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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular boxes shown in Fig. 5 of the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels [e.g., see: MPEP 608.02(b)].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 5-7, 15, and 16 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 5 introduces “at least one wheel of the vehicle” in line 2; however, claim 5 is dependent from claim 1, and claim 1 previously introduces “at least one wheel of the vehicle” in lines 4-5, and it is unclear whether the “at least one wheel” in line 2 of claim 5 is intended to be the same as or different from the “at least one wheel” in line 4 of claim 1. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 introduces “at least one wheel of the vehicle” in line 2; however, claim 6 is dependent from claim 1, and claim 1 previously introduces “at least one wheel of the vehicle” in lines 4-5, and it is unclear whether the “at least one wheel” in line 2 of claim 6 is intended to be the same as or different from the “at least one wheel” in line 4 of claim 1. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 introduces “at least one wheel of the vehicle” twice, in each of lines 4-5 and lines 5-6; however, claim 7 is dependent from claim 1, and claim 1 previously introduces “at least one wheel of the vehicle” in lines 4-5, and it is unclear whether: (a) the “at least one wheel” in lines 5-6 of claim 5 is intended to be the same as or different from the “at least one wheel” in lines 4-5 of claim 5, (b) the “at least one wheel” in lines 5-6 of claim 5 is intended to be the same as or different from the “at least one wheel” in line 4 of claim 1, and (c) the “at least one wheel” in lines 4-5 of claim 5 is intended to be the same as or different from the “at least one wheel” in line 4 of claim 1. Claim 7 also refers to “the at least one wheel of the vehicle” three times, in each of lines 9-10, lines 13-14, and lines 14-15, and it is unclear which of the “at least one wheel” in line 4 of claim 1, the “at least one wheel” in lines 4-5 of claim 5, and the “at least one wheel” in lines 4-5 of claim 5 is/are intended to correspond to each of the “at least one wheel” in lines 9-10 of claim 5, the “at least one wheel” in lines 13-14 of claim 5, and the “at least one wheel” in lines 14-15 of claim 5. Claim 7 further introduces “a vertical load” in line 13; however, the claim previously introduces “a vertical load” in line 4, and it is unclear whether the “vertical load” in line 13 of claim 7 is intended to be the same as or different from the “vertical load” in line 4 of claim 7. Claim 7 also introduces “a vertical position” in line 14; however, the claim previously introduces “a vertical position” in line 5, and it is unclear whether the “vertical position” in line 14 of claim 7 is intended to be the same as or different from the “vertical position” in line 5 of claim 7. Additionally, claim 7 introduces “a wheel rotation step” in line 7; however, claim 1 previously introduces “a wheel rotation step” in line 2, and it is unclear whether the “wheel rotation step” in line 7 of claim 7 is intended to be the same as or different from the “wheel rotation step” in line 2 of claim 1. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
Claim 15 introduces “at least one wheel of the vehicle” twice, in each of line 5 and line 7; however, claim 15 is dependent from claim 13, and claim 13 previously introduces “at least one wheel of the vehicle” in lines 5-6, and it is unclear whether: (a) the “at least one wheel” in line 7 of claim 15 is intended to be the same as or different from the “at least one wheel” in line 5 of claim 15, (b) the “at least one wheel” in line 7 of claim 15 is intended to be the same as or different from the “at least one wheel” in lines 5-6 of claim 13, and (c) the “at least one wheel” in line 5 of claim 15 is intended to be the same as or different from the “at least one wheel” in lines 5-6 of claim 13. Claim 15 also refers to “the at least one wheel of the vehicle” twice, in each of lines 2-3 and line 4, and it is unclear which of the “at least one wheel” in lines 5-6 of claim 13, the “at least one wheel” in line 5 of claim 15, and the “at least one wheel” in line 7 of claim 15 is/are intended to correspond to each of the “at least one wheel” in lines 2-3 of claim 15 and the “at least one wheel” in line 4 of claim 15. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
Claim 16 introduces “at least one wheel of the vehicle” twice, in each of lines 3-4 and line 4; however, claim 16 is dependent from claim 13, and claim 13 previously introduces “at least one wheel of the vehicle” in lines 5-6, and it is unclear whether: (a) the “at least one wheel” in line 4 of claim 16 is intended to be the same as or different from the “at least one wheel” in lines 3-4 of claim 16, (b) the “at least one wheel” in line 4 of claim 16 is intended to be the same as or different from the “at least one wheel” in lines 5-6 of claim 13, and (c) the “at least one wheel” in lines 3-4 of claim 16 is intended to be the same as or different from the “at least one wheel” in lines 5-6 of claim 13. Claim 16 also refers to “the at least one wheel of the vehicle” three times, in each of lines 7-8, line 10, and line 11, and it is unclear which of the “at least one wheel” in lines 5-6 of claim 13, the “at least one wheel” in lines 3-4 of claim 16, and the “at least one wheel” in line 4 of claim 16 is/are intended to correspond to each of the “at least one wheel” in lines 7-8 of claim 16, the “at least one wheel” in line 10 of claim 16, and the “at least one wheel” in line 11 of claim 16. Claim 16 further introduces “a vertical load” in line 10; however, the claim previously introduces “a vertical load” in line 3, and it is unclear whether the “vertical load” in line 10 of claim 16 is intended to be the same as or different from the “vertical load” in line 3 of claim 16. Claim 16 also introduces “a vertical position” in lines 10-11; however, the claim previously introduces “a vertical position” in line 4, and it is unclear whether the “vertical position” in lines 10-11 of claim 16 is intended to be the same as or different from the “vertical position” in line 4 of claim 16. Additionally, claim 16 introduces “a wheel rotation step” in line 5; however, claim 13 previously introduces “a wheel rotation step” in line 3, and it is unclear whether the “wheel rotation step” in line 5 of claim 16 is intended to be the same as or different from the “wheel rotation step” in line 3 of claim 13. Furthermore, claim 16 introduces “a tyre chain deployment process” in line 6; however, claim 13 previously introduces “a tyre chain deployment process” in lines 3-4, and it is unclear whether the “tyre chain deployment process” in line 6 of claim 16 is intended to be the same as or different from the “tyre chain deployment process” in lines 3-4 of claim 13. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim 19 recites “A computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by processing circuitry, the computer-implemented method of claim 13.” A claim to nothing more than a computer program (e.g., software) is a claim that is directed to a product that does not have a physical or tangible form, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim to a “computer program product” includes a non-statutory embodiment (e.g., see: MPEP 2106.03_I). Because claim 19 is directed to nothing more than a computer program (i.e., “program code”), claim 19 is not directed to any of the statutory categories. To overcome the rejection, one suggestion is to cancel claim 19 in view of related claim 20 reciting “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.”
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, 19, 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 wheel of the vehicle to be decreased or increased; and causing a vertical position of 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 wheel of the vehicle to be decreased, causing a vertical load on at least one wheel of the vehicle to be increased, causing a vertical position of at least one wheel of the vehicle to be raised, and causing a vertical position of 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 19, Lau teaches a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by processing circuitry, the computer-implemented method of claim 13 (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 1 and 13).
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, 19, 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 19, King and/or AAPA modified supra teaches a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by processing circuitry, the computer-implemented method of claim 13 (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 1 and 13).
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 a 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 wheel of the vehicle to be decreased and/or a vertical position of 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 wheel of the vehicle to be decreased and cause a 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); 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 a 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 (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 a vertical load on at least one wheel of the vehicle to be decreased and cause a 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 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 a 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.
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 wheel of the vehicle to be decreased or increased; and causing a vertical position of 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 wheel of the vehicle to be decreased, causing a vertical load on at least one wheel of the vehicle to be increased, causing a vertical position of at least one wheel of the vehicle to be raised, and causing a vertical position of 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 wheel of the vehicle to be decreased and/or a vertical position of at least one wheel of the vehicle to be raised, receiving the message relating to a wheel rotation step as a second message relating to a second step of a 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 a 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form.
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