DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 9/8/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-18, and 20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US Publication No. 2024/0182280) in view of Deegan et al. (US Publication No. 2010/0108966).
Smith teaches:
Re claim 1. A computer system comprising processing circuitry (paragraph [0066]: “a computing device (1400) that may perform/support all or some of the methods disclosed herein”) configured to:
receive a request for a lift mechanism to perform a lift operation of a vehicle, the lift mechanism separate from the vehicle (Message include lift command? 804, Fig. 8; and paragraph [0002]: “The mobile columns may be readily positioned in relation to the vehicle, then be activated to lift the vehicle from the ground in a coordinated/synchronized fashion.”).
Smith fails to specifically teach: (re claim 1)
verify a suspension system of the vehicle as being lowered to lower a centre of gravity of the vehicle;
prevent operation of the lift mechanism in response to determining that the suspension system is raised; and
enable operation of the lift mechanism in response to verifying the suspension system as being lowered.
Smith does teach, at paragraph [0063], requiring a user, detected by a proximity sensor, to be at a safe distance from the set of lift columns to raise or lower the vehicle. This distance may be defined as a distance at which an operator may stand without injury should the vehicle fall while being raised or lowered or while in a raised position. This distance may be a multiple of the height of the vehicle.
Deegan teaches, at paragraphs [0019-0021], in order to change a tire on a vehicle, utilizing a hydraulic suspension system on the vehicle to level the vehicle and then lower the vehicle to a lowest position. The hydraulic suspension corresponding to the wheel holding the tire to be changed is locked prior to raising the vehicle to a height high enough that the wheel corresponding to the locked suspension and the tire mounted thereon are off of the ground.
Lowering the suspension system and locking a wheel at this lowered position allows for a vehicle to be at a lower height when the tire to be changed is off of the ground, thus increasing the safety of the tire changing operation by reducing the distance at which an operator may stand without injury should the vehicle fall while being raised or lowered or while in a raised position.
In view of Deegan’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system as taught by Smith, (re claim 1) verify a suspension system of the vehicle as being lowered to lower a centre of gravity of the vehicle; prevent operation of the lift mechanism in response to determining that the suspension system is raised; and enable operation of the lift mechanism in response to verifying the suspension system as being lowered, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the system of Smith does not permit a vehicle to be raised or lowered unless the operator is a multiple of the height of the vehicle away from the set of lift columns, and Deegan teaches reducing the height a vehicle must be lifted by lowering the vehicle to its lowest position and locking a hydraulic suspension system corresponding to the tire to be changed. Lowering the suspension system and locking a wheel at this lowered position allows for a vehicle to be at a lower height when the tire to be changed is off of the ground, thus increasing the safety of the tire changing operation by reducing the distance the vehicle may fall while in a raised position.
Smith fails to specifically teach: (re claim 2) wherein verifying the suspension system of the vehicle comprises: causing lowering of the suspension system; (re claim 6) wherein the processing circuitry is configured to verify a suspension system for at least one of a front side, rear side, left side, or right side of the vehicle.
Deegan teaches, at 202, Fig. 2 and paragraph [0019], lowering a vehicle utilizing hydraulic suspension units.
In view of Deegan’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system as taught by Smith, (re claim 2) herein verifying the suspension system of the vehicle comprises: causing lowering of the suspension system; (re claim 6) wherein the processing circuitry is configured to verify a suspension system for at least one of a front side, rear side, left side, or right side of the vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the system of Smith does not permit a vehicle to be raised or lowered unless the operator is a multiple of the height of the vehicle away from the set of lift columns, and Deegan teaches reducing the height a vehicle must be lifted by lowering the vehicle to its lowest position and locking a hydraulic suspension system corresponding to the tire to be changed. Lowering the suspension system and locking a wheel at this lowered position allows for a vehicle to be at a lower height when the tire to be changed is off of the ground, thus increasing the safety of the tire changing operation by reducing the distance the vehicle may fall while in a raised position.
Smith fails to specifically teach: (re claim 3) wherein verifying the suspension system of the vehicle comprises:
requesting a suspension status of the suspension system; and
causing lowering of the suspension system in response to determining that the suspension status of the suspension system is raised; and
(re claim 5) wherein preventing operation of the lift mechanism in response to determining that the suspension system is raised further comprises:
preventing operation of the lift mechanism in response to determining that the suspension system may be further lowered to a lowest height.
Deegan teaches, at Figure 2 and paragraphs [0019-0021], lowering a vehicle from an operating position to a lowest position prior to raising the vehicle to a predefined height.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to request a suspension status of a suspension system so as not to try to lower a suspension system that is already at its lowest position, and so the system would know when the suspension system has reached its lowest position.
In view of Deegan’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system as taught by Smith, (re claim 3) wherein verifying the suspension system of the vehicle comprises: requesting a suspension status of the suspension system; and causing lowering of the suspension system in response to determining that the suspension status of the suspension system is raised; and (re claim 5) wherein preventing operation of the lift mechanism in response to determining that the suspension system is raised further comprises: preventing operation of the lift mechanism in response to determining that the suspension system may be further lowered to a lowest height, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Deegan teaches lowering a vehicle from an operating position to a lowest position prior to raising the vehicle to a predefined height, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to request a suspension status of a suspension system so as not to try to lower a suspension system that is already at its lowest position, and so the system would know when the suspension system has reached its lowest position.
Smith further teaches:
Re claim 14. Wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine if a physical entity is within a threshold distance of the vehicle by receiving data from a camera system, at least one of a radar system and a proximity sensor, wherein enabling operation of the lift mechanism in response to verifying the suspension system as being lowered further comprises enabling operation of the lift mechanism in response to verifying the suspension system as being lowered and determining that no physical entity is within the threshold distance of the vehicle (paragraphs [0063-0065]).
Re claim 16. Wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to receive the request via at least one of an operator input to the vehicle, the lift mechanism, or from a camera system (paragraphs [0033 and 0037]).
Smith fails to specifically teach: (re claim 17) A vehicle comprising the computer system of claim 1.
Deegan teaches, at control unit 104, Figure 1, and vehicle, Figure 3, a vehicle comprising the circuitry to execute the system for changing a tire. This allows for such a vehicle to coordinate the movement of its suspension units to lower a vehicle, lock a suspension unit corresponding to a tire to be changed, and lift the tire to be changed off of the ground.
In view of Deegan’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system as taught by Smith, (re claim 17) A vehicle comprising the computer system of claim 1, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Deegan teaches a vehicle comprising the circuitry to execute the system for changing a tire. This allows for such a vehicle to coordinate the movement of its suspension units to lower a vehicle, lock a suspension unit corresponding to a tire to be changed, and lift the tire to be changed off of the ground.
Smith further teaches:
Re claim 18. A computer-implemented method (paragraph [0066]: “a computing device (1400) that may perform/support all or some of the methods disclosed herein”) comprising:
receiving, by processing circuitry of a computer system, a request for a lift mechanism to perform a lift operation of a vehicle, the lift mechanism separate from the vehicle (Message include lift command? 804, Fig. 8; and paragraph [0002]: “The mobile columns may be readily positioned in relation to the vehicle, then be activated to lift the vehicle from the ground in a coordinated/synchronized fashion.”).
Smith fails to specifically teach: (re claim 18)
verifying, by the processing circuitry, a suspension system of the vehicle as being lowered to lower a centre of gravity of the vehicle;
preventing, by the processing circuitry, operation of the lift mechanism in response to determining that the suspension system is raised; and
enabling, by the processing circuitry, operation of the lift mechanism in response to verifying the suspension system as being lowered.
Smith does teach, at paragraph [0063], requiring a user, detected by a proximity sensor, to be at a safe distance from the set of lift columns to raise or lower the vehicle. This distance may be defined as a distance at which an operator may stand without injury should the vehicle fall while being raised or lowered or while in a raised position. This distance may be a multiple of the height of the vehicle.
Deegan teaches, at paragraphs [0019-0021], in order to change a tire on a vehicle, utilizing a hydraulic suspension system on the vehicle to level the vehicle and then lower the vehicle to a lowest position. The hydraulic suspension corresponding to the wheel holding the tire to be changed is locked prior to raising the vehicle to a height high enough that the wheel corresponding to the locked suspension and the tire mounted thereon are off of the ground.
Lowering the suspension system and locking a wheel at this lowered position allows for a vehicle to be at a lower height when the tire to be changed is off of the ground, thus increasing the safety of the tire changing operation by reducing the distance at which an operator may stand without injury should the vehicle fall while being raised or lowered or while in a raised position.
In view of Deegan’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Smith, (re claim 18) verifying, by the processing circuitry, a suspension system of the vehicle as being lowered to lower a centre of gravity of the vehicle; preventing, by the processing circuitry, operation of the lift mechanism in response to determining that the suspension system is raised; and enabling, by the processing circuitry, operation of the lift mechanism in response to verifying the suspension system as being lowered, with a reasonable expectation of success, since The system of Smith does not permit a vehicle to be raised or lowered unless the operator is a multiple of the height of the vehicle away from the set of lift columns, and Deegan teaches reducing the height a vehicle must be lifted by lowering the vehicle to its lowest position and locking a hydraulic suspension system corresponding to the tire to be changed. Lowering the suspension system and locking a wheel at this lowered position allows for a vehicle to be at a lower height when the tire to be changed is off of the ground, thus increasing the safety of the tire changing operation by reducing the distance the vehicle may fall while in a raised position.
Smith further teaches:
Re claim 20. 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 18 (paragraph [0066]: “a computing device (1400) that may perform/support all or some of the methods disclosed herein… storage devices (1404)”).
12. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US Publication No. 2024/0182280) as modified by Deegan et al. (US Publication No. 2010/0108966) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hernandez et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0039477).
The teachings of Smith have been discussed above. Smith fails to specifically teach: (re claim 15) wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to verify a gearbox of the vehicle as being disengaged, wherein enabling operation of the lift mechanism in response to verifying the suspension system as being lowered further
comprises enabling operation of the lift mechanism in response to verifying the suspension system as being lowered and verifying that the gearbox is disengaged.
Hernandez teaches, at paragraph [0023], requiring that a vehicle be put into
neutral prior to being lifted. This ensures the vehicle does not propel itself while being
lifted.
In view of Hernandez's teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system
as taught by Smith, (re claim 15) wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to verify a gearbox of the vehicle as being disengaged, wherein enabling operation of the lift mechanism in response to verifying the suspension system as being lowered further comprises enabling operation of the lift mechanism in response to verifying the suspension system as being lowered and verifying that the gearbox is disengaged, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Hernandez teaches requiring that a vehicle be put into neutral prior to being lifted. This ensures the vehicle does not propel itself while being lifted.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 9/8/2026, with respect to the objection to the drawings and the have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the drawings and the have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 9/8/2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims in view of Deegan have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Smith et al. (US Publication No. 2024/0182280) as modified by Deegan et al. (US Publication No. 2010/0108966) as discussed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER D PATTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571)272-6919. 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.
/SPENCER D PATTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
