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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 5, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in reply to the request for continued examination filed on December 5, 2025. 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. 102(a)(1) rejection has been overcome however a new rejection is provided and discussed in greater detail below. Claims 1, 2 and 4-16 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
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 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 (Figure 1) 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 4) suitable for fitting over a sidewall or edge of a wheel rim (35, Figure 5) and includes a base portion (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 being suitable 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 has a handle or flange portion (12) extending substantially perpendicular (because it extends vertically whereas the base portion extends horizontally, Figure 4) to the base portion from a surface (see figure below) of said base portion distal from said leg portion, said handle portion providing a grasping portion (at 11) of said slider component for making it possible for a user to push or control to enable user control of the 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 (Leg portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Surface of base portion that is distal from said leg portion)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
234
150
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, 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 flange portion (see figure below) of said slider component for storage of said kit (Figures 1 and 3).
[AltContent: textbox (Flange/handle portion)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
296
316
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 5, 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 flange portion and at said tire lever opening (see figure above).
In reference to claim 6, 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. left end of 17 in the figure below) of the leg portion is L-shaped or includes a protruding part 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 (Protruding part)]
PNG
media_image1.png
234
150
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 flange portion is plate shaped (Figure 2) and has a plane (i.e. a vertical extending plane of 12 in Figure 4) of main extension which is substantially inclined or orthogonal to a plane (i.e. horizontal plane of 31) of main extension of the base portion (Figure 4).
Claim 8, is 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 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 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 with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as previously applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter as specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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