of a tire,” that the received “information” of Lau does not relate to “a message relating to a step of rotation a vehicle wheel as part of a tire chain deployment process,” and that the phrase “relating to a wheel rotation step” has been “read […] out of the claim” by the citations and interpretations of the current anticipation rejection of claim 1 by Lau, as Lau teaches that the processing circuitry of the in-vehicle control computer 150 performs the functions to receive, via the snow chain determination module 165, the information that the snow chains are required as the vehicle 105 is driven along the driving path prior to deploying the snow chains.
Regarding Lau, Applicant next asserts on page 12 of the remarks that “Lau does not disclose that, in response to receiving such a message, the computer causes a rotation of at least one wheel of the vehicle.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in detail above, Lau teaches that the processing circuitry of the in-vehicle control computer 150 performs functions to cause a wheel of the vehicle 105 to spin as the vehicle 105 is driven along the driving path, responsive to the received information that the snow chains are required, and as correctly acknowledged by Applicant on page 12 of the remarks, the vehicle of Lau is an “autonomous vehicle.” Put differently, Lau does not require (or cause) the autonomous vehicle 105 to first stop, such that the wheel of the autonomous vehicle 105 does not rotation, responsive to the received information that the snow chains are required as the vehicle 105 is driven along the driving path, such that the causing of the wheel of the vehicle 105 to spin as the vehicle 105 is driven along the driving path, responsive to the received information that the snow chains are required, necessarily amounts to causing, by the processing circuitry, a rotation of at least one wheel of the vehicle, in response to receiving the message, under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Further regarding Lau, Applicant asserts on pages 12-13 of the remarks that “the Office Action’s alternative mapping to a wheel of the Insta-Chain device cannot meet the limitation requiring rotation of ‘at least one wheel of the vehicle’” (see page 12 of the remarks).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in detail above, Lau teaches, in the second interpretation, that the processing circuitry of the in-vehicle control computer 150 is structured to perform functions to cause a wheel of an Insta-Chain snow chain device of the vehicle 105 to spin as the vehicle 105 is driven along the driving path, responsive to the received information that the snow chains are required. Put differently, although the wheel of the Insta-Chain snow chain device of the vehicle 105 of the second interpretation of Lau is structurally and functionally different from the wheel of the vehicle 105 of the first interpretation of Lau, the wheel of the Insta-Chain snow chain device of the vehicle 105 of the second interpretation of Lau is unquestionably a wheel of a vehicle, and it is unclear why Applicant believes, via the assertion on page 13 of the remarks, that the wheel of the Insta-Chain snow chain device of the vehicle 105 of the second interpretation of Lau “is not the claimed wheel of the vehicle,” especially in view of claim 1 requiring nothing more than “causing a rotation of at least one wheel of the vehicle.”
Therefore, for at least the reasons provided above, the prior art rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lau has been maintained. Applicant’s remarks do not appear to directly address independent claim 13. Even so, in view of the overlapping subject matter of claim 1 and claim 13, for at least the reasons provided above, the prior art rejection of independent claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lau has also been maintained.
Next, Applicant’s arguments on pages 10 & 14-15 of the remarks with respect to the prior art rejections of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Non-Patent Literature (NPL) “Dad’s Garage: Installing tire chains” to King (hereinafter: “King”) and/or Applicant-admitted prior art (hereinafter: “AAPA”) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding King and AAPA, Applicant first asserts on pages 14-15 of the remarks that:
PNG
media_image1.png
206
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
56
602
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Next, regarding King and AAPA, Applicant goes on to assert on page 15 of the remarks that:
PNG
media_image3.png
316
626
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, as discussed in detail by the current obviousness rejection of claim 1, King teaches, in a first interpretation, that an instruction to install a chain on a tire of a wheel of a vehicle is received, and, responsive to the instruction, the wheel is caused to rotate during wrapping of the chain around the tire which assists the wrapping of the chain around the tire. Alternatively, as discussed in detail by the current obviousness rejection of claim 1, King teaches, in a second interpretation, that an instruction to install a chain on a tire of a wheel of a vehicle is received and/or an instruction to rotate the wheel subsequent to wrapping of the chain around the tire is received, and, responsive to the instruction(s), the wheel is caused to rotate subsequent to the wrapping of the chain around the tire to remove slack in the chain. In either case, King teaches a manual activity comprising: receiving a message relating to a wheel rotation step of a tyre chain deployment process for a vehicle; and in response to receiving the message, causing a rotation of at least one wheel of the vehicle.
As further noted by the current obviousness rejection of claim 1, AAPA acknowledges that “[tire] chains are devices fitted to the [tire] of vehicles to provide increased traction in certain situations, for example when driving through snow, ice, or mud, or driving on a slope [and, in some places, tire] chains are mandatory during certain parts of the year.” Similar to King, AAPA admits that “[to] attach [tire] chains, an operator of a vehicle typically positions unconnected chains over or near the wheels of a vehicle, drive the vehicle forward or backward so that the chains are passed around the wheel, and then connect the chains so that they are attached to the wheel” was known in the art at the time the invention was made (see at least ¶ 0002 of the “Background” section of Applicant’s specification). In other words, similar to King, AAPA teaches a prior art manual activity comprising: receiving a message relating to a wheel rotation step of a tyre chain deployment process for a vehicle; and in response to receiving the message, causing a rotation of at least one wheel of the vehicle.
Neither King nor AAPA teaches a computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to: receive the message relating to the wheel rotation step of the tyre chain deployment process for the vehicle; and in response to receiving the message, cause the rotation of at least one wheel of the vehicle. However, the examiner notes that configuration of the “computer system” (and the “processing circuitry” thereof) of claim 1 broadly provides an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result (e.g., the manual activity of King and/or the manual activity of AAPA), and the courts have held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (e.g., see: MPEP 2144.04_III). Therefore, the examiner respectfully maintains that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the manual activity of King and/or the manual activity of AAPA so as to be replaced by an automatic or mechanical means, broadly implemented via configuration of processing circuitry of a computer system, to accomplish the same result.
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the examiner respectfully notes that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result includes inherent (or implicit) motivation for a person of ordinary skill to have modified the manual activity of King and/or the manual activity of AAPA so as to be replaced by an automatic or mechanical means, broadly implemented via configuration of processing circuitry of a computer system, to accomplish the same result.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., “selecting and integrating processing circuitry with vehicle controls so that a vehicle wheel is rotated in response to the claimed message”) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner reiterates that claim 1 broadly requires nothing more than “[a] computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to: receive a message relating to a wheel rotation step of a tyre chain deployment process for a vehicle; and in response to receiving the message, cause a rotation of at least one wheel of the vehicle.”
Furthermore, in response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Therefore, for at least the reasons provided above, the prior art rejections of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King and/or AAPA have been maintained. Applicant’s remarks do not appear to directly address independent claim 13. Even so, in view of the overlapping subject matter of claim 1 and claim 13, for at least the reasons provided above, the prior art rejections of independent claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King and/or AAPA have also been maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites “at least one of one of the at least one wheel” in line 5, which appears to be a misstating of --at least one of --.
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.
Claim 16 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.
Claim 16, as amended, again introduces “a vertical position” in lines 11-12; however, the claim previously introduces “a vertical position” in line 4, and it is unclear whether the “vertical position” in lines 11-12 of claim 16 is intended to be the same as or different from the “vertical position” in line 4 of claim 16. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
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 1-4, 8, 10-15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0055405 to Lau et al. (hereinafter: “Lau”).
With respect to claim 1, Lau teaches a computer system (e.g., 150) comprising processing circuitry (apparent from at least Fig. 1 in view of at least ¶ 0023 & 0031-0032) configured to: receive a message relating to a wheel rotation step of a tyre chain deployment process for a vehicle [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0019-0021, 0023, 0025-0026, 0031-0050, 0053-0057 & 0063-0064, the in-vehicle control computer 150 is structured to perform functions to receive, via a snow chain determination module 165, information (e.g., “message”) that snow chains are required as a vehicle 105 is driven along a driving path prior to deploying snow chains (e.g., “relating to a wheel rotation step of a tyre chain deployment process for a vehicle”)]; and in response to receiving the message, cause a rotation of at least one wheel of the vehicle (for example, in a first interpretation, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0019-0021, 0023, 0025-0026, 0031, 0037, 0039, 0041-0042, 0046-0050 & 0059-0061, the in-vehicle control computer 150 is structured to perform functions to cause a wheel of the vehicle 105 to spin as the vehicle 105 is driven along the driving path, responsive to the received information that the snow chains are required; alternatively, for example, in a second interpretation, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0019-0021, 0023, 0025-0026, 0031, 0037, 0039, 0041-0042, 0046-0050 & 0059-0061, the in-vehicle control computer 150 is structured to perform functions to cause a wheel of an Insta-Chain snow chain device of the vehicle 105 to spin as the vehicle 105 is driven along the driving path, responsive to the received information that the snow chains are required).
With respect to claim 2, Lau teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the rotation is a specific angular rotation of the at least one wheel of the vehicle [the spinning of the wheel of the vehicle 105 as the vehicle is driven along the driving path necessarily includes definable angles of rotation, including, for example, a definable angle of rotation of 1° or 180° or 360°; claim 2 is open-ended in scope, and “cause a rotation of at least one wheel of the vehicle” does not prohibit occurrence of further rotation(s) of the “at least one wheel of the vehicle”].
With respect to claim 3, Lau teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause braking of one or more other wheels of the vehicle while the at least one wheel is rotated (for example, as depicted by at least Fig. 1 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0003 & 0028-0031, the in-vehicle control computer 150 is structured to perform functions to cause braking of another wheel of the vehicle 105, to decelerate the vehicle 105 or to mitigate swerving of the vehicle 105, at times including while the wheel of the vehicle 105 is caused to spin as the vehicle 105 is driven along the driving path; note that “while the at least one wheel is rotated” is not necessarily limited to the rotation of “in response to receiving the message, causing a rotation of at least one wheel of the vehicle”).
With respect to claim 4, Lau teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause a steering angle to be applied to the at least one wheel of the vehicle (for example, as depicted by at least Fig. 1 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0003 & 0028-0031, the in-vehicle control computer 150 is structured to perform functions to control steering of the wheel of the vehicle 105).
With respect to claim 8, Lau teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to receive the message via a user interface of the vehicle or a user device of a vehicle operator [as discussed by at least ¶ 0036, the in-vehicle control computer 150 is structured to perform functions to receive the information that snow chains are required as the vehicle 105 is driven along the driving path prior to deploying the snow chains based, at least in part, on a driver (e.g., “vehicle operator”) pressing a button (e.g., “user interface” OR “user device”) in the vehicle 105 requesting the deploying of the snow chains (e.g., “relating to a wheel rotation step of a tyre chain deployment process for a vehicle”); because via a user interface of the vehicle and via a user device of a vehicle operator are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives].
With respect to claim 10, Lau teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the at least one wheel of the vehicle is an individual wheel of the vehicle or comprises two wheels on a common axle of the vehicle (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claim 1, in view of at least ¶ 0025; because the at least one wheel of the vehicle is an individual wheel of the vehicle and the at least one wheel of the vehicle comprises two wheels on a common axle of the vehicle are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
With respect to claim 11, Lau teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the at least one wheel of the vehicle is a driven wheel of the vehicle (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claim 1, in view of at least ¶ 0025).
With respect to claim 12, Lau teaches a vehicle (105) comprising the computer system of claim 1 (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 13, Lau teaches a computer-implemented method comprising, by processing circuitry of a computer system: receiving a message relating to a wheel rotation step of a tyre chain deployment process for a vehicle; and in response to receiving the message, causing a rotation of at least one wheel of the vehicle (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 14, Lau teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein the rotation is a specific angular rotation of the at least one wheel of the vehicle (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 2).
With respect to claim 15, Lau teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 13, further comprising one or more of: causing braking of one or more other wheels of the vehicle while the at least one wheel is rotated; causing a steering angle to be applied to the at least one wheel of the vehicle; causing a vertical load on at least one of the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be decreased or increased; and causing a vertical position of at least one of the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be raised or lowered (for example, as discussed in detail above with respect to either of claims 3 and 4; because causing braking of one or more other wheels of the vehicle while the at least one wheel is rotated, causing a steering angle to be applied to the at least one wheel of the vehicle, causing a vertical load on at least one of the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be decreased, causing a vertical load on at least one of the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be increased, causing a vertical position of at least one of the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be raised, and causing a vertical position of at least one of the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be lowered are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
With respect to claim 17, Lau teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 13, comprising receiving the message via a user interface of the vehicle or a user device of a vehicle operator (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 8).
With respect to claim 20, Lau teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the computer-implemented method of claim 13 (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 1, 13, and 19).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 10-14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Non-Patent Literature (NPL) “Dad’s Garage: Installing tire chains” to King (hereinafter: “King”) and/or Applicant-admitted prior art (hereinafter: “AAPA”).
*Note: King corresponds to a video published on YouTube (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASxACSnN_sl), and all references to King correspond to a paginated set of screenshot copies of said video appended to the instant Office Action.
With respect to claim 1, King teaches a manual activity comprising: receiving a message relating to a wheel rotation step of a tyre chain deployment process for a vehicle; and in response to receiving the message, causing a rotation of at least one wheel of the vehicle {for example, in a first interpretation, as shown by pages 1-13 of King [corresponding to 0:07 (page 1), 0:34 (page 2), 0:36 (page 3), 0:40 (page 4), 0:42 (page 5), 0:56 (page 6), 1:02 (page 7), 1:03 (page 8), 1:13 (page 9), 2:14 (page 10), 2:18 (page 11), 2:20 (page 12), and 2:55 (page 13), of 0:00-2:59 of the source video], an instruction to install a chain on a tire of a wheel of a vehicle is received, and, responsive to the instruction, the wheel is caused to rotate during wrapping of the chain around the tire which assists the wrapping of the chain around the tire; alternatively, for example, in a second interpretation, as shown by pages 1-13 of King (corresponding to 0:00-2:59 of the source video), an instruction to install a chain on a tire of a wheel of a vehicle is received and/or an instruction to rotate the wheel subsequent to wrapping of the chain around the tire is received, and, responsive to the instruction(s), the wheel is caused to rotate subsequent to the wrapping of the chain around the tire to remove slack in the chain}.
AAPA acknowledges that “[tire] chains are devices fitted to the [tire] of vehicles to provide increased traction in certain situations, for example when driving through snow, ice, or mud, or driving on a slope [and, in some places, tire] chains are mandatory during certain parts of the year.” Similar to King, AAPA admits that “[to] attach [tire] chains, an operator of a vehicle typically positions unconnected chains over or near the wheels of a vehicle, drive the vehicle forward or backward so that the chains are passed around the wheel, and then connect the chains so that they are attached to the wheel” was known in the art at the time the invention was made (see at least ¶ 0002 of the “Background” section of Applicant’s specification). In other words, similar to King, AAPA teaches a prior art manual activity comprising: receiving a message relating to a wheel rotation step of a tyre chain deployment process for a vehicle; and in response to receiving the message, causing a rotation of at least one wheel of the vehicle.
Neither King nor AAPA teaches a computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to: receive the message relating to the wheel rotation step of the tyre chain deployment process for the vehicle; and in response to receiving the message, cause the rotation of at least one wheel of the vehicle.
The examiner notes that configuration of the “computer system” (and the “processing circuitry” thereof) of claim 1 broadly provides an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result (e.g., the manual activity of King and/or the manual activity of AAPA), and the courts have held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (e.g., see: MPEP 2144.04_III). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the manual activity of King and/or the manual activity of AAPA so as to be replaced by an automatic or mechanical means, broadly implemented via configuration of processing circuitry of a computer system, to accomplish the same result.
With respect to claim 2, King and/or AAPA modified supra teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the rotation is a specific angular rotation of the at least one wheel of the vehicle [the spinning of the wheel of the vehicle necessarily includes definable angles of rotation, including, for example, a definable angle of rotation of 1° or 180° or 360°; claim 2 is open-ended in scope, and “cause a rotation of at least one wheel of the vehicle” does not prohibit occurrence of further rotation(s) of the “at least one wheel of the vehicle”].
With respect to claim 8, King and/or AAPA modified supra teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to receive the message via a user interface of the vehicle or a user device of a vehicle operator [e.g., via a personal user device (e.g., “user device”) in which the source video of King is viewable by an installer (e.g., “vehicle operator”); note that ¶ 0044 of AAPA further admits that such a personal user device (e.g., “a smart phone, tablet, laptop, or the like”) was known in the art at the time the invention was made; because via a user interface of the vehicle and via a user device of a vehicle operator are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives].
With respect to claim 10, King and/or AAPA modified supra Lau teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the at least one wheel of the vehicle is an individual wheel of the vehicle or comprises two wheels on a common axle of the vehicle (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claim 1; because the at least one wheel of the vehicle is an individual wheel of the vehicle and the at least one wheel of the vehicle comprises two wheels on a common axle of the vehicle are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
With respect to claim 11, King and/or AAPA modified supra teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the at least one wheel of the vehicle is a driven wheel of the vehicle (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claim 1).
With respect to claim 12, King and/or AAPA modified supra teaches a vehicle comprising the computer system of claim 1 (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 13, King and/or AAPA modified supra teaches a computer-implemented method comprising, by processing circuitry of a computer system: receiving a message relating to a wheel rotation step of a tyre chain deployment process for a vehicle; and in response to receiving the message, causing a rotation of at least one wheel of the vehicle (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 14, King and/or AAPA modified supra teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein the rotation is a specific angular rotation of the at least one wheel of the vehicle (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 2).
With respect to claim 17, King and/or AAPA modified supra teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 13, comprising receiving the message via a user interface of the vehicle or a user device of a vehicle operator (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 8).
With respect to claim 20, King and/or AAPA modified supra teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the computer-implemented method of claim 13 (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 1, 13, and 19).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King and/or AAPA in view of Lau.
With respect to claim 3, King and/or AAPA modified supra teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the manual activity of King and/or AAPA necessarily includes the rotation of the at least one wheel being slowed to a stop, including when the vehicle is moved in the direction such that the tire becomes positioned atop the chain, or when the wheel is caused to rotate during wrapping of the chain around the tire, or when the wheel is caused to rotate subsequent to the wrapping of the chain around the tire to remove slack in the chain; however, King and AAPA appear to lack a clear teaching as to whether the processing circuitry is further configured to cause braking of one or more other wheels of the vehicle while the at least one wheel is rotated (note that “while the at least one wheel is rotated” is not necessarily limited to the rotation of “in response to receiving the message, causing a rotation of at least one wheel of the vehicle”).
Lau teaches an analogous computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to cause braking of one or more wheels of the vehicle while at least one other wheel is rotated (for example, as depicted by at least Fig. 1 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0003 & 0028-0031, an in-vehicle control computer 150 is structured to perform functions to cause braking of a first wheel of a vehicle 105, to decelerate the vehicle 105 or to mitigate swerving of the vehicle 105, at times including while a second wheel of the vehicle 105 is caused to spin as the vehicle 105 is driven along a driving path).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the computer system of King and/or AAPA modified supra with the teachings of Lau, such that the processing circuitry is further configured to cause braking of one or more other wheels of the vehicle while the at least one wheel is rotated to beneficially enable stopping movement of the vehicle when requested by a driver or by an autonomous driving system, such as when the vehicle is moved in the direction such that the tire becomes positioned atop the chain.
With respect to claim 4, King and/or AAPA modified supra teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the manual activity of King and/or AAPA necessarily includes a steering angle being applied to the at least one wheel of the vehicle at all times throughout the manual activity, including when the vehicle is moved in the direction such that the tire becomes positioned atop the chain, or when the wheel is caused to rotate during wrapping of the chain around the tire, or when the wheel is caused to rotate subsequent to the wrapping of the chain around the tire to remove slack in the chain; however, King and AAPA appear to lack a clear teaching as to whether the processing circuitry is further configured to cause a steering angle to be applied to the at least one wheel of the vehicle.
Lau teaches an analogous computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to cause a steering angle to be applied to the at least one wheel of the vehicle (for example, as depicted by at least Fig. 1 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0003 & 0028-0031, an in-vehicle control computer 150 is structured to perform functions to control steering of a wheel of a vehicle 105).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the computer system of King and/or AAPA modified supra with the teachings of Lau, such that the processing circuitry is further configured to cause a steering angle to be applied to the at least one wheel of the vehicle to beneficially enable the vehicle to be steered and/or for an angle of steering of the vehicle to be maintained when requested by a driver or by an autonomous driving system, such as when, or after, the vehicle is moved in the direction such that the tire becomes positioned atop the chain.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau in view of EP 2402737 A1 to Breuer et al. (hereinafter: “Breuer”).
With respect to claim 5, Lau teaches the computer system of claim 1; however, Lau appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the processing circuitry is further configured to cause a vertical load on the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be decreased or increased (because to be increased and to be decreased are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
Breuer teaches analogous processing circuitry (7) configured to cause a vertical load on at least one wheel (63) of a vehicle (60) to be decreased (apparent from at least Figs. 1a-1b in view of at least ¶ 0033-0035 & 0060-0061).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the computer system of Lau with the teachings of Breuer such that the processing circuitry is further configured to cause a vertical load on the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be decreased because Breuer further teaches that lifting a wheel of the vehicle, thereby decreasing a vertical load on the wheel of the vehicle, beneficially increases traction of the vehicle at times including when snow chains are activated at another wheel of the vehicle.
With respect to claim 6, Lau teaches the computer system of claim 1; however, Lau appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the processing circuitry is further configured to cause a vertical position of the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be raised or lowered (because to be raised and to be lowered are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
Breuer teaches analogous processing circuitry (7) configured to cause a vertical position of at least one wheel (63) of the vehicle (60) to be raised (apparent from at least Figs. 1a-1b in view of at least ¶ 0033-0035 & 0060-0061).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the computer system of Lau with the teachings of Breuer such that the processing circuitry is further configured to cause a vertical position of the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be raised because Breuer further teaches that lifting a wheel of the vehicle beneficially increases traction of the vehicle at times including when snow chains are activated at another wheel of the vehicle.
Claims 5-7, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of AAPA.
With respect to claim 5, King modified supra teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein King further teaches that the manual activity further comprises causing a vertical load on the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be decreased (for example, as shown by at least pages 1-3 of King, the wheel of the vehicle is lifted in order to assist installation of the chain on the tire, thereby necessarily lowering a vertical load on the wheel of the vehicle).
King does not teach a computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to: cause a vertical load on at least one wheel of the vehicle to be decreased or increased (because to be increased and to be decreased are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
The examiner notes that configuration of the “computer system” (and the “processing circuitry” thereof) of claim 5 broadly provides an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result (e.g., the manual activity of King), and the courts have held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (e.g., see: MPEP 2144.04_III). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the manual activity of King so as to be replaced by an automatic or mechanical means, broadly implemented via configuration of processing circuitry of a computer system, to accomplish the same result.
With respect to claim 6, King modified supra teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein King further teaches that the manual activity further comprises causing a vertical position of the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be raised (for example, as shown by at least pages 1-3 of King, the wheel of the vehicle is lifted in order to assist installation of the chain on the tire).
King does not teach a computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to: cause a vertical position of at least one wheel of the vehicle to be raised or lowered (because to be raised and to be lowered are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
The examiner notes that configuration of the “computer system” (and the “processing circuitry” thereof) of claim 6 broadly provides an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result (e.g., the manual activity of King), and the courts have held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (e.g., see: MPEP 2144.04_III). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the manual activity of King so as to be replaced by an automatic or mechanical means, broadly implemented via configuration of processing circuitry of a computer system, to accomplish the same result.
With respect to claim 7, King modified supra teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: receive the message relating to the wheel rotation step as a second message relating to a second step of the tyre chain deployment process for the vehicle; in response to receiving the second message, cause the rotation of the at least one wheel of the vehicle (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
King further teaches that the manual activity further includes: receiving a first message relating to a first step of the tyre chain deployment process for the vehicle; in response to receiving the first message, causing a vertical load on at least one of the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be decreased and/or a vertical position of the at least one of the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be raised (for example, as shown by at least pages 1-3 of King, a definable first instruction to lift the wheel of the vehicle is received for the purposes of installing the chain on the tire of the wheel, and, responsive to the first instruction, the wheel of the vehicle is lifted in order to assist installation of the chain on the tire; note that usage of “second” in each of “second message” and “second step” amounts to nothing more than a differentiating labelling term under a broadest reasonable interpretation, as the claim does not necessarily require a particular order between the “first message” and the “second message” or between the “first step” and the “second step”; because cause a vertical load on at least one of the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be decreased and cause a vertical position of the at least one of the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be raised are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives); receiving a third message relating to a third step of the tyre chain deployment process for the vehicle; and in response to receiving the third message, causing the vertical load on the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be increased and/or the vertical position of the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be lowered (for example, as shown by at least pages 12-13 of King, a definable third instruction to lower the wheel of the vehicle is received for the purposes of completing the installing of the chain on the tire of the wheel, and, responsive to the third instruction, the wheel of the vehicle is lower in order to assist the completion of the installation of the chain on the tire; note that usage of “third” in each of “third message” and “third step” amounts to nothing more than a differentiating labelling term under a broadest reasonable interpretation, as the claim does not necessarily require a particular order between the “first message,” the “second message,” and the “third message” or between the “first step,” the “second step,” and the “third step”; because cause the vertical load on at least one wheel of the vehicle to be decreased and cause the vertical position of at least one wheel of the vehicle to be raised are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
King does not teach a computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to: receive a first message relating to a first step of the tyre chain deployment process for the vehicle; in response to receiving the first message, cause a vertical load on at least one wheel of the vehicle to be decreased and/or a vertical position of the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be raised; receive a third message relating to a third step of the tyre chain deployment process for the vehicle; and in response to receiving the third message, cause the vertical load on the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be increased and/or the vertical position of the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be lowered.
The examiner notes that configuration of the “computer system” (and the “processing circuitry” thereof) of claim 7 broadly provides an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result (e.g., the manual activity of King), and the courts have held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (e.g., see: MPEP 2144.04_III). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the manual activity of King so as to be replaced by an automatic or mechanical means, broadly implemented via configuration of processing circuitry of a computer system, to accomplish the same result.
With respect to claim 15, King and/or AAPA modified supra teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 13, further comprising one or more of: causing braking of one or more other wheels of the vehicle while the at least one wheel is rotated; causing a steering angle to be applied to the at least one wheel of the vehicle; causing a vertical load on at least one of the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be decreased or increased; and causing a vertical position of at least one of the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be raised or lowered (for example, as discussed in detail above with respect to either of claims 5 and 6; because causing braking of one or more other wheels of the vehicle while the at least one wheel is rotated, causing a steering angle to be applied to the at least one wheel of the vehicle, causing a vertical load on at least one of the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be decreased, causing a vertical load on at least one of the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be increased, causing a vertical position of at least one of the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be raised, and causing a vertical position of at least one of the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be lowered are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
With respect to claim 16, King modified supra teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 13, comprising receiving a first message relating to a first step of the tyre chain deployment process for the vehicle and, in response to receiving the first message, causing a vertical load on at least one of the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be decreased and/or a vertical position of at least one of one of the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be raised, receiving the message relating to the wheel rotation step as a second message relating to a second step of the tyre chain deployment process for the vehicle and, in response to receiving the second message, causing the rotation of the at least one wheel of the vehicle, receiving a third message relating to a third step of the tyre chain deployment process for the vehicle, and, in response to receiving the third message, causing the vertical load on the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be increased and/or a vertical position of the at least one wheel of the vehicle to be lowered (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 7).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0367665 to Kotambail et al. (hereinafter: “Kotambail”).
With respect to claim 9, Lau teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the message includes a user input to a button of the vehicle (as discussed by at least ¶ 0036); however, Lau appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the message comprises a user input to a touch screen, a user gesture captured by a camera, or a voice command captured by a microphone (because a user input to a touch screen, a user gesture captured by a camera, and a voice command captured by a microphone are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
Kotambail teaches that it was known for processing circuitry of a computer system to receive, as a message, a user input to a touch screen of a vehicle in the alternative to a user input to a button of a vehicle (as depicted by at least Fig. 3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0012 & 0017).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the computer system of Lau with the teachings of Kotambail, if even necessary, such that the user input included by the message is to a touch screen in the alternative to a button because Kotambail demonstrates that receiving, as a message, a user input to a touch screen of a vehicle is a simple alternative to receiving, as the message, a user input to a button of the vehicle, and there is no reason to believe that a particular user input source (e.g., the button or the touch screen) of the user input would adversely affect the receiving of the user input as the message (note that Applicant’s specification does not establish criticality for the message comprising a user input to a touch screen), as the user input would be received as the message in each instance. Therefore, such a modification, if even necessary, would also amount to a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (e.g., see: MPEP 2143_I_B).
With respect to claim 18, Lau modified supra teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein the message comprises a user input to a touch screen, a user gesture captured by a camera, or a voice command captured by a microphone (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 9).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of AAPA, or under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA alone.
With respect to claim 9, King and/or AAPA modified supra teaches the computer system of claim 1; however, King and AAPA appear to lack a clear teaching as to whether the message comprises a user input to a touch screen, a user gesture captured by a camera, or a voice command captured by a microphone (because a user input to a touch screen, a user gesture captured by a camera, and a voice command captured by a microphone are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
Even so, AAPA further teaches that it was known in the art to receive, as a message, a user input sent from a smartphone having a touch screen that enables a user to input commands or instructions (as discussed by ¶ 0044 of Applicant’s specification).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the computer system of King or AAPA with the further teachings of AAPA, if even necessary, such that the message includes a user input to a touch screen (e.g., of a smartphone) because AAPA demonstrates that it was known at the time the invention was made to source such a message from a user input to a touch screen. Also, “the message comprises a user input to a touch screen” merely defines a source of the “message,” without necessarily further defining structure of the claimed “computer system” (or an element thereof), and without necessarily further defining the receiving of the “message” by the “computer system” (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2114_II), such that the configuration of the “computer system” (and the “processing circuitry” thereof) of claim 9 again broadly provides nothing more than an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result (e.g., the manual activity of King and/or the manual activity of AAPA), and the courts have held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (e.g., see: MPEP 2144.04_III).
With respect to claim 18, King and/or AAPA modified supra teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein the message comprises a user input to a touch screen, a user gesture captured by a camera, or a voice command captured by a microphone (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 9).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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 ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights