DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no support in the original application (written or within the drawings) for the second positions having the ball bearing recessed fully within the radial bore. To the contrary, the claim later discloses that the spiral-spaced recesses receive the bearings in the second position, suggesting that the ball bearing is located within the spiral-spaced recesses, as opposed to the radial bore. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that, in the second position, the ball bearings are disposed partially within the respective radial bore, radially inward from a radial outer end of the radial bores, and partially within the respective spiral-spaced recess, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
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.
Claim 10 is 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. As discussed supra, it is unclear how the ball bearing may be recessed fully within the respective radial bore and also within the respective spiral-spaced recess. The above interpretation will also clarify the claim to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quartrini et al. (CN 102529616 A) in view of Polster (11,155,129), Jagob (DE 3228646 A1), Morgan (2,770,155) and Bourassa et al. (2,718,165), as previously applied to the claims, and further in view of Peugeot (FR 2074694).
Regarding claim 1, Quartrini discloses a tire changing machine comprising: a drive shaft (see objections above) assembly (104) configured to receive a wheel rim for rotation about an axis; a clamping mechanism (300) configured to releasably engage said drive shaft assembly to secure said wheel rim to said drive shaft assembly; a plurality of tools (202/203) configured to mount a tire on said wheel rim and to demount said tire from said wheel rim; wherein said clamping mechanism includes an annular wheel cone (321) seated on a spindle assembly (310), said annular wheel cone having a conical surface configured to engage a surface of said wheel rim, and a handle assembly (323) affixed to said spindle assembly, said handle assembly configured to transfer an applied rotational torque to said spindle assembly; and wherein said spindle assembly is sized for placement within an axial/central bore (105) of said drive shaft assembly, said spindle assembly including a set of externally threaded portions (312) seated for radial displacement within a bore of the spindle, said threaded portions configured to engage, in a first position, at least one spiral channel (internal threads 107 of axial bore 108) formed into an inner surface of the axial/central bore of said drive shaft assembly, and to withdraw radially within said spindle assembly in a second position, said externally threaded portions responsive to axial displacement of an push rod (331) within said spindle assembly to transition between said first and second positions. However, Quartrini fails to specifically disclose an input selector(s) for operation of the tools, or that the spiral channel (internal thread of the drive shaft assembly) engaging/disengaging structure of the spindle may include ball bearings.
Polster discloses a very similar machine, also having a plurality of tools for performing different mounting/dismounting operations on a tire, and teaches that the machine includes at least one input selector (110a/b and 154) configured for operation by a human operator to direct operation of said plurality of tools during a tire service procedure for said wheel assembly secured by said clamping mechanism. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide similar input selectors to the machine of Quartrini, to allow for similar manual operation and control of the tools of the machine, as is very well known in the art.
Further, each of Jagob, Morgan and Bourassa disclose a linear clamping mechanism, having a spiral channel, effectively forming threads, for actuation of the linear clamp in axial directions, as a result of rotation of a spindle that is positioned within an axial bore, and that a set of ball bearings engage the spiral channel. Jagob discloses that the ball bearings, known as ball screws, are known in various technologies, have simple production and can be easily adjusted (paragraph 5 of English translation) and are capable of absorbing large clamping forces (paragraph 8). Morgan specifically discloses that the ball bearing interaction with the channel provides advantages over threaded screw and nut configurations that are more commonly applied to such linear clamping means (Col. 1, lines 20-24), to prevent retrograde movement once rotation is stopped (effectively securing the clamp in place) and also allowing for substantially greater loads to be sustained (Col. 1, lines 50-67), thus providing advantages over the respective engaging threads taught by Quartrini. Additionally, Bourassa teaches that the ball bearing structure provides mechanical advantage to the clamping mechanism, which may be modified to provide specific mechanical advantage depending on the needs of the device (Col. 1, lines 31-65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to replace the engaging/disengaging structure of the spindle of Quartrini with a set of ball bearings, as taught by Jagob, Morgan and Bourassa, due to the teaching of such structure being applicable in place of traditional threads of similar linear clamping means, to absorbing large clamping forces, allowing for greater securing of the wheel during operations that are known in the art to place large loads on the wheel, to prevent retrograde movement once positioned, effectively maintaining the clamping force during operations on the wheel, and for providing desired mechanical advantages. Further, Peugeot discloses a similar ball thread mechanism having an internally “threaded” outer shaft (C’), spindle assembly (5a) and push rod (21) that more closely resemble the configuration of Quartrini, and therefore would obviously be relied upon to modify the structure of Quartrini to adapt to the ball thread mechanisms taught by Jagob, Morgan and Bourassa. Peugeot further discloses that the spindle comprises a set of ball bearings (7) seated for radial displacement within a plurality of spiral-spaced radial bores (8a), said set of ball bearings configured to engage, in a first position (as shown in Fig. 4), the at least one spiral channel (6a) formed into the inner surface of a central bore, and to withdraw radially within said spindle assembly in a second position (when plunger 16 is pressed), said ball bearings responsive to the axial displacement of the push rod within said spindle assembly to transition between said first and second positions.
To address the applicant’s arguments that the ball bearings would be lost when the spindle assembly is removed from the drive shaft, as intended by Quartrini, similar mechanisms are commonly known with the radial bores of the spindle being configured with a radially outer aperture that is slightly smaller than the ball bearing to prevent the ball bearing from falling radially outward when removed, similar to the configuration taught by Polster, similarly having at least one ball positioned within radial bores in the spindle and also actuated by a push rod that is intended to be removable from the drive shaft assembly (although Polster does not specifically disclose the configuration of the central bore to retain the ball, similar “ball detent” type retaining devices are very well-known as a common mechanical mechanism, such that anyone of ordinary skill in the art would understand the simple modification to the radial bore to prevent loss of the ball therefrom, when removed from an outer drive shaft, or other similar structure to which the “ball detent” is configured to optionally engage for retaining the spindle therein).
Regarding claim 2, Quartrini further discloses that said annular wheel cone is releasably secured to said handle assembly, coaxial with said spindle assembly (English language translation paragraph 43 indicates that the frusto-conical portion is removable for different sizes, as seen between Figs. 2 and 5).
Regarding claim 3, Quartrini discloses that the springs (334) on the externally threaded portions bias the externally threaded portions to the first position (paragraph 50) and Peugeot also discloses that the push rod is spring- biased towards a first axial position in which said ball bearings are displaced to said first position, which will effectively maintain the clamping mechanism in the first/engaged position to maintain a locked state unless actuated by a user to the second/release state. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar spring, as taught by Peugeot, to the push rod of Quartrini, when providing the ball bearings to the locking assembly in place of the externally threaded portions, as discussed above.
Claims 4-6 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quartrini et al. (CN 102529616 A) in view of Polster (11,155,129), Jagob (DE 3228646 A1), Morgan (2,770,155) Bourassa et al. (2,718,165) and Peugeot (FR 2074694), as applied to claims 1-3, and further in view of and Caithness (GB 1451888).
Regarding claim 4, Quartrini further discloses that said push rod terminates at an upper axial end of said spindle assembly at an actuator, and each of Peugeot, Jagob and Bourassa disclose at a lower axial end that a cylinder member (lower portion of spindle) contained coaxially with said spindle assembly, said cylinder member having a radially oriented recess (15a of Peugeot, 15 of Jagob, 24 of Bourassa) to align with said spiral-spaced radial bores when said axial push rod is displaced within said spindle assembly to a second axial position. However, Quartrini fails to disclose that the upper axial end of said spindle is a button or that the radially oriented recess may be a plurality of radially oriented recesses.
Regarding the button, Polster also discloses a similar ball bearing actuator for optionally releasing a locking engagement between the ball bearings and respective channels, and teaches that the push rod terminates at an upper axial end of said spindle assembly in a button, which provides a substantially simpler actuating mechanism than disclosed by Quartrini, and that the lower axial end of the push rod has a cylinder member (lower portion of spindle) contained coaxially with said spindle assembly, said cylinder member having a plurality of radially oriented recesses to allow the ball bearings to move to the second position when the button is pressed. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to replace the actuator assembly of Quartrini with the substantially simpler exposed button at the upper end of the push rod, as taught by Polster, to simplify and reduce the cost of assembly and components of the actuator, and also to provide the lower end of the push rod with a similar cylinder, also taught by Polster as being applicable to the wheel clamping assembly of Quartrini, while providing said spiral-spaced radial bores to correspond to the radial bores taught by Jagob and Bourassa for the ball bearing that engage a spiral channel, as opposed to the circumferential channel taught by Polster.
Regarding the recesses, Caithness discloses another similar releasable ball thread mechanism, and teaches that a linearly actuated control rod (11; in this case a cylinder, but having identical function to the second end of the push rod of Peugeot) for user actuation to release the engagement of the ball bearings as needed may have a plurality of radially oriented recesses (12) arranged in a spiral-spaced configuration (to correspond to the position of the ball bearings along the threaded member 5), which allows the ball bearings to enter the bores in a disengaged position, and would be understood to anyone of ordinary skill in the art to be easier to manufacture than the continuously extending, and much longer, single helical recesses taught by Peugeot or Jagob, due to the spaced recesses being circular bores that may be drilled or machined much faster and easier than a helical recess that is internal or external to a similar actuator or push rod. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to replace the single radial helical recess of Peugeot, with in dividual radial recesses that are spiral-spaced, as taught by Caithness.
Regarding claim 5, Quartrini, as modified primarily by Peugeot, as discussed above for claim 4, will function such that an external surface of said cylinder member displaces said ball bearings radially outward towards said first position when said push rod is displaced to said first axial position.
Regarding claim 6, Quartrini, as modified primarily by Peugeot, as discussed above for claim 4, will function such that an external surface of said cylinder member receives said ball bearings in said second position within said plurality of radially oriented recesses when said push rod is displaced to said second axial position.
Regarding claim 10, Quartrini, as modified primarily by Peugeot, as discussed for claims 1-4, will provide the tire changing machine as claimed, with the push rod located axially within said hollow spindle assembly and terminating at a first end axially outward of said handle assembly, as taught by Peugeot and Polster (discussed for claim 4), and the cylindrical member at a second end, being biased to axially translate between the first and second positions as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Quartrini further discloses that the central bore of the drive assembly Includes a wheel receiving flange (M) coaxial with the central bore. Further, Peugeot and Jagob teach the at least one spiral channel recessed into the inner surface of said central bore, in place of the internally threaded bore of Quartrini, with the channel configured to receive at least a portion of each of said ball bearings when said push rod and said cylindrical member are in said first axial position with said ball bearings in said second position at least partially protruding radially outward from said associated radial bores in said hollow spindle assembly, as discussed for claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the annular cone of Quartrini is configured to seat against an edge of a wheel rim center bore.
Regarding claim 13 the annular wheel cone of Quartrini is disclosed to be interchangeable with at least one additional annular wheel cone having a different clinical surface configuration (having different sizes).
Regarding claim 14, Quartrini further discloses that said annular wheel cone is releasably secured to said handle assembly, coaxial with said spindle assembly (English language translation paragraph 43 indicates that the frusto-conical portion is removable for different sizes, as seen between Figs. 2 and 5).
Regarding claim 15, Quartrini, as modified primarily by Peugeot, as discussed for claims 1-4, will be spring biased towards said first axial position within said hollow spindle assembly, as discussed for claim three.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, which provides additional prior art that is more directly applicable to the claimed invention, no longer relies upon the previously applied reference(s) in the prior rejection of record for the teaching of matter specifically challenged in the argument. Although Jagob, Morgan and Bourassa are still relied upon for the teachings of known mechanical advantages of ball threads over common threaded shafts, Peugeot (and Caithness for claim 10) are applied as more direct teaching of how the threads of the Quartrini base reference may be modified to be ball threads. The amendments to claim 10 necessitate the new grounds of rejection. Additionally, while the Peugeot reference was not previously applied, the examiner is effectively maintaining the same rejection of obviousness to modify the threads of Quartrini to a ball thread with ball bearings, and Peugeot is effectively being applied as evidence that such ball thread structure is known in the art to be applicable to a configuration similar to Quartrini.
The arguments made by the applicant that the modifications suggested by the examiner, to the threaded structure of Quartrini, would not be possible, due to Jagob, Morgan and Bourassa disclosing internal and external helical passages for the ball bearings, has effectively been overcome by the more directly applicable structure taught by Peugeot. The argument regarding loss of the ball bearings if/when the spindle were removed from the drive shaft has been addressed above, based on structure of the previously applied Polster reference. Additionally, argument directed to the relative directions of displacement of the ball bearings, as clarified in claim 10, are also made obvious by the teaching of Peugeot.
The Caithness reference is also applied as teaching that a known alternative structure to similar ball threads may include individual radial bores on a linearly actuated control rod (in this case a cylinder, but having identical function to the second end of the push rod of Peugeot) that allows the ball bearings to enter the bores in a disengaged position, similar to the disengaged position of the push rod of Peugeot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of Corghi (10,132,720) and Gonzaga (2018/0222261) disclose wheel clamping mechanisms for a tire changing machine, having similar structure and function as the applicant’s 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 6 March 2026