DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 30 December 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. As discussed supra, the claim only provides an intended component of the wheel, of which the claimed invention is intended to be used, as corresponding to the previously claimed reference point, such that the structure and functions of the claimed invention are not further limited by the claim.
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 11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clasquin et al. (9,073,394) in view of Meyer et al. (2024/0346430).
Regarding claim 11, Clasquin discloses a vehicle wheel maintenance apparatus (100), comprising: a base (102); a rotary support (104/114) mounted on the base and capable of receiving and supporting a rim of a wheel of a vehicle, said rim having at least one reference point (valve stem location; Col. 20, lines 37-44); an electric motor (172), associated with the base, for putting the rotary support into rotation; at least one tool (114, 116, 117) for demounting a tire from the rim or for mounting the tire on the rim; a control unit (120) capable of actuating the electric motor for positioning the wheel in a position in which the at least one reference point on the rim is located at a predetermined distance from the at least one demounting or mounting tool (any location reads on this limitation), said control unit having access to memory means (162); a rotation sensor (176), operationally connected to the control unit, for measuring the position and/or rotation speed and/or acceleration of the electric motor and/or of the rotary support and/or of the wheel (Col. 11, lines 4-9); detector means (Col. 12, lines 27-33, disclosing a load sensor, which may be considered to be equivalent to a torque sensor or Col. 7, lines 11-34 indicate that current sensors or torque, among others, may be used to monitor force, and later indicating that the force may be detected in components of the drive assembly 104, wherein the drive assembly is disclosed as optionally being electrically driven in Col. 2, lines 25-43, such that it would have been obvious to provide a current sensor or torque sensor for the electric motor of the drive system, to detect the forces of the drive unit as disclosed), operationally connected to the control unit, for measuring a resistive torque applied to the electric motor and/or a current draw of the electric motor; the control unit being capable of identifying at least one position, and at least one respective value, of stress applied by the rim and/or by the demounting or mounting tool to the tire during the mounting or demounting operation (force sensors for tire changing tools, as taught in Col. 7, lines 11-34 will effectively measure force and provide a location where the respective tool meets the tire/wheel), and of calculating an angular distance between the position of the at least one reference point on the rim and the at least one position of stress applied by the rim and/or by the demounting or mounting tool to the tire , characterized in that the control unit is capable of verifying that the angular distance between the position of the at least one reference point on the rim and the at least one position of stress applied by the rim and/or by the demounting or mounting tool to the tire lies within a predetermined range of acceptable distances stored in said memory means (Col. 25, lines 41-49; indicates that the rotation is reversed when the valve stem is determined to be near the tool, which is considered to be equivalent to determining the distance between the reference point and the force applied by the tool and to verify that the distance lies within a predetermined range), and that the at least one respective value of stress applied by the rim and/or by the demounting or mounting tool to the tire lies within a predetermined range of acceptable stress values stored in said memory means (Col. 24, lines 47-56, comparing the tool force to a maximum and deactivating movement if maximum force is applied, is considered to be equivalent to verifying that the value of stress applied by the demounting or mounting tool to the tire lies within a predetermined range of acceptable stress values), and in that the control unit is capable of making the results of said verifications available (by alarm and/or display; Col. 9, lines 59-67).
Regarding the limitations, previously set forth as claim 12, which have been added to claim 11, Clasquin further discloses that the control unit is capable of storing the at least one position, and the at least one respective value, of stress applied by the rim and/or by the demounting or mounting tool to the tire in said memory means (Col. 17, lines 35-67); the control unit also being capable of creating, in said memory means, a report document comprising at least data relating to the at least one position, and the at least one respective value, of stress applied by the rim and/or by the demounting or mounting tool to the tire, and of sharing said report document (the storage of the data relating to the force and position, that is viewable by a user in any format, will effectively form a report document, with no other specifics disclosed for the report document).
Regarding the new limitation that the control unit is capable of making the results of said verification available at the end of the mounting demounting operation, storing the at least one positioned and respective value of stress and capable of sharing the report, Clasquin also discloses that the force and position profiled may be presented or displayed to the machined operator, stored in the memory (Col. 17, lines 35-41 and 60-62), with the optional step that corresponds to a successful tire change is equivalent to making the results of the verification available (the difference between a successful change and unsuccessful would be equivalent to making the verification available).
However Clasquin fails to disclose that the data may also include a serial number of the apparatus and the date and time of the operation. Meyer discloses a system for tracking vehicle tires, in a service shop environment, and includes tracking what services were performed to provide the shop and/or a customer with updates to the status and records of services performed. Meyer further teaches that each of the records of service are time stamped (paragraphs 55-56). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a date and time (time-stamp) to each of the services performed to the tires, as taught by Meyer, to provide a service history of each tire to allow the shop and/or a user to track service(s) performed and life of the tire. Similarly, Meyer also discloses that a vehicle service device identifier is also provided to the data management system along with the tire identification (claim 17). Therefore, if further would have been obvious to provide the record system also records an identification for the service device, in this case the tire mounting/demounting machine along with the records for the tire. Although Meyer does not specifically disclose that the identifier is a serial number, Meyer does disclose that a possible identifier for the tires would be a serial number, wherein anyone of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a serial number is a unique identifier for any machine, and thus would also be obvious to provide the serial number as the service device identifier.
Regarding claim 13, Clasquin further discloses that the control unit is operationally connected to a computer via internet or LAN connections (Col. 20, lines 8-21), wherein it would have been obvious that any computer being connected to a Lan network or internet would also obviously be capable of connection to a printer in order to print the data collected by the control unit, including results of said verifications.
Regarding claim 14, Clasquin further discloses that the control unit is operationally connected to a screen in order to display the results of said verifications (Col. 9, lines 63-67; display considered to be equivalent to a screen).
Regarding claim 15, Clasquin further discloses that the at least one reference point on the rim comprises an inflation valve or a TPMS sensor (Col. 25, lines 41-57).
Regarding claim 16, Clasquin further discloses that the memory means accessible by the control unit are at least partially located in the vehicle wheel maintenance apparatus (Col. 8, lines 47-58 indicates that the controller may be positioned within the control unit 120, which is part of the vehicle wheel maintenance apparatus, and that the control unit includes the memory 162).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Clasquin further discloses that the memory means accessible by the control unit are at least partially located in a remote computer system (Col. 20, lines 9-21), wherein nearly any current computer would be considered to be a portable device (capable of being transported).
Regarding claim 19, Clasquin further discloses that the control unit is capable of controlling the vehicle wheel maintenance apparatus automatically, so as to keep the angular distance between the position of the at least one reference point on the rim and the at least one position, and the at least one respective value, of stress applied by the rim and/or by the demounting or mounting tool to the tire within respective predetermined ranges of acceptable distances and acceptable values of stress stored in said memory means (similar to the functions discussed for claim 11, disclosed in Col. 24, lines 47-56 and Col. 25, lines 41-49, with Col. 17, line 58-Col. 18, line 2 indicating that the functions may be carried out without human assistance, which is equivalent to automatic control).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clasquin et al. (9,073,394) in view of Meyer et al. (2024/0346430), as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Sotgui (DE 1020200134524 A1).
Clasquin discloses the apparatus, as discussed supra, comprising an input/output device (display 124 and input device 126). However, Clasquin fails to disclose that the input/output device is capable of graphically displaying the wheel with the wheel divided into a plurality of parts. Sotgui discloses a similar vehicle wheel maintenance apparatus, also having sensor for detecting torque and rotational position of the wheel, with a focus on preventing the TPMS sensor from contacting the tools of the machine, and Sotgui teaches that an input/output device is capable of graphically displaying the wheel with the wheel divided into a plurality of parts the input/output device being operable by an operator for the purpose of selecting a part, from among the plurality of parts into which the wheel is divided, to be associated with the position of the at least one reference point (TPMS location) on the rim (English Language translation, last paragraph on Pg. 3, through fourth paragraph on Pg. 4), and also teaching that relying on manual input may allow for human error (lower half of Pg. 2) and indicating that the graphical division of a wheel will make it easier for a user to provide an approximate location of the TPMS sensor (third paragraph on Pg. 9), which would be understood to allow the automatic operation to more consistently avoid contact with the sensor (due to avoidance of the larger area, as opposed to a specific point that may be inaccurately input by a user). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the control unit and input/output devices of Clasquin with the ability to graphically display the wheel with the wheel divided into a plurality of parts, as taught by Sotgui to allow for more general location of the reference point to overcome user error, wherein the control unit of Clasquin would also be modified to be capable of calculating the predetermined distance of the at least one reference point on the rim from the at least one demounting or mounting tool, as the distance of the at least one demounting or mounting tool from a point belonging to the part associated with the position of the at least one reference point on the rim, in the same manner taught by Sotgui.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 15 May 2026, with respect to all rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn due to the applicant clarifying on the record what structure is intended for respective terms, as well as clarifying how the respective functions are performed.
Applicant's arguments filed 15 May 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 15 under 25 U.S.C. 112(d) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While the applicant argues that the claim recites positive structure, the only structure in the claim relates to structure of the tire and/or wheel, which is not part of the claimed apparatus. Thus, the claim remains rejected as merely suggesting an intended use of the claimed apparatus.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 11 and 13-20, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely solely on the reference(s) applied in the prior rejection. While the examiner maintains that the stored records disclosed by Clasquin may be considered to read on the claimed “report” (as discussed in the previous office action; regardless of intended use as a template, the collection of data in any medium that may be viewed by a user is considered to be equivalent to a report), the examiner has also included the Meyer reference, which was not previously cited, which teaches that the collected data may be provided as an accessible record or log of data, which more effectively reads on the applicant’s suggested definition of a “report”, as well as teaching the additional limitations that are newly added to independent claim 11, as discussed supra.
Conclusion
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 3 August 2026
Prosecution Insights