DETAILED ACTION
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, 2, 4-9 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maeda et al. (4,639,004).
Regarding claim 1, Maeda discloses an apparatus comprising: a tire tool (capable of lifting a tire in a similar manner to the applicant’s disclosed invention), wherein the tire tool comprises: a platform (upper surfaces of 7); a handle (1/8), a front section (when tilted rearward, the front section may be defined by the lower portion that is shown in Figs. 5-6) , wherein the platform is coupled to the front section; a rear section (remainder of the apparatus that is above/rearward of the front section that is shown in Figs. 5-6) coupled to the front section; at least one pivot (2) coupled to the front section and comprising a pivot wheel (2); at least one stop (3) coupled to the rear section and comprising a stop wheel (3); wherein the tire tool is configured to move between an engagement state and a pivoted state; in the engagement state, the at least one pivot abuts a surface and the at least one stop is located above the surface (as shown in Figs. 1 and 9); in the pivoted state, the at least one pivot and the at least one stop abuts the surface (not shown, but inherently capable of being tilted rearward until both the pivot and stop wheels are in contact with a surface), wherein a user would also inherently be able to rotate the tire tool, about the at least one pivot (by pulling rearward on the handle 1/8), from the engagement state to the pivoted state by rotating the handle in a first direction, and further rotation of the handle in the first direction, after reaching the pivoted state, will result in the tire tool rotating about the stop and lifting the pivot off the surface.
Regarding claim 2, Maeda further discloses that the at least one pivot comprises two pivots (2; as seen in Fig. 2); the at least one stop comprises two stops (3; as seen in Fig. 3); and the two stops will be vertically offset from the two pivots when in the pivoted state (due to the different diameters of the wheels 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 4, Maeda further discloses that the at least one pivot comprises two pivots; the at least one stop comprises two stops (as discussed above); a center of the two stops are vertically offset from the two pivots (as shown in Fig. 1 and when in the pivoted state) and the two stops are smaller than the two pivots.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Maeda further discloses that the rear section further comprises an engagement section (portions extending rearward from upper end of handle) in the form of grippers (allowing a user to grip the handle and or inherently capable of engaging and “gripping” another object that may either be pressed therebetween or gripped via tying the handles to the object).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Maeda further discloses that the front section comprises an abutment section (front portion of frame 6 immediately adjacent to the platform) that extends past each pivot (at least above and forward from each pivot wheel 2).
Regarding claim 21, Maeda discloses the tire tool, as discussed supra (such that the repeated structure from claim 1 will not be repeated here), wherein the tire tool is configured to move between the engagement state and the pivoted state (as discussed above for claim 1); in the engagement state, each pivot wheel abuts the surface and each stop wheel is located above the surface; in the pivoted state, each pivot wheel and each stop wheel stop abuts the surface, and each stop wheel is vertically offset from each pivot wheel (as discussed above for claim 2).
Regarding claim 22, Maeda discloses that each pivot wheel defines a pivot wheel axis of rotation and each stop wheel defines a stop wheel axis of rotation, and each pivot wheel axis of rotation is parallel with each stop wheel axis of rotation (as viewed in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 23, Maeda discloses that the at least one pivot comprises two pivots; the at least one stop comprises two stops; and the two stops are smaller than the two pivots.
Regarding claim 24, Maeda discloses the tire tool, as discussed supra (such that the repeated structure from claim 1 will not be repeated here), with the two pivot wheels coupled by a pivot axel (11) and the two stop wheels are coupled by a stop axel (as seen in Fig. 2 between gears 18), wherein the tire tool is configured to move between the engagement state and a pivoted state (as discussed for claim 1); in the engagement state, the pivot abuts the surface and the stop is located above the surface; in the pivoted state, the pivot and the stop abut the surface.
Regarding claim 25, Maeda discloses that the pivot axel defines a pivot axel axis of rotation; the stop axel defines a stop axel axis of rotation; and the pivot axel axis of rotation and the stop axel axis of rotation are parallel (as viewed in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 25, Maeda discloses that each pivot wheel defines a pivot wheel axis of rotation and each stop wheel defines a stop wheel axis of rotation, and each pivot wheel axis of rotation is parallel with each stop wheel axis of rotation (as viewed in Fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all pending amended claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the previously cited prior art, each of Misawa (4,981,330), Rene (9,643,639), Zan (5,160,153) and Dunkin (2,818,988) disclose devices having similar structure and/or function as the claimed invention.
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 BRYAN R MULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 9 March 2026