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 .
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 1-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, lines 6-7, the limitation “the first spacer portion on the first spike portion’ -and “the second spacer portion on the second spike portion’ is unclear. It is unclear if the first and second spacer ends are located on, next to, adjacent, etc. the first and second spike ends. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 1, Line 8, the limitation “the first spike portion adjacent to the second spike portion” According to the specification, the first spike portion is located on the opposite side of the device with the first and second spacer portion between them. When the device is closed, the first and second spike portions are adjacent to one another, but the claim does not specify that they are adjacent only in a certain configuration.
Regarding claim 1, Lines 12-13, “the first spike in the second spike chamber, the second spike in the first spike chamber” is unclear because this limitation only applies when the device is in a closed configuration. The claim should clarify the configuration of the device when this limitation is true.
Regarding claim 5, line 5, “the first spike portion on the first spacer portion” and “the second spike portion on the second spacer portion” is unclear. It is unclear if the first and second spacer ends are located on, next to, adjacent, etc. the first and second spike ends. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 5, lines 11-13, the limitation “a first spike and a second spike, the first spike attached to and extending from the first spike side, the second spike attached to and extending from the second spike side, the first spike in the second spike chamber, the second spike in the first spike chamber” is unclear because this limitation only applies when the device is in a closed configuration. The claim should clarify the configuration of the device when this limitation is true.
Regarding claim 6, line 6-7, “the first spike portion on the first spacer portion” and “the second spike portion on the second spacer portion” is unclear. It is unclear if the first and second spacer ends are located on, next to, adjacent, etc. the first and second spike ends. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 10, line 1, “the first spike portion bears against the second spike portion, each of the plurality of first spikes is disposed in a respective one of the plurality of the second spike chambers” is unclear because this limitation only applies when the device is in a closed configuration. The claim should clarify the configuration of the device when this limitation is true.
Regarding claim 11, line 1, “each of the plurality of second spikes is disposed in a respective one of the plurality of the first spike chambers.” is unclear because this limitation only applies when the device is in a closed configuration. The claim should clarify the configuration of the device when this limitation is true.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2, "the first spacer portion in and end-to-end orientation" appears it should read --the first spacer portion in an end-to-end orientation--.. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowed if the 112 rejections as outlined above are overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892. Crowley teaches a tire spiker with first and second spacer and spike portions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL ANNE RISIC whose telephone number is (571)270-7819. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5, M-Th.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/ABIGAIL A RISIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 September 24, 2025