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
This office action is in reply to the amendment filed on April 20, 2026. Claim 1, has been amended. No additional claims have been added. No further claims have been cancelled. Claim interpretation previously made under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained. The previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is maintained. Claims 1, 2 and 4-16 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
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 4-6 and 16 are Finally 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. Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected base claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "said flange" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that claim 5 also discloses the term “said flange”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the flange" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 2, 4-7, 9, 10 and 16 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (3771581) in view of Chuang (2010/0319495).
In reference to claim 1, Johnson discloses a tool (Figures 1 and 3) for removing and/or installing a vehicle tire from/on a wheel rim comprising;
at least one slider component (10), said at least one slider component delimiting a seat (at 14 in Figure 3) for fitting over a sidewall or edge of a wheel rim (35, Figure 5) and comprising a base portion (at 30, also see figure below) having a plane of main extension (note, the plane extends horizontally, see figure below), as well as a leg portion (see figure below) extending from the base portion and delimiting therewith said seat (Figure 3),
said leg portion for securing a tire bead (41) in a fixed position over a wheel rim sidewall or edge (Figure 5),
wherein said slider component is configured to slide along the wheel rim edge (i.e. along 47, Figure 6 and Column 4, Lines 3-5) while maintaining the tire bead in the fixed position (Figures 6 and 7),
wherein said slider component further has a handle portion (formed from 11 and 12) which has a plane of main extension (note, the plane extends vertically, see figure below) extending substantially perpendicular (because it extends vertically whereas the base portion extends horizontally, see Figure 3 below) to the plane of main extension of the base portion,
wherein said handle portion extends from a surface (i.e. upper surface of 30, see figure below) of said base portion which is distal from said leg portion,
said handle portion providing a grasping portion (at 11) of said slider component for enabling a user to push or control the handle portion to facilitate user control of a sliding displacement of the slider component along a wheel rim sidewall or edge (Figures 6 and 7 and Column 4, Lines 3-5).
[AltContent: textbox (Base portion)]
[AltContent: textbox (Plane of main extension of handle portion along this vertical axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Surface of base portion that is distal from said leg portion and which said handle portion extends)][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Leg portion)][AltContent: textbox (Handle portion)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Plane of main extension of base portion along this horizontal axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
250
178
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Johnson lacks,
a kit including at least one tire lever.
However, Chuang teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a combination of tire tools (see Title) comprising; a kit (Figure 12) that includes at least one tire lever (20) and at least one slider component (40. Note, element 40 is a slider because paragraph 5 discloses that it is known to “rotate[s] the tire lever [i.e. at 40, see paragraph 29] along the wheel rim.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the tool, of Johnson, with the known technique of providing a kit that includes the at least one tire lever and the at least one slider component, as taught by Chuang, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that facilitates the removal of a tire from a wheel rim (see paragraph 2).
In reference to claim 2, Johnson discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
said at least one tire lever and said at least one slider component have mutual connection means for removable connection one with the other.
However, Chuang teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide at least one tire lever (20, Figure 2) and at least one slider component (40) with mutual connection means (i.e. 53 and 404, respectively) for removable connection one with the other (paragraph 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the tire lever and the slider, of Johnson, with the known technique of providing at least one tire lever and at least one slider component with the mutual connection means, as taught by Chuang, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that prevents accidental disengagement between the tire lever and the slider (see paragraph 30).
In reference to claim 4, As Best Understood, Chuang discloses that said at least one tire lever delimits at least one opening or slot (i.e. formed as the space within 5 and is generally indicated by channel/opening 51) suitable for housing a handle portion (see figure below) of said slider component for storage of said kit (Figures 1 and 3).
[AltContent: textbox (Handle portion)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
296
316
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 5, As Best Understood, Chuang discloses that said at least one tire lever and said at least one slider component have mutual connection means (i.e. 53 and 404, respectively) for removable connection one with the other (paragraph 30) and wherein said mutual connection means are provided at said handle portion and at said tire lever opening (see figure above).
In reference to claim 6, As Best Understood, Chuang discloses that said mutual connection means (i.e. 53 and 404, respectively) include at least one protrusion or recessed zone (404) extending from or formed in said handle portion (see figure above) and at least one hollow zone or lug (53), respectively, formed in or extending from a wall (sidewalls of 5) of said tire lever delimiting said tire lever opening (Figure 3).
In reference to claim 7, Chuang discloses that said at least one tire lever has a first end, which is curved or bent (at 15) and is suitable/capable for engaging a tire bead and a second end (i.e. an opposite end to the first end, Figure 3).
In reference to claim 9, Johnson discloses that a free end (i.e. lower end thereof) of the leg portion is L-shaped (see bold L-shape line in the figure below) or includes a protruding part (at inner portion of 14, see figure below) defining an inner shoulder facing the seat or the inner surface of a portion of connection among the base portion and the leg portion (see figure below).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (L-shape)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Protruding part)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
250
178
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 10, Johnson discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
a main section of the tire lever has a one or more portions at reduced thickness providing a receiving zone for the base portion of the slider component for storage of said kit.
However, Chuang teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a main section of the tire lever with a one or more portions at reduced thickness (i.e. formed as the opening within 5, see Figure 2) providing a receiving zone (5) for the base portion of the slider component for storage of said kit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the tool, of Johnson, with the known technique of providing a tire lever with the main section having the reduced thickness thereby providing the receiving zone for the slider, as taught by Chuang, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that prevents accidental disengagement between the tire lever and the slider (see paragraph 30).
In reference to claim 16, Johnson discloses that the handle or orthogonal to a plane (i.e. horizontal plane of 31) of main extension of the base portion (Figure 4).
Claim 8, is Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (3771581) in view of Chuang (2010/0319495) and Robertson (1520599).
In reference to claim 8, modified Johnson discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
said second end of said at least one tire lever defines a hook portion suitable for hooking onto wheel spokes during tire removal.
However, Robertson teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a tire lever (formed from 11 and 1, Figure 1) with a second end (i.e. the end of element 8, Figure 3) that defines a hook portion (9) suitable for hooking onto wheel spokes (10) during tire removal (Figures 1-9 and Page 1, Lines 74-82).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the second end of said tire lever, of modified Johnson, with the known technique of providing a tire lever with the second end that includes the hook portion suitable for hooking onto wheel spokes during tire removal, as taught by Robertson, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that prevents the tire lever from swinging outward with respect to the wheel during normal operation (Page 1, Lines 80-82).
Claim 11, is Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (3771581) in view of Chuang (2010/0319495) and Diez (6179032).
In reference to claim 11, Johnson discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
at least two slider components.
However, Diez teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a multiple slider components (13, Figure 1 and Column 3, Lines 4-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the kit, of modified Johnson, with the known technique of providing the multiple sliders, as taught by Diez, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively depresses a plurality of beads (Column 3, Lines 4-7).
Claims 12 and 13 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (3771581) in view of Chuang (2010/0319495) and Chuang (6044508).
In reference to claim 12, Johnson discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
at least two tire levers.
However, Chuang ‘508 teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a multiple tire levers components (10 and 20, Figure 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the kit, of modified Johnson, with the known technique of providing the multiple tire levers, as taught by Chuang ‘508, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device including multiple tire levers that are detachably engaged with each other (Column 1, Lines 20-22).
In reference to claim 13, Johnson discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
said at least two tire levers have one or more embossed portions on one surface or side of the respective main section and one or more notches on the other surface or side of the main section, so that one embossed portion of one tire lever can fit snuggly into a respective notch of the other tire lever, in order to key the two tire levers securely together.
However, Chuang ‘508 teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a multiple tire levers components (10 and 20, Figure 1 and 2), wherein at least two tire levers have one or more embossed portions (18) on one surface or side of the respective main section and one or more notches (i.e. within 24) on the other surface or side of the main section, so that one embossed portion of one tire lever can fit snuggly into a respective notch of the other tire lever, in order to key the two tire levers securely together (Figures 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the multiple tire levers, of modified Johnson, with the known technique of providing the multiple tire levers comprising one or more embossed portions and one or more notches, so that one embossed portion of one tire lever can fit snuggly into a respective notch of the other tire lever, as taught by Chuang ‘508, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device including multiple tire levers that are detachably engaged with each other (Column 1, Lines 20-22).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: The present invention pertains to a method of installing a tire on a wheel rim. It is the examiner's opinion that the art of record considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious of providing the method steps of: - inserting a first tire bead of a tire in the channel defined by the edges of a wheel rim, - installing part of the second tire bead of the tire in said channel, - mounting at least one slider component on a first edge of the wheel rim at a first end of the not installed part of the second tire bead, in order to prevent the second bead from propagating out of the wheel rim channel, said seat fitting over the first edge of said wheel rim, - inserting said at least one tire lever at a distance from said at least one slider component between the first edge of said wheel rim and a respective part of not installed second tire bead and moving said at least one tire lever up to force a respective section of the second tire bead over the first edge and into wheel rim channel, - moving said at least one slider component along the first edge of said wheel rim towards said at least one tire lever, thereby forcing the not installed part of the second tire bead among the slider component and the tire lever into the wheel rim channel, reinserting said at least one tire lever…and repeating the steps (as in claim 14), together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the independent claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that, “In the Office Action, the Examiner appears to equate the tire iron 10 of Johnson with the claimed 'at least one slider component', but Applicant respectfully asserts this is incorrect. In fact, it is readily evident that unlike the present invention, such tire iron of Johnson fails to disclose or suggest any handle as presently claimed, in particular, Johnson fails to teach or suggest at least a slider component which comprises a handle portion which has a plane of main extension extending substantially perpendicular (orthogonal) to the plane of main extension of the base portion, wherein said handle portion extends from a surface of said base portion which is distal from said leg portion.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. The examiner has reproduced the annotated figure on page 4 below for convenience. As clearly shown below, element (12) forms the handle portion and includes a plane of main extension that is substantially perpendicular to a plane of main extension of the base portion because the plane of main extension of handle portion (12) is along a vertical plane (generally indicated by the vertical dotted axis/line in the figure below), whereas the plane of main extension of the base portion is along a horizontal plane (generally indicated by the horizontal dotted axis/line in the figure below). Furthermore, handle portion (12) vertically extends from a surface (i.e. upper surface of 30 in figure below) of said base portion which is distal from said leg portion thereby meeting the limitations of the claims. Since, all of the limitation of the claims have been met the examiner believes that the rejection is proper.
PNG
media_image3.png
318
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In an attempt to overcome the prior art of record, the examiner recommends that the applicant further define the connection between the slider and the at least one tire lever in claim 1 (similar to the limitations as recited in claim 4 but in greater detail [see below] in order to prevent future combinations of prior art references). For example, further define that the at least one tire lever (2) comprises a longitudinal length, wherein the at least one tire lever delimits at least one opening or slot suitable for housing said handle portion of said slider component for storage of said kit, wherein the at least one opening or slot is substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal length and extends completely through the at least one tire lever.
Applicant contends that, “The Examiner further alleges that Johnson would have been combined with Chuang, so as to arrange a kit including the tire iron of Johnson and the tire lever 20 of Chuang. However, Applicant respectfully disagrees, and asserts that, even assuming arguendo, that Chuang could be properly combined with Johnson, such combination fails to disclose or suggest the present invention as claimed.
In particular, Chuang fails to make any mention of a handle portion which has a plane of main extension extending substantially perpendicular (orthogonal) to a plane of main extension of the base portion of a slider component.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. The examiner has not used Chuang for any teaching of providing handle portion which has a plane of main extension extending substantially perpendicular to a plane of main extension of the base portion of a slider component. The examiner believes the applicant is interpreting each reference individually rather than taking what each reference specifically teaches and applying that teaching into the combination and interpreting the combination as a whole. Chuang was used for teaching of providing a combination/kit of tire tools (see Title) including the at least one tire lever (20) and the at least one slider component (40). Thus, the argument with respect to “Chuang failing to make any mention of a handle portion…” has been considered but is moot because this reference was not used for such a teaching therefore the combination as a whole meet the limitations of the claims therefore the examiner believes the rejection is proper and thus maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J SCRUGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-2.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights