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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, states in the Summary of The Invention that “a storage tube provided with an accommodating space, a ring protrusion protrudes radially outward from an outer end of the storage tube, an outer side of the storage tube is annularly provided with a tightening ring at a position close to the ring protrusion” paragraph [0006]; however, the Detailed Description Of The Invention states in paragraph [0019] states “an outer end of the end cap 12 radially outwardly protrudes a ring protrusion 121, the end cap 12 is annularly provided with a soft tightening ring 122 at a position close to the ring protrusion 121”. Furthermore, Fig. 2 illustrates the end cap 12 with a ring protrusion 121 and a tightening ring 122 which is a separate component from the storage tube 10. And, claim 1 states “a ring protrusion protruding radially outward from an outer end of the storage tube, an outer side of the storage tube being annularly provided with a tightening ring at a position close to the ring protrusion”. It is unclear as to whether the storage tube or the end cap has “a protrusion… a tightening ring…”; therefore, the specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
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 2 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.
Claim 2 recites “one end of the end cap is provided with the ring protrusion” in lines 2-3; however, claim 1 recites “a ring protrusion protruding radially outward from an outer end of the storage tube…” As claim 2 must include all of the limitations of claim 1, it is unclear as to how the ring protrusion protruding radially outward from an outer end of the storage tube is also part of the end cap.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the two spoke adjustment grooves…" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation " the two spoke adjustment grooves…" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 as well as understood, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0197353 A1 to (Pfeiffer et al.).
Regarding claim 1, (Pfeiffer et al.) discloses several embodiments of multi-tool systems having a multi-tool sleeve assembly including a storage sleeve and an end cap to be inserted into an open end of the storage sleeve, one of the multi-tool systems is a chain break and tire plug multi-tool (200)(Figs. 15-25); a multi-tool storage sleeve (300)(Figs. 26-31); a multi-tool sleeve assembly (500)(Figs. 40-45); and, a multi-tool system (600)(Figs. 46A-49). The multi-tool systems are intended to be mounted in a bicycle tube, e.g., hollow bar, such as, for example, a handlebar (690) of a bicycle (paragraph [0129]; Figs. 48A-C, 49).
Considering the entire document, (Pfeiffer et al.) disclose a bicycle tool mounted in a bicycle tube, e.g., a handlebar (690), comprising: a storage tube (storage sleeve 300) provided with an accommodating space, a ring protrusion (annular rings or barbs 330) protruding radially outward from an outer end of the storage tube (300), an outer side of the storage tube being annularly provided with a tightening ring, i.e., one of the two annular rings or barbs 330 around open end (312) may be a “tightening ring”); and a repairing component having a base (body 210), one side of the base (210) being provided with a mounting part (second end 212 of body 210), the mounting part being detachably disposed in the accommodating space of the storage tube (Fig. 31), a tire sealer (236) being disposed on an end surface of the mounting part (threads 216
provided at (adjacent or near) second end 212 of body 210)(Figs. 24A-B, 25); a chain remover (chain break 220) being disposed on an end surface (220 provided at (adjacent or near) first end 211) of the base (body 210) without the mounting part; when the mounting part of the repairing component being disposed in the accommodating space of the storage tube (Fig. 31), the chain remover 236) being located in the accommodating space.
PNG
media_image1.png
359
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
444
372
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
709
254
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, (Pfeiffer et al.) provides the bicycle tool mounted in a bicycle tube as claimed, except that the chain remover (220) is located inside the accommodating space of the storage tube (300).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to provide a version of the storage sleeve of (Pfeiffer et al.) with opposing open ends wherein the length of the storage tube is such that the chain remover would be located outside the storage tube, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable parameters involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2 as well as understood, (Pfeiffer et al.) further provides an end cap, i.e., a bar end plug or bar cap (400), that is configured to cooperate with the storage tube (storage sleeve 300) and a bicycle tube (e.g., handlebar 690), wherein the storage tube (300) comprises a tube and an end cap (400); the tube (300) has the accommodating space, one end of the end cap (400) is provided with a ring protrusion (capped end 420 includes a peripheral surface 422, i.e., a “ring protrusion”, another end of the end cap is provided with an assembling block (cylindrical body 410), and the assembling block (410) is assembled in the accommodating space of the tube (“body 410 includes an annular ring or barb 412 at (adjacent or near) open end 440. In examples, barb 412 provides friction-fit of end cap 400 within a sleeve, as disclosed herein” – paragraph [0105]).
PNG
media_image4.png
730
339
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, the chain remover (chain break 220) of (Pfeiffer et al.) comprises a pin withdrawal groove (not labeled – see annotated Fig. 15), an assembly groove (cradle 224), a screw seat (not labeled – see annotated Fig. 15) and a screw element (extractor bolt 226); the pin withdrawal groove is fixed on an end surface of the base (head 220 is pivotally or rotatably coupled with body 210 (for example, by a pin 222); the assembly groove is disposed on the pin withdrawal groove, a positioning block (not labeled – see annotated Fig. 15) is disposed on the assembly groove; the screw seat is disposed on the assembly groove; the screw element (226) is screwed on the screw seat and capable of moving reciprocatingly in the assembly groove, and a front end of the screw element (226) is provided with a push pin (227).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Pfeiffer et al.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 9,003,927 B2 to (Stansbury et al.).
(Pfeiffer et al.) as applied to claim 1 above, provides a bicycle tool mounted in a bicycle tube as claimed, and discloses that the tire sealer comprises a fork and a shaft, where two ends of the shaft are connected to the fork and the mounting part respectively. The shaft of the tire sealer lacks a grinding part.
PNG
media_image5.png
467
197
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, as (Stansbury et al.) discloses that it is known that tire repair kits often necessarily include two separate tools: a reamer, i.e. a tool with a shaft having a grinding part, and a plugger, i.e., a tire sealer, as well as the plugs and adhesive (Col. 1, lines 22-26). (Stansbury et al.) teaches that it would be desirable to construct a tire repair tool that combines a reamer and plugger for both reaming out a hole in a tire and feeding a plug into the hole (Col. 1, lines 30-32). In the tire repair tool 20 of (Stansbury et al.), the tire sealer, i.e., bit 40, comprises a fork 80 and a shaft 45; the shaft 45 is connected to the fork 80, and an outer peripheral surface of the shaft 45 of the tire sealer is provided with a grinding part (a reamer element 60 having a surface texture 65 along at least a portion of the shaft 45… wherein the texture comprises a swirled shaft, alternatively, the texture may comprise a knurled shaft, a roughened shaft or alternate texture for creating the desired surface within the hole of the leak (Col. 2, lines 22-37; Figs. 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the tire sealer of (Pfeiffer et al.) by providing an outer peripheral surface of the shaft of the tire sealer with a grinding part, as (Stansbury et al.) teaches that it would be desirable to construct a tire repair tool that combines a reamer and plugger for both reaming out a hole in a tire and feeding a plug into the hole.
Claim(s) 5 and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Pfeiffer et al.) as applied to claim 1 above, in combination with 10,702,982 B2 to (Tsai) and further in view of US 2009/0194439 A1 to (Gross).
(Pfeiffer et al.) as applied to claim 1 above, provides a bicycle tool mounted in a tube as claimed except for the provisions of: a) at least one tire patching strip…; b) a “tooth portion” disposed by the side of the chain remover, and one end of the tooth portion having a generally semicircular open jaw; or c) the repairing component further comprises an auxiliary tool pivotally disposed on the base, the auxiliary tool is provided with at least one spoke adjustment groove, where two spoke adjustment grooves or more than two spoke adjustment grooves are provided, sizes of the spoke adjustment grooves are different, and the auxiliary tool is provided with marks on sides of the spoke adjustment grooves respectively.
(Tsai) provide a multiple tool foldable tool kit wherein:
a) the foldable tool kit includes a tire reparation member 90’ that is a tire reparation strip or a tire reparation patch (Col. 2, lines 12-13; Col. 5, lines 57-67; claims 8 and 15; Fig. 10);
b) one of the multiple tools is a chain repair tool (chain breaker tool 80) wherein, a “tooth portion”, i.e., holding section 84, disposed by the side of the chain remover 80, and one end of the tooth portion having a generally semicircular open jaw 85 (Figs. 2 and 4; Col. 4, lines 50-60); and,
c) one of the multiple tools is a complex tool 60D, the complex tool 60D is a spoke adjustment tool. The body of the complex tool 60D is formed with two spoke fitting notches 66
with different sizes and a bottle opening mouth 67. The two spoke fitting notches 66 have different widths for adjusting the spokes of the bicycle (Col. 4, lines 23-38; Figs. 3 and 5). The complex tool 60D is pivotally mounted alongside the chain breaker tool 80.
Thus, (Tsai) provides the deficiencies of the bicycle tool mounted in a bicycle tube as applied in claim 1, except for failing to provide marks on the sides of the spoke adjustment grooves (spoke fitting notches 66) respectively.
However, as (Gross) demonstrates, as described in paragraph [0039] and illustrates in Figs. 11,, 12, 16, and 17, it would have been within the general skill of an artisan to mark the size of the respective spoke adjustment grooves (105, 110) as well as the respective wrench openings (115, 120, 128) of a tool.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the bicycle tool of (Pfeiffer et al.) as applied to claim 1 above, by providing a) at least one tire patching strip that may be disposed in the accommodating space of the storage tube, b) by modifying the chain remover by the addition of an appropriately sized “tooth portion” disposed by the side thereof wherein one end of the “tooth portion” has a generally semicircular open jaw, such as the holding section with a generally semicircular open jaw, and c) and adding an auxiliary tool pivotally disposed on the base, the auxiliary tool is provided with at least one spoke adjustment groove, where two spoke adjustment grooves or more than two spoke adjustment grooves are provided, sizes of the spoke adjustment grooves are different, as taught by (Tsai), and to provide marks on sides of the spoke adjustment grooves respectively, as demonstrated in (Gross), and having the predictable result of providing a multi-tool system that is capable of meeting numerous repairs to a bicycle that a user of the multi-tool system may encounter.
Conclusion
Numerous multi-functional tools for bicycle maintenance are well known in the art. The present application provides many of the tools utilized in many of those known multi-functional tools and arranges then in a particular manner. The particular arrangement would have been obvious in view of the prior art as considered above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as providing tools that have components related to the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David B. Thomas whose telephone number is (571) 272-4497. The examiner’s e-mail address is: dave.thomas@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 11:30-7:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached on (. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/David B. Thomas/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DBT/