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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 were originally presented having a filing date of December 11, 2024 and claiming priority to European Application EP23218104.0 that was filed on December 19, 2023.
Claims 1-19 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement that was filed on December 11, 2024 is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the pattern comprises at least one serration” in claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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.
Claims 1-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally
link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the 2024 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Update Including on Artificial Intelligence.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an arrangement, which is being interpreted as either a device or a manufacture.
Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 1 recites:
An on-board arrangement for determining wheel alignment of a steerable wheel mounted on an axle of a vehicle, wherein the steerable wheel is mounted to the axle by means of a steering knuckle, the arrangement comprising:
a pattern provided on a first one of the steering knuckle and the axle, wherein the pattern defines a tolerance zone for wheel alignment of the steerable wheel; and
a sensor assembly mounted on a second one of the steering knuckle and the axle, the sensor assembly being configured to detect the pattern and collect sensor data relating to the detected pattern, wherein the collected sensor data are indicative of whether the wheel alignment is within the tolerance zone.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “a pattern provided on a first one of the steering knuckle and the axle, wherein the pattern defines a tolerance zone for wheel alignment of the steerable wheel” in the context of this claim encompasses a person performing these limitations in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An on-board arrangement for determining wheel alignment of a steerable wheel mounted on an axle of a vehicle, wherein the steerable wheel is mounted to the axle by means of a steering knuckle, the arrangement comprising:
a pattern provided on a first one of the steering knuckle and the axle, wherein the pattern defines a tolerance zone for wheel alignment of the steerable wheel; and
a sensor assembly mounted on a second one of the steering knuckle and the axle, the sensor assembly being configured to detect the pattern and collect sensor data relating to the detected pattern, wherein the collected sensor data are indicative of whether the wheel alignment is within the tolerance zone.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “a sensor assembly mounted on a second one of the steering knuckle and the axle, the sensor assembly being configured to detect the pattern and collect sensor data relating to the detected pattern, wherein the collected sensor data are indicative of whether the wheel alignment is within the tolerance zone”, merely describes how to generally “gather data” for the otherwise mental judgments. The sensor assembly is recited at a high level of generality and merely provides a way of gathering data.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the “a pattern provided on a first one of the steering knuckle and the axle, wherein the pattern defines a tolerance zone for wheel alignment of the steerable wheel” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitation of “a sensor assembly mounted on a second one of the steering knuckle and the axle, the sensor assembly being configured to detect the pattern and collect sensor data relating to the detected pattern, wherein the collected sensor data are indicative of whether the wheel alignment is within the tolerance zone”, the Examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “a sensor assembly mounted on a second one of the steering knuckle and the axle, the sensor assembly being configured to detect the pattern and collect sensor data relating to the detected pattern, wherein the collected sensor data are indicative of whether the wheel alignment is within the tolerance zone”, is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the specification does not provide any indication that the sensor assembly is anything other than a conventional sensor assembly mounted on either a steering knuckle or axle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp. 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-13 and 16 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-13 and 16 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-13 and 16 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 1-3, 7, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen, et al. (Publication CN 208665308 U) (hereinafter referred to as “Chen”.)
As per claim 1, Chen discloses an on-board arrangement for determining wheel alignment of a steerable wheel mounted on an axle of a vehicle, wherein the steerable wheel is mounted to the axle by means of a steering knuckle [see at least Chen Abstract "The utility model claims a device for measuring vehicle steering angle device, comprising an angle sensor, the angle sensor is installed at the connection of the steering knuckle arm and axle of a vehicle steering mechanism, and the angle sensor for directly measuring the deflection angle of the steering knuckle arm. the angle sensor is set on the steering knuckle arm of the vehicle steering mechanism and connection of the vehicle-bridge, so as to realize the direct measurement of the deflection angle of the steering knuckle arm"], the arrangement comprising:
a pattern provided on a first one of the steering knuckle and the axle, wherein the pattern defines a tolerance zone for wheel alignment of the steerable wheel [see at least Chen p. 3 "...the annular grating is fixed on the steering knuckle arm"; p. 4 "steering knuckle arm 10", "annular grating 15"; p. 5 "In a further embodiment, when the angle sensor is grating type sensor, a specific structure of the grating type sensor may include annular grating with optical code disk 15, reflector 16"]; and
a sensor assembly mounted on a second one of the steering knuckle and the axle, the sensor assembly being configured to detect the pattern and collect sensor data relating to the detected pattern, wherein the collected sensor data are indicative of whether the wheel alignment is within the tolerance zone [see at least Chen p. 3 "...the reflector is fixed on the fixing pin shaft connected on the axle"; p.5 " It should be noted that because the annular grating and the laser generator are fixed on the steering knuckle arm, so the annular grating and laser generator are along with the deflection of the steering arm to rotate, and the reflector is fixed on the fixed pin, the fixed pin is fixed on the vehicle bridge, therefore the reflector always still state.]
As per claim 2, Chen discloses … wherein the sensor assembly is mounted on the axle and the pattern is provided on the steering knuckle [see at least Chen p. 3 "...the annular grating is fixed on the steering knuckle arm; the reflector is fixed on the fixing pin shaft connected on the axle"; p. 4 "steering knuckle arm 10", "annular grating 15"; p. 5 "In a further embodiment, when the angle sensor is grating type sensor, a specific structure of the grating type sensor may include annular grating with optical code disk 15, reflector 16 ... It should be noted that because the annular grating and the laser generator are fixed on the steering knuckle arm, so the annular grating and laser generator are along with the deflection of the steering arm to rotate, and the reflector is fixed on the fixed pin, the fixed pin is fixed on the vehicle bridge, therefore the reflector always still state."]
As per claim 3, Chen discloses …wherein the sensor assembly comprises an emitter configured to emit an electromagnetic radiation beam toward the pattern [see at least Chen p. 5 "...the grating type sensor in the actual working process, by the laser emitter 17 emits laser beam, on the laser beam reflector 16, the light reflected by the reflector 16 is irradiated on the annular grating 16 with optical coded disc is, on the annular grating of the photosensitive element receives the light and generating electrical signal (generating a high level), "], and
a detector configured to collect the sensor data by detecting a return signal arising as the electromagnetic radiation beam interacts with the pattern [see at least Chen p. 5 " the light reflected by the reflector 16 is irradiated on the annular grating 16 with optical coded disc is, on the annular grating of the photosensitive element receives the light and generating electrical signal (generating a high level) ... as long as the number of high level signal generated is sent to the vehicle controller can calculate the deflection angle of steering knuckle arm. namely a vehicle steering angle."]
As per claim 7, Chen discloses …wherein the sensor assembly comprises a proximity sensor configured to detect the pattern and collect sensor data relating to the detected pattern, and wherein the pattern is a three-dimensional pattern that enables detection of the tolerance zone by the proximity sensor [see at least Chen p. 2 "of the current vehicle steering angle measured by steering wheel angle sensor is installed below the steering shaft is realized. and the angle sensor is commonly used at present is mainly with a grating sensor and a Hall angle sensor. wherein the grating type sensor is based on the principle of optical coded disc, namely the sensor inside a hollow disk of many hollow groove, a small LED lamp at a certain fixed position above the optical code disc, lower part is equipped with photosensitive element. When the steering wheel rotates drives the optical coded disc to rotate to an empty slot, the photosensitive element receives light, generates an electrical signal (high level), not to an empty slot is not generating electrical signal (low level) and count how many electric signal and then combine with dimension parameter of the optical code disc, it can know how many degrees the steering wheel … ."]
As per claim 16, Chen discloses a vehicle comprising the arrangement of claim 1 [see at least Chen p. 2 "The utility model claims a vehicle turning control technical field, especially claims a device for measuring vehicle steering angle."; {See also the rejection of claim 1 above}]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Oki, et al. (Publication US 2018/0094922 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Oki”.)
As per claim 4, Chen discloses …wherein the sensor assembly comprises a pointer configured to project a light beam onto the pattern [see at least Chen p. 5 "the grating type sensor in the actual working process, by the laser emitter 17 emits laser beam, on the laser beam reflector 16, the light reflected by the reflector 16 is irradiated on the annular grating 16 with optical coded disc is, on the annular grating of the photosensitive element receives the light and generating electrical signal (generating a high level), … the laser emitter 17 may be nano-scale laser emitter, and also can adopt the common laser emitter, but this utility model preferably adopts nano-scale laser emitter."]
Chen fails to disclose … a camera configured to collect the sensor data by capturing at least one image of the pattern and the projected light beam. However, Oki teaches this limitation [see at least Oki [0007] "In accordance with a particular aspect of the invention, a machine vision system is employed using imagers, such as cameras, to identify and measure the three dimensional position of vehicle features or components. … The imaged features or components include the ... steering knuckle."; [0011] A system in accordance with an aspect of the present invention for performing the method comprises multiple of imagers, such as stereo cameras, for taking images of the interior side of a tire and wheel assembly and suspension components from beneath the vehicle. The system further includes a control, such as a computer, for processing the images, and may additionally include lights for illuminating the scene. In a particular embodiment a laser based three dimensional LIDAR scanner may be used to generate images. [0040] "...Calibration can be accomplished, for example, with the use of a checkerboard patterned target or a calibration target whose exact three dimensional shape and dimensions are known."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement as disclosed in Chen to use … a camera configured to collect the sensor data by capturing at least one image of the pattern and the projected light beam as disclosed in Oki with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved detection of features of steerable wheels when determining alignment characteristics of the wheel. [See at least Oki [0002].]
As per claim 5, Chen discloses …wherein the pointer is a laser pointer [see at least Chen p. 5 "… the laser emitter 17 may be nano-scale laser emitter, and also can adopt the common laser emitter, but this utility model preferably adopts nano-scale laser emitter."]
As per claim 6, Chen discloses … wherein the pattern is a visual pattern comprising an outer border, and wherein the sensor data is indicative of the wheel alignment being within the tolerance zone when the projected light beam is within the outer border [see at least Chen p. 5 "...when the angle sensor is grating type sensor, a specific structure of the grating type sensor may include annular grating with optical code disk 15, reflector 16 … on the laser beam reflector 16, the light reflected by the reflector 16 is irradiated on the annular grating 16 with optical coded disc is, on the annular grating of the photosensitive element receives the light and generating electrical signal (generating a high level), no place does not generate electric signal (generating low level), as long as the number of high level signal generated is sent to the vehicle controller can calculate the deflection angle of steering knuckle arm. namely a vehicle steering angle … ."]
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Tarloff, et al. (Publication US 2017/0363419 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Tarloff”.)
As per claim 8, Chen discloses … wherein the pattern comprises…an outer border of the tolerance zone [see at least Chen Fig. 2 annular grating 15.]
Chen fails to disclose … wherein the pattern comprises at least one serration and/or at least one protrusion defining an outer border... . However, Tarloff teaches this limitation [see at least Tarloff [0046] "Continuing with FIG. 2A, one end of the tie rod 100 is connected to the knuckle 104 by, for example, a ball joint 309. The other end of the tie rod 100 can be connected to a steering system 308. The tie rod 100 may include a receiving portion 105 (discussed below) and a target 101a. The target 101a may comprise a reflective surface. In some aspects, the target 101a is a 3-dimenstional reflective object. In some aspects the 3-dimenstional reflective object is pyramidal or triangular in shape."; FIgs. 6,7 show protrusion defining an outer border; Figs. 8, 9 show serration defining an outer border … .]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement as disclosed in Chen to use … wherein the pattern comprises at least one serration and/or at least one protrusion defining an outer border... as disclosed in Tarloff with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit improved riding comfort. [See at least Tarloff [0025].]
As per claim 9, Chen fails to disclose … wherein the tolerance zone defines at least one of a first tolerance range for a toe angle and a second tolerance range for a camber angle. However, Tarloff teaches this limitation [see at least Tarloff [0006] "...The method may also include comparing the determined position with the retrieved position to determine if the knuckle is in the desired toe and camber positions."
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement as disclosed in Chen to use … wherein the tolerance zone defines at least one of a first tolerance range for a toe angle and a second tolerance range for a camber angle as disclosed in Tarloff with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit improved riding comfort. [See at least Tarloff [0025].]
As per claim 10, Chen fails to disclose … further comprising a user interface configured to present information relating to the collected sensor data to a user. However, Tarloff teaches this limitation [see at least Tarloff [0031] "The ET/EM device may also have a keypad and/or a display."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement as disclosed in Chen to use … further comprising a user interface configured to present information relating to the collected sensor data to a user as disclosed in Tarloff with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit improved riding comfort. [See at least Tarloff [0025].]
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Tarloff, and Oki.
As per claim 11, Chen discloses the arrangement … : wherein the sensor assembly comprises a pointer configured to project a light beam onto the pattern [see at least Chen p. 5 "...the grating type sensor in the actual working process, by the laser emitter 17 emits laser beam, on the laser beam reflector 16, the light reflected by the reflector 16 is irradiated on the annular grating 16 with optical coded disc is, on the annular grating of the photosensitive element receives the light and generating electrical signal (generating a high level), … ."]
The combination of Chen and Tarloff fails to disclose … a camera configured to collect the sensor data by capturing at least one image of the pattern and the projected light beam; and wherein the user interface comprises a display configured to present the information as an image of the detected pattern and the light beam projected onto the pattern. However, Oki teaches these limitations:
… a camera configured to collect the sensor data by capturing at least one image of the pattern and the projected light beam [see at least Oki [0007] "In accordance with a particular aspect of the invention, a machine vision system is employed using imagers, such as cameras, to identify and measure the three dimensional position of vehicle features or components. … The imaged features or components include the ... steering knuckle."; [0011] A system in accordance with an aspect of the present invention for performing the method comprises multiple of imagers, such as stereo cameras, for taking images of the interior side of a tire and wheel assembly and suspension components from beneath the vehicle. The system further includes a control, such as a computer, for processing the images, and may additionally include lights for illuminating the scene. In a particular embodiment a laser based three dimensional LIDAR scanner may be used to generate images. [0040] "...Calibration can be accomplished, for example, with the use of a checkerboard patterned target or a calibration target whose exact three dimensional shape and dimensions are known."]; and
wherein the user interface comprises a display configured to present the information as an image of the detected pattern and the light beam projected onto the pattern [see at least Oki [0035]" Referring now to FIGS. 7 and 8, the determination by computer 26 of the axis of rotation 52 of the tire and wheel assembly 30 and the steering axis 50 is illustrated, where FIGS. 7 and 8 disclose exemplary images viewable on a display 90 associated with computer 26. As shown in FIG. 7, the machine vision system processing of computer 26 identifies a circle 92 concentric with and based on rim 33 of wheel 32, whereby axis of rotation 52 is representative of the normal vector thereto. Likewise, as shown in FIG. 8, the machine vision system processing of computer 26 identifies the outer edges or boundaries 94a, 94b .... It should be appreciated that the vision system processing for identification of components of vehicle 14 as used in the determination of caster may be done on other components and/or features other than rim 33 and the end of stud 41 as illustrated."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement as disclosed in the combination of Chen and Tarloff to use … a camera configured to collect the sensor data by capturing at least one image of the pattern and the projected light beam; and wherein the user interface comprises a display configured to present the information as an image of the detected pattern and the light beam projected onto the pattern as disclosed in Oki with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of improved detection of features of steerable wheels when determining alignment characteristics of the wheel. [See at least Oki [0002].]
As per claim 12, Chen discloses … wherein the pointer is a laser pointer [see at least Chen p. 5 "...the grating type sensor in the actual working process, by the laser emitter 17 emits laser beam, on the laser beam reflector 16, the light reflected by the reflector 16 is irradiated on the annular grating 16 with optical coded disc is, on the annular grating of the photosensitive element receives the light and generating electrical signal (generating a high level), … ."]
As per claim 13, Chen discloses … wherein the pattern is a visual pattern comprising an outer border, and wherein the sensor data is indicative of the wheel alignment being within the tolerance zone when the projected light beam is within the outer border [see at least Chen FIG. 2; p. 3 "...the annular grating is fixed on the steering knuckle arm"; p. 5 "In a further embodiment, when the angle sensor is grating type sensor, a specific structure of the grating type sensor may include annular grating with optical code disk 15, reflector 16"; p. 5 "...when the angle sensor is grating type sensor, a specific structure of the grating type sensor may include annular grating with optical code disk 15, reflector 16 … on the laser beam reflector 16, the light reflected by the reflector 16 is irradiated on the annular grating 16 with optical coded disc is, on the annular grating of the photosensitive element receives the light and generating electrical signal (generating a high level), no place does not generate electric signal (generating low level), as long as the number of high level signal generated is sent to the vehicle controller can calculate the deflection angle of steering knuckle arm. namely a vehicle steering angle ."]
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Tarloff, Oki, and Strege, et al. (Publication US 2016/0273914 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Strege”.)
As per claim 19, Chen discloses … wherein the sensor assembly is configured to repeatedly collect and send the sensor data [see at least Chen p. 1 "intelligent driving vehicle when the automatic steering, it needs to obtain the wheel angle feedback. measuring wheel corner, and the corner information back to control system becomes a key for turning a vehicle is located."]
The combination of Chen, Tarloff, and Oki fails to disclose … wherein the sensor assembly is configured to … send the sensor data to the wheel adjustment device during the adjustment of the wheel alignment, and wherein the wheel adjustment device is configured to adjust the wheel alignment until it is within the tolerance zone. However, Strege teaches this limitation [see at least Strege [0031] "Measurements having unacceptable deviation may be representative of movement deviations from an ideal rolling movement during the rolling movement of the wheel assembly. For example, a deviation in a parameter value may correspond to a change in vertical elevation of the wheel assembly during the rolling movement, or may correspond to a change in a steering angle of the wheel assembly during the rolling movement. If any deviating parameter values are identified, a standard workflow of procedures implemented by the vehicle wheel alignment measurement or inspection system is adjusted, ... automatically ... by an operator, to take an appropriate responsive action (Box 106) before continuing (Box 108). A responsive action may include generating a warning to the operator indicating the occurrence of a movement deviation, restarting the rolling procedure, determining one or more correction factors to apply to subsequent measurements or compensation values associated with the vehicle to offset at least a portion of any measurement effects introduced by the movement deviation, …. ."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement as disclosed in the combination of Chen, Tarloff, and Oki to use … wherein the sensor assembly is configured to … send the sensor data to the wheel adjustment device during the adjustment of the wheel alignment, and wherein the wheel adjustment device is configured to adjust the wheel alignment until it is within the tolerance zone as disclosed in Strege with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of more quickly responding by taking corrective action to detected values exceeding acceptable tolerance values. [See at least Strege [0009].]
Claims 14-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Strege.
As per claim 14, Chen fails to disclose an on-board wheel alignment system comprising the arrangement of claim 1, and further comprising a wheel adjustment device, wherein the sensor assembly is configured to send the collected sensor data to the wheel adjustment device, and wherein the wheel adjustment device is configured to: based on the received sensor data, determine whether the wheel alignment is outside of the tolerance zone; and in response to determining that the wheel alignment is outside of the tolerance zone, adjust the wheel alignment based on the received sensor data. However, Strege teaches these limitations:
on-board wheel alignment system comprising the arrangement of claim 1, and further comprising a wheel adjustment device, wherein the sensor assembly is configured to send the collected sensor data to the wheel adjustment device, and wherein the wheel adjustment device is configured to [see at least Strege [0030] "once acquired, the sequence of parameter values is evaluated (Box 104), such as by the processor… to identify the presence of any parameter values in the sequence which deviated during the rolling movement from sequentially adjacent or expected parameter values by more than an acceptable tolerance associated with the measured values."; [0031] "...If any deviating parameter values are identified, a standard workflow of procedures implemented by the vehicle wheel alignment measurement or inspection system is adjusted, either automatically."]:
based on the received sensor data, determine whether the wheel alignment is outside of the tolerance zone [see at least Strege [0031] "...If any deviating parameter values are identified, a standard workflow of procedures implemented by the vehicle wheel alignment measurement or inspection system is adjusted, either automatically."]; and
in response to determining that the wheel alignment is outside of the tolerance zone, adjust the wheel alignment based on the received sensor data [see at least Strege [0031] "...A responsive action may include generating a warning to the operator indicating the occurrence of a movement deviation, restarting the rolling procedure, determining one or more correction factors to apply to subsequent measurements or compensation values associated with the vehicle to offset at least a portion of any measurement effects introduced by the movement deviation, ... ."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement as disclosed in Chen to use an on-board wheel alignment system comprising the arrangement of claim 1, and further comprising a wheel adjustment device, wherein the sensor assembly is configured to send the collected sensor data to the wheel adjustment device, and wherein the wheel adjustment device is configured to: based on the received sensor data, determine whether the wheel alignment is outside of the tolerance zone; and in response to determining that the wheel alignment is outside of the tolerance zone, adjust the wheel alignment based on the received sensor data as disclosed in Strege with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of more quickly responding by taking corrective action to detected values exceeding acceptable tolerance values. [See at least Strege [0009].]
As per claim 15, Chen discloses … wherein the sensor assembly is configured to repeatedly collect [see at least Chen p. 1 "intelligent driving vehicle when the automatic steering, it needs to obtain the wheel angle feedback. measuring wheel corner, and the corner information back to control system becomes a key for turning a vehicle is located."]
Chen fails to disclose … wherein the sensor assembly is configured to ... send the sensor data to the wheel adjustment device during the adjustment of the wheel alignment, and wherein the wheel adjustment device is configured to adjust the wheel alignment until it is within the tolerance zone. However, Strege teaches this limitation [see at least Strege [0031] "Measurements having unacceptable deviation may be representative of movement deviations from an ideal rolling movement during the rolling movement of the wheel assembly. For example, a deviation in a parameter value may correspond to a change in vertical elevation of the wheel assembly during the rolling movement, or may correspond to a change in a steering angle of the wheel assembly during the rolling movement. If any deviating parameter values are identified, a standard workflow of procedures implemented by the vehicle wheel alignment measurement or inspection system is adjusted, ... automatically ... by an operator, to take an appropriate responsive action (Box 106) before continuing (Box 108). A responsive action may include generating a warning to the operator indicating the occurrence of a movement deviation, restarting the rolling procedure, determining one or more correction factors to apply to subsequent measurements or compensation values associated with the vehicle to offset at least a portion of any measurement effects introduced by the movement deviation, … ."]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement as disclosed in Chen to use … wherein the sensor assembly is configured to ... send the sensor data to the wheel adjustment device during the adjustment of the wheel alignment, and wherein the wheel adjustment device is configured to adjust the wheel alignment until it is within the tolerance zone as disclosed in Strege with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of more quickly responding by taking corrective action to detected values exceeding acceptable tolerance values. [See at least Strege [0009].]
As per claim 17, Chen discloses a vehicle comprising the wheel alignment system of claim 14 [see at least Chen p. 2 "The utility model claims a vehicle turning control technical field, especially claims a device for measuring vehicle steering angle."; see rejection of claim 14 above.]
As per claim 18, Chen discloses … wherein the sensor assembly is configured to repeatedly collect and send the sensor data [see at least Chen p. 1 "intelligent driving vehicle when the automatic steering, it needs to obtain the wheel angle feedback. measuring wheel corner, and the corner information back to control system becomes a key for turning a vehicle is located."]
Chen fails to disclose … wherein the sensor assembly is configured to … send the sensor data to the wheel adjustment device during the adjustment of the wheel alignment, and wherein the wheel adjustment device is configured to adjust the wheel alignment until it is within the tolerance zone. However, Strege teaches this limitation [see at least Strege [0031] "Measurements having unacceptable deviation may be representative of movement deviations from an ideal rolling movement during the rolling movement of the wheel assembly. For example, a deviation in a parameter value may correspond to a change in vertical elevation of the wheel assembly during the rolling movement, or may correspond to a change in a steering angle of the wheel assembly during the rolling movement. If any deviating parameter values are identified, a standard workflow of procedures implemented by the vehicle wheel alignment measurement or inspection system is adjusted, ... automatically ... by an operator, to take an appropriate responsive action (Box 106) before continuing (Box 108). A responsive action may include generating a warning to the operator indicating the occurrence of a movement deviation, restarting the rolling procedure, determining one or more correction factors to apply to subsequent measurements or compensation values associated with the vehicle to offset at least a portion of any measurement effects introduced by the movement deviation, … ."]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULA L SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (703)756-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/P.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/LAIL A KLEINMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights