CTNF 18/379,953 CTNF 87355 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldt (US PG Pub 2012/0274125; hereafter ‘125) . Claim 1: ‘125 is directed towards a shield to protect a wheel during cleaning (title, abstract, & Fig. 3), the shield comprising: a body comprising a circular shape with a first side, a second side, and a sidewall, the body comprising a center point (see Fig. 1); a handle comprising first and second openings that extend through the body (see #104, Fig. 1 and ¶ 26); and wherein the body is flat and the first side and the second side are parallel (the shield is planar; ¶ 15). If, however, ‘125 does not necessarily teach that the shield is flat with parallel sides, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to change the shape of the shield such that the shield is flat with parallel front and back sides because change in shape is prima facie obvious. ‘125 does not explicitly teach that the openings (hand holds) are spaced an equal distance from the center point. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to space the two hand holds in the shield of ‘125 an equal distance from the center point of the shield because changes in shape and size as well as rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious. Claims 2-4: ‘125 does not provide specific dimensions for the shield or that the thickness is constant throughout the body. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the shield of ‘125 as claimed because changes in shape and size are prima facie obvious. Claim 5: ‘125 teaches that the first and second openings extend through the body (see Fig. 1) and further teaches that the rest of the body may have perforations ( i.e. ‘125 teaches that the rest of the body can either be solid or have holes; ¶ 18). Claim 6: ‘125 does not explicitly teach that first and second openings are perpendicular to the first and second side of the body. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the first and second openings perpendicular to the first and second side of the body because changes in shape are prima facie obvious. Claim 7: ‘125 is directed towards a shield to protect a wheel during cleaning (title, abstract, & Fig. 3), the shield comprising: a body with a circular shape (Fig. 1), the body comprising a first and an opposing second side, the body further comprising a center point (Fig. 1); a first opening that extends through the body (see #104, Fig. 1 and ¶ 26); a second opening that extends through the body and is spaced away from the first opening (see #104, Fig. 1 and ¶ 26); and wherein the first and second openings are positioned on opposing sides of the center point (see #104, Fig. 1 and ¶ 26). ‘125 does not explicitly teach that the shield body is flat, the shield is symmetrical about a first axis that extends through the center point, or the shield is symmetrical about a second axis that extends through the center point and is perpendicular to the first axis. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate these claimed features because changes in shape and size of the shield and various features is prima facie obvious. Claim 8: The first and second openings form a handle for grasping the body (see #104, Fig. 1 and ¶ 26). Claim 9: ‘125 does not explicitly teach that the openings (hand holds) are spaced an equal distance from the center point. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to space the two hand holds in the shield of ‘125 an equal distance from the center point of the shield because changes in shape and size as well as rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious. Claims 10-13: ‘125 does not provide specific dimensions for the shield or that the thickness is constant throughout the body. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the shield of ‘125 as claimed because changes in shape and size are prima facie obvious. Claim 14: ‘125 teaches that the first and second openings extend through the body (see Fig. 1) and further teaches that the rest of the body may have perforations ( i.e. ‘125 teaches that the rest of the body can either be solid or have holes; ¶ 18). Claim 15: ‘125 does not explicitly teach that first and second openings are perpendicular to the first and second side of the body. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the first and second openings perpendicular to the first and second side of the body because changes in shape are prima facie obvious. Claim 16: ‘125 discloses a method of cleaning a tire of a vehicle (title, abstract, and Figs. 3 & 4), the method comprising: grasping a central second of a shield that is formed between a first and second openings in a body of the shield (Figs. 3 & 4 and ¶ 26); positioning a first side of the shield outward away from the vehicle and a second side of the shield inward towards the vehicle (Fig. 3); aligning the shield with the tire (Figs. 3 & 4 and claims 20-25); aligning a sidewall of the shield with an inner edge of the tire (¶ 22 and claims 20-25); and applying a spray to the tire while the shield is positioned over a wheel of the vehicle (Fig. 4, claims 20-25, and ¶s 4-5). ‘125 does not explicitly teach that the shield comprises a flat first and second side as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to change the shape of the shield such that the shield is flat with parallel front and back sides because change in shape is prima facie obvious. ‘125 does not explicitly teach visually aligning as claimed. However, ‘125 teaches manually positioning and adjusting shield on the tire and wheel by hand (Fig. 4). Thus, it is apparent that ‘125 teaches a human operator manually positioning and adjusting said shield and it is noted that human beings can perform alignment either visually or tactilely. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to perform the alignment visually because there are limited choices how a human will perform alignment manually and it is prima facie obvious to choose between limited options. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to perform the visual alignment as claimed because it is prima facie obvious to choose from limited locations as points of reference when performing the alignment. Claim 17: ‘125 teaches contacting the flat first side of the shield against the tire (¶ 18). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M MELLOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3593. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM CST. 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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. /James M Mellott/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/379,953 Page 2 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/379,953 Page 3 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/379,953 Page 4 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/379,953 Page 5 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/379,953 Page 6 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/379,953 Page 7 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/379,953 Page 8 Art Unit: 1759