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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 9 recites “operating means”. This limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as any shape rotatably connected to the body to rotate, and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function (see at least [Pg. 7, Lines 24] of the specification of the instant application).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “operating mechanism” in claims 1, 13, and 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claims 1, 13 and 18 recites “an operating mechanism”. This limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as an operating means, gripping portion and connecting levers and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function (see at least [Pg. 7, Lines 5-31 - Pg. 8 lines 1-5] of the specification of the instant application).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7-8, 13-14, and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 13-14, and 18 recites “the sliders” which should be “the plurality of sliders”.
Claim 7-8 recites “the lateral sliders” which should be “the pair of lateral sliders”.
Claim 17 recites “the sidewall (of the tyre…” which should be “the sidewall of the tyre”.
Claim 18 recites “couplet” which should be “coupled”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1 and 20 recites “each slider”. It is unclear the examiner if applicant intends for a new structure or if applicant intends to refer to the plurality of sliders. For purpose of examination examiner interprets the limitation as “each of the plurality of sliders”.
Claims 2 and 8 recites “a top of the tyre”. However it is unclear to the examiner what is considered a top of the tyre due to the sides of the tire that the clamp grips being round. A round objects lacks a top and bottom. For purpose of examination examiner interprets the limitation as the upper slider oriented vertically when in contact with the tyre.
Claims 6&8 recites “each lateral arm”. It is unclear the examiner if applicant intends for a new structure or if applicant intends to refer to one of the lateral arms. For purpose of examination examiner interprets the limitation as “each of the lateral arms”.
Claim 6 recites “each lateral axis”. It is unclear the examiner if applicant intends for a new structure or if applicant intends to refer to one of the respective lateral axis. For purpose of examination examiner interprets the limitation as “each of the respective lateral axis”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the tyre" in [Pg. 4, Lines 18, 22, & 25]. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation of a vehicle wheel as “a tyre of a vehicle wheel”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the tread of the tyre". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as a tread of the tyre.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the top of the tread of the tyre". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as a top of the tread of the tyre.
Claims 14 and 15 recites the limitation "the tyre". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as the vehicle wheel.
Claim 15 recites “the top zone of the tyre” It is unclear the examiner if applicant intends for a new structure or if applicant intends to refer to a zone of the top of the tyre tread. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as the zone of the top of the tyre tread.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the sidewall of the tyre". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as a sidewall of the tyre.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the upper arm". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as an upper arm.
Claim 15 recites “the top zone of the tread of the tyre”. It is unclear the examiner if applicant intends for a new structure or if applicant intends to refer to a zone of the top of the tyre tread. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as the zone of the top of the tyre tread.
Claim 18 recites “a respective arm” in [Pg.5, Line 30] and [Pg. 6, Line 5]. It is unclear the examiner if applicant intends for each arm to be different structures or the same structure. For purpose of examination examiner interprets the limitation as the same structure.
Claims 3-5, 7, 9-12, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected due to being dependent upon a rejected 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 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray (2014/0070474) in view of Miller (2,782,076).
Regarding Claim 1, Gray teaches A clamp (Ref. 200, fig. 2B) applicable to a tyre of a vehicle wheel (Ref. 205, fig. 2A) and comprising:
a body (Ref. 215&220, fig. 2b) including a plurality of arms (Ref. 220a, fig. 2D) extending radially from a central axis (See annotated Fig. 2B below) and angularly distributed around the central axis (Fig. 2C);
a plurality of sliders (Ref. 225a-c, Fig 2D), each slidably coupled to a respective arm to move radially between a retracted position (Fig. 2F, [0033]), where it is at a first distance from the central axis, and an extracted position (Fig. 2A&E), where it is at a second distance from the central axis, greater than the first distance ([0033] describes the arms are slidable and extendable and would have a first and second distance), each slider including a side abutment portion (Ref. 230, fig. 2E), running parallel with the central axis and configured to abut against a tread of the tyre (Fig. 2A), and a front abutment portion (Ref. 235, Fig. 2E), running parallel with a respective arm and configured tabut against a sidewall of the tyre ([0027], fig. 2A);
an operating mechanism (Ref. 245, Fig. 2D) configured to allow simultaneously moving the sliders from the retracted position to the extracted position and vice versa ([0028]);
wherein the plurality of sliders include a support system (Fig. 2A) configured to come into direct contact with the tyre (Fig. 2A) and rotatable idly about an axis of rotation (Fig. 2B annotated below).
Gray fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of sliders includes a rolling support system configured to come into direct contact with the tyre and rotatable idly about an axis of rotation. Miller teaches a tire wheel holder and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Miller teaches wherein a plurality of elongated rods (Ref. 46, Fig. 1) includes a rolling support system (Ref. 45 & 22, Fig. 1) configured to come into direct contact with the tyre and rotatable idly about an axis of rotation (Fig. 1). Given Miller teaches the rolling support system to contact both the sides and treads of the tire, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the front and side abutment portions of the plurality of sliders, as taught by Gray, with a rolling support system with rolling support elements (45&22), as taught by Miller, to prevent lateral movement and maintain proper alignment with the holder ([col. 3, Line 75 – Col 4. Line 1]).
PNG
media_image1.png
512
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Gray as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Gray further teaches wherein the plurality of sliders includes an upper slider (Ref. 225a, Fig. 2E) slidable along an upper arm (Ref. 255, Fig. 2E, upper arm) that is operatively configured to position the upper slider in contact with a top of the tyre (Fig. 2A). Further, given the teachings of the rolling support system onto the abutment surfaces of the sliders, as taught by Miller, Gray as modified further teaches the rolling support system comprises an adjustment tube (Ref. 22, Fig. 1, Miller) adapted to come into abutment against the tread of the tyre (Fig. 1, Miller), the adjustment tube being rotatably associated with the side abutment portion of the upper slider to rotate about an upper axis of rotation (See annotated Fig. 2B below, Gray) parallel with the central axis (Fig. 2A, Gray).
PNG
media_image2.png
543
680
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Gray as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and given the teachings of the rolling support system onto the abutment surfaces of the sliders, as taught by Miller, Gray as modified further teaches wherein the front abutment portion of the upper slider (235, Gray) is elongated along an upper axis (Fig. 2E, Gray), the upper axis being oriented radially relative to the central axis (Fig. 2E, Gray), and wherein the rolling support system comprises an adjustment roller (Ref. 45, Fig. 1, Miller) adapted to come into abutment against the sidewall of the tyre (Fig. 1, Miller). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify upper slider front adjustment portion , as taught by Gray, with the adjustment roller to rotate about an axis of rotation parallel with the upper axis, as taught by Miller, to prevent lateral movement and maintain proper alignment with the holder ([col. 3, Line 75 – Col 4. Line 1]).
Regarding Claim 5, Gray as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and Gray further teaches a handgrip (Ref. 265, Fig. 2B) connected to the upper arm and positioned in a plane (Fig. 2B annotated below) containing the central axis and the upper arm (Fig. 2B).
PNG
media_image3.png
581
734
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Gray as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Gray further teaches wherein the plurality of sliders includes an upper slider (Ref. 225a, Fig. 2E) disposed along an upper axis (see annotated Fig. 2E below), and a pair of lateral sliders (Ref. 225b-c, Fig. 2A) slidable along respective lateral arms (Fig. 2E-2F, [0028]), each lateral arm being elongated along a respective lateral axis (Fig. 2E), each lateral axis being oriented radially relative to the central axis and spaced angularly by more than 90° from the upper axis (Fig. 2C). Further, given the teachings of the rolling support system onto the abutment surfaces of the sliders, as taught by Miller, Gray as modified further teaches wherein the rolling support system comprises, for each lateral slider of the pair of lateral sliders, one or more rolling elements (Ref. 45, Fig. 1, Miller) configured to come into contact with the sidewall of the tyre (Fig. 1, Miller), the one or more rolling elements being mounted on the front abutment portion of the respective lateral slider and rotating about axes which are oriented transversely to the lateral axis of the respective lateral arm (Fig. 2E, Gray).
PNG
media_image4.png
520
662
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Gray as modified teaches the limitations of claim 6, as described above, and Gray further teaches wherein the lateral sliders are provided, on their respective side abutment portions (230), with knurling that is configured to abut against the tread of the tyre (Fig. 2E), the knurling having a substantially saw-toothed profile whose tooth set is oriented towards the body (Fig. 2E shows a saw toothed profile).
Regarding Claim 8, Gray as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Gray further teaches an upper slider (Ref. 225a, Fig. 2E) slidable along an upper arm that is operatively configured to position the upper slider in contact with a top of the tyre (Fig. 2E-F, [0028]), wherein the front abutment portion of the upper slider (235, on the upper slider) is elongated along an upper axis (Fig. 2E), the upper axis being oriented radially relative to the central axis (Fig. 2C);
a pair of lateral sliders (Ref. 225b-c, Fig. 2E) slidable along respective lateral arms (Fig. 2E-F, [0028]) which are operatively configured to position the lateral sliders in contact with zones of the tyre positioned at a height lower than the axis of the wheel (Fig. 2A&C), each lateral arm being elongated along a respective lateral axis that is oriented radially relative to the central axis (Fig. 2C),
wherein the clamp comprises a handgrip (Ref. 265, Fig. 2B) connected to the upper arm (Fig. 2B).
Miller further teaches at least a first rolling element (Ref. 22, Fig. 1) forming part of the upper slider (Fig. 1) and rotating idly about an axis parallel with the central axis or with the upper axis (See annotated Fig. 2B below), and
- at least a second rolling element (Ref. 45, Fig. 1) forming part of at least one of the lateral sliders and rotating idly about an axis transverse (Ref. 46, Fig. 1) to the lateral axis of the lateral arm of the at least one lateral slider ([col. 5, Lines 11-20] describes the rollers roll on the outside surface of the tire with movement).
PNG
media_image5.png
543
680
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Gray as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Gray further teaches wherein the operating mechanism comprises:
an operating means (Ref. 246, Fig. 2D) that is rotatably connected to the body to rotate about the central axis (Fig. 2A-D);
a plurality of connecting levers (Ref. 248, Fig. 2D), each connecting lever having a first end (Ref. 248a, Fig. 2D, [0029]) that is articulated to the operating means (Fig. 2D, [0029]), and a second end (Ref. 248b, Fig. 2D) that is articulated to a corresponding slider of the plurality of sliders to allow the sliders to be moved simultaneously from the retracted position to the extracted position and vice versa (Fig. 2D, [0028-0029]);
a gripping portion (Ref. 250, Fig. 2D) grippable by a user and associated with the operating means to slidably move the sliders ([0029]), wherein the gripping portion is connected to the operating means (Fig. 2D), alternatively
i) directly;
ii) indirectly by a kinematic coupling including gears or cables (Fig. 2D).
Regarding Claim 10, Gray as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Gray further teaches a locking device (Ref. 261, Fig. 2F) movable between a locked position ([0034] describes a locked position as the ball within a detent), where it acts on the operating mechanism to prevent the sliders from moving, and an unlocked position, where it allows the sliders to move ([0034] describes an unlocked position while the ball is not in a detent).
Regarding Claim 11, Gray as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Gray further teaches wherein each slider comprises an engagement portion (Ref. 260, Fig. 2F) which slidably engages the respective arm so as to allow the sliding movement from the extracted position to the retracted position and vice versa ([0028&0033]).
Regarding Claim 12, Gray as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Gray further teaches wherein each slider comprising an auxiliary portion (Ref. 261, Fig. 2F) extending parallel with the front abutment portion (235, Fig. 2F) and slidably insertable into a cavity ([0033] describes the locking mechanism as ball and detent system, the detent is a cavity) made in the engagement portion at a plurality of positions so the front abutment portion can extend radially by a quantity greater than the extension which the groove of the arm allows the slider ([0033]).
Regarding Claim 13, Gray teaches A method for applying a clamp (Ref. 200, fig. 2B) to a vehicle wheel (Ref. 205, fig. 2A), the method comprising the following steps:
preparing a clamp (Ref. 200, fig. 2B) comprising:
a body (Ref. 215&220, fig. 2b) including a plurality of arms (Ref. 220a-cc, fig. 2B) disposed radially around a central axis (See annotated Fig. 2B below);
a plurality of sliders (Ref. 225a-c, Fig 2D) slidably coupled to the arms to move radially between a retracted position (Fig. 2F, [0033]), where they are proximal to the central axis, and an extracted position (Fig. 2A&E), where they are distal to the central axis (Fig. 2A);
an operating mechanism (Ref. 245, Fig. 2D) configured to allow simultaneously moving the sliders from the retracted position to the extracted position and vice versa ([0028]);
actuating the operating mechanism to move the sliders simultaneously towards the extracted position ([0028-0029]);
juxtaposing the clamp with the vehicle wheel until the sliders surround the tread of the tyre (Fig. 2A, [0028]);
actuating the operating mechanism to move the sliders simultaneously towards the retracted position ([0029-0030] describes moving the sliders simultaneously).
Gray fails to explicitly teach wherein a rolling support system included in the plurality of sliders and configured to come into direct contact with the tyre. Miller teaches a tire wheel holder and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Miller teaches a rolling support system (Ref. 22&45, Fig. 1) included in the plurality of rods (Ref. 46, Fig. 1) and configured to come into direct contact with the tyre (Fig. 2A) rolling the rolling support system on an outside surface of the tyre ([col. 5, Lines 11-20] describes the rollers roll on the outside surface of the tire with movement). Given Miller teaches the rolling support system to contact both the sides and treads of the tire, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the front and side abutment portions of the plurality of sliders, as taught by Gray, with a rolling support system with rolling support elements (45&22), as taught by Miller, to prevent lateral movement and maintain proper alignment with the holder ([col. 3, Line 75 – Col 4. Line 1]).
PNG
media_image6.png
512
680
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14, Gray as modified teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and given the teachings of the rolling support system onto the abutment surfaces of the sliders, as taught by Miller, Gray as modified further teaches wherein the clamp, with the sliders at the extracted position, is positioned in such a way that an upper slider, forming part of the plurality of sliders is positioned with a side abutment portion of it abutting against a zone at the top of the tread of the tyre (Fig. 2A, Gray), the method further comprising a step of adjusting the position of the clamp on the wheel by rotating the clamp ([0010] describes the wheel clamp being positioned onto the tire and being rotatably mounted onto the tire allowing the arms to enclose onto the wheel, Gray), wherein rotating the clamp causes at least part of the rolling support to rotate ([col. 5, Lines 11-20] describes the rollers roll on the outside surface of the tire with movement, Miller).
Regarding Claim 15, Gray as modified teaches the limitations of claim 14, as described above, and given the teachings of the rolling support system onto the abutment surfaces of the sliders, as taught by Miller, Gray as modified further teaches wherein the rolling support system comprises at least one of the following features:
i) an adjustment tube (Ref. 22, Fig. 1, Miller) rotatably coupled to a lateral abutment portion of the upper slider (230, Gray), wherein, in the step of adjusting, the adjustment tube abuts the top zone of the tyre and rolls on the tread of the tyre to facilitate rotation of the clamp about the central axis (Fig. 1, [col. 5, Lines 11-20] describes the rollers roll on the outside surface of the tire with movement, Miller);
ii) an adjustment roller (Ref. 45, Fig. 1, Miller) rotatably coupled to a front abutment portion of the upper slider (235, Gray), wherein, in the step of adjusting, the adjustment roller abuts the top zone of the tyre on the sidewall of the tyre (Fig. 1 Miller) and rolls around an axis of rotation parallel with the upper arm along the sidewall of the tyre (Fig. 2A, Gray) to facilitate rotation of the clamp about the central axis (Fig. 2B-E, Gray).
Regarding Claim 16, Gray as modified teaches the limitations of claim 14, as described above, and Gray further teaches wherein the plurality of sliders includes, besides the upper slider, a pair of lateral sliders (Ref. 225b-c, Fig. 2E) that are angularly spaced around the central axis relative to the upper slider so that when the upper slider is abutted against the top zone of the tread of the tyre (Fig. 2A), the lateral sliders are angularly spaced from the upper slider by more than ninety degrees (Fig. 2C) and move towards the wheel until they come into abutment against the tread of the tyre under the action of the operating mechanism to move the sliders towards the retracted position (Fig. 2A).
Regarding Claim 17, Gray as modified teaches the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and Miller further teaches wherein the rolling support system comprises a plurality of rolling elements (Ref. 45, fig. 1) rotatably coupled to the lateral sliders (Ref. 46, Fig. 1), and wherein, as the lateral sliders move towards the tyre with the upper slider already in contact with the top zone of the tyre, the rolling elements roll along the sidewall (of the tyre to make it easier for the lateral sliders to move in translation towards the central axis ([col. 5, Lines 11-20] describes the rollers roll on the outside surface of the tire with movement).
Regarding Claim 18, Gray teaches A clamp (Ref. 200, fig. 2B) applicable to a tyre of a vehicle wheel (Ref. 205, fig. 2A) and comprising:
a body (Ref. 215&220, fig. 2b) including a plurality of arms (Ref. 220a-cc, fig. 2B) extending radially from a central axis (See annotated Fig. 2B below) and angularly distributed around the central axis (Fig. 2C);
a plurality of sliders (Ref. 225a-c, Fig 2D), each slidably coupled to a respective arm to move radially between a retracted position (Fig. 2F, [0033]), where it is at a first distance from the central axis, and an extracted position (Fig. 2A&E), where it is at a second distance from the central axis , greater than the first distance ([0033] describes the arms are slidable and extendable and would have a first and second distance), each slider including a side abutment portion (Ref. 230, fig. 2E), running parallel with the central axis and configured to abut against a tread of the tyre (Fig. 2A), and a front abutment portion (Ref. 235, Fig. 2E), running parallel with a respective arm and configured to abut against a sidewall of the tyre ([0027], fig. 2A);
an operating mechanism (Ref. 245, Fig. 2D) configured to allow simultaneously moving the sliders from the retracted position to the extracted position and vice versa ([0028]).
Gray fails to explicitly teach a rolling support system coupled to one or more of the sliders of the plurality of sliders, the rolling support system configured to come into direct contact with the tyre through one or more rollers, the one or more rollers being idly rotatable. Miller teaches a tire wheel holder and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Miller teaches a rolling support system (Ref. 45 & 22, Fig. 1) couplet to one or more of the arms (Ref. 46, Fig. 1), the rolling support system configured to come into direct contact with the tyre through one or more rollers (Ref. 45&22, Fig. 1), the one or more rollers being idly rotatable ([col. 5, Lines 11-20] describes the rollers roll on the outside surface of the tire with movement). Given Miller teaches the rolling support system to contact both the sides and treads of the tire, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the front and side abutment portions of the plurality of sliders, as taught by Gray, with a rolling support system with rolling support elements (45&22), as taught by Miller, to prevent lateral movement and maintain proper alignment with the holder ([col. 3, Line 75 – Col 4. Line 1]).
PNG
media_image6.png
512
680
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19, Gray as modified teaches the limitations of claim 18, as described above, and wherein each slider comprises an engagement portion (Ref. 260, Fig. 2F) which slidably engages the respective arm so as to allow the sliding movement from the extracted position to the retracted position and vice versa ([0028&0033]).
Regarding Claim 20, Gray as modified teaches the limitations of claim 19, as described above, and Gray further wherein each slider comprising an auxiliary portion (Ref. 261, Fig. 2F) extending parallel with the front abutment portion (235, Fig. 2F) and slidably insertable into a cavity ([0033] describes the locking mechanism as ball and detent system, the detent is a cavity) made in the engagement portion at a plurality of positions so the front abutment portion can extend radially by a quantity greater than the extension which the groove of the arm allows the slider ([0033]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray as modified as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ragan (4,377,038).
Regarding Claim 3, Gray as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and Miller further teaches wherein the adjustment tube has rotational symmetry (Fig. 1, Miller). Gray as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the adjustment tube is provided with an outside surface having a plurality of mutually spaced annular protrusions coaxial with the upper axis of rotation. Ragan teaches a tire wheel clamp with and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Ragan teaches an adjustment tube (Ref. 22c&41, Fig. 1) with rotational symmetry (Fig. 1) and is provided with an outside surface having a plurality of mutually spaced annular protrusions (Fig. 1 shows multiple protrusions including 41 and 22c) coaxial with the upper axis of rotation (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the adjustment tube, as taught by Gray as modified, with a plurality of mutually spaced annular protrusions, as taught by Ragan, to better attach to the tire tread ([Col. 2, Lines 57-59]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ferrari (2018/0347974), Gonzaga (2013/0139974), Hofmann (2022/0212497), and Kambhaluru (11,009,335) teach tire wheel clamps and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723