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 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 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.
Claim 5 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.
The term “lozenge” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lozenge” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, claim 5 is indefinite because the claim fails to further define the structure of the plurality of articulated arms.
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) 1-4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,001,107 B2 to (Gonzaga et al.) in combination with US 6,842,958 B2 to (Gonzaga).
Regarding claim 1, (Gonzaga et al.) provides a machine for insertion/removal of toroids into/from wheels of special vehicles (Abstract – “ a device for assembling and/or disassembling a support ring (SR) within or from a tyre (T)”), the machine comprising: at least one base frame (base 2) for resting on a surface; gripping and retaining means of a reinforced tire associated with the base frame (“The support group 18 can comprise claw or gripping or confinement means 21 or the like for engaging and retaining the bead of a tyre T, e.g. two or more claws or grippers 21 if desired substantially C-shaped, so as to define a zone of gripping or support of a tyre” – Col. 8, lines 16-18); and at least one insertion/removal assembly of a toroid into/from the reinforced tire (“The device also comprises a group 7 for gripping and releasing a support ring SR articulated to the support arm 4 in order to be angularly movable or oscillating with respect thereto” – Col. 3, lines 57-60), wherein the insertion/removal assembly 7 comprises deformation means (means for approaching and moving apart 9 – Col. 3, lines 57-63) of the toroid SR and close/away movement means (“column 17 is preferably slidably mounted on the base 2 and movable with respect thereto by means of activating means, e.g. a sixth actuator 17a, if desired pneumatic, electric, hydraulic or oil hydraulic, with one component, e.g. the cylinder, connected, if desired pivoted to the base 2 and another component, e.g. a stem slidably mounted within the respective cylinder as well as, connected, if desired pivoted to the second column 17. The sliding direction of the second column 17 with respect to the base 2 is parallel to or lying on the longitudinal symmetry axis of the support group and, in use, such to move the support group 18 and hence the tyre T supported thereby close to-away from the column 3.” Col. 8, lines 3-15) movable or oscillating with respect thereto” – Col. 6, lines 45-53) of the deformation means 9 for moving the deformation means close to/away from the gripping and retaining means (support group 18) along a direction of close/away movement, wherein the deformation means 9 are extendable/compressible along a first vertical axis (Figs. 7-9, 13 and 14) 9 is elongated along the first axis (Fig. 14), an intermediate configuration (Fig. 13), 9
Thus, (Gonzaga et al.) provides a machine for insertion/removal of toroids into/from wheels of special vehicles as claimed, except for the provision of the deformation means having: a second horizontal axis between a configuration of vertical extension, wherein the deformation means has a substantially circular conformation, and a configuration of horizontal extension, wherein the deformation means is elongated along the second axis.
(Gonzaga) discloses an apparatus and method for assembling/disassembling a flexible ring (toroid) to, in, or from a tired wheel. (Gonzaga) teaches, inter alia, “In the embodiment shown in FIGS. 7 to 11, an articulated parallelogram shaped or pantograph-like stretching device 5 is located in resilient ring 1 and can be extended by a linear actuator 2 that can be located in two positions normal to each other, or by a pair of linear actuators arranged to act in directions perpendicular to each other. One then proceeds with widening the resilient ring 1 in a diametral direction and the resilient ring 1 is fitted lengthwise into centre light 3 of the receiving tire 4 (FIG. 8). The stretching device is then released so that resilient ring 1 regains its standard circular shape and remains engaged in light 3 (FIG. 9). The operator then causes pantograph 5 to be extended in a perpendicular direction to that in which the resilient ring had been previously stretched, i.e. in a diametral direction with respect to tire 4, whereby it is entirely fitted into tire 4 (FIG. 10), after which the operator manually causes the resilient ring 1 to be rotated through approximately 90o in the tire about the diametrical direction along which the resilient ring is extended. Finally, parallelogram or pantograph 5 is caused to collapse or shrink, thus obtaining the configuration shown in FIG. 11 whilst being entirely and correctly located within tire 4.” (Col. 3, lines 30-53), thus (Gonzaga) teaches providing the deformation means with a second horizontal axis between a configuration of vertical extension, wherein the deformation means has a substantially circular conformation, and a configuration of horizontal extension, wherein the deformation means is elongated along the second axis.
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 machine for insertion/removal of toroids into/from wheels of (Gonzaga et al.) by providing a deformation means, such as that of (Gonzaga), that comprises both a vertical and a horizontal means for deforming the toroid, to properly inserting the toroid into a tire.
Regarding claim 2, in (Gonzaga et al.) as modified in view of (Gonzaga), the insertion/removal assembly (6) is configured to be moved for the removal of said toroid (SR or resilient ring 1) from said reinforced tire (T or 4) among a plurality of operational positions comprising: - a first position wherein said deformation means (pantograph-like stretching device 5) are arranged in said configuration of horizontal extension and rotated to said aligned position, and wherein said close/away movement means are adapted to move said deformation means 5 along said direction of close/away movement (D) until said deformation means 5 are fitted within said reinforced tire; - a second position wherein said deformation means 5 are arranged in said intermediate configuration; - a third position wherein said deformation means 5 are rotated to said transverse position;- a fourth position wherein said deformation means 5 are arranged in said configuration of vertical extension; - a fifth position wherein said deformation means 5 are rotated to said aligned position; - a sixth position wherein said deformation means 5 are arranged in said configuration of horizontal extension and wherein said close/away movement means are adapted to move said deformation means 5 along said direction of close/away movement until said deformation means 5 are removed from said reinforced tire (T or 4)(see, Col. 3, lines 52-54 in Gonzaga; and, Col. 11, lines 11-62).
Regarding claim 3, in (Gonzaga et al.) as modified in view of (Gonzaga), insertion/removal assembly is configured to be moved for the insertion of said toroid into said reinforced tire among a plurality of operational positions comprising: - a first position wherein said deformation means are arranged in said configuration of horizontal extension and rotated to said aligned position, and wherein said close/away movement means are adapted to move said deformation means along said direction of close/away movement until said deformation means are fitted within said reinforced tire; - a second position wherein said deformation means are arranged in said configuration of vertical extension; - a third position wherein said deformation means are rotated to said transverse position; - a fourth position wherein said deformation means are arranged in said intermediate configuration; - a fifth position wherein said deformation means are rotated to said aligned position; - a sixth position wherein said deformation means are arranged in said configuration of horizontal extension and wherein said close/away movement means (8) are adapted to move said deformation means along said direction of close/away movement until said deformation means are removed from said reinforced tire (see Col. 9, lines 18-Col. 110, line 33 in Gonzaga et al.; and, Col. 3, lines 6-51 in Gonzaga).
Regarding claim 4, in (Gonzaga et al.) as modified in view of (Gonzaga), the deformation means, e.g., articulated parallelogram shaped or pantograph-like stretching device 5 in Gonzaga, comprise a plurality of articulated arms mutually connected to each other and movable with respect to each other in the transition between said configuration of vertical extension, said intermediate configuration and said configuration of horizontal extension (see Figs. 7-11 in Gonzaga).
Regarding claim 6, in (Gonzaga et al.) as modified in view of (Gonzaga), the deformation means 5 comprise four of said articulated arms (Figs. 7-11).
Regarding claim 7, in (Gonzaga et al.) as modified in view of (Gonzaga), the close/away movement means (Gonzaga et al. -second column 17 – slidably mounted on the base 2 – activating means, e.g., a sixth actuator 17a) comprise: - at least one guide (on slide means (not labeled but implied, see, e.g., Col. 8, lines 3-15 in Gonzaga et al.) associated with said base frame 2 and developing along said direction of close/away movement (Figs. 15-18 – Gonzaga et al.); and - at least one supporting body (column 17) associated with said guide in a sliding manner and adapted to support said deformation means by shifting along said direction of close/away movement (Col. 8, lines 3-15).
Regarding claim 8, in (Gonzaga et al.) as modified in view of (Gonzaga), the insertion/removal assembly comprises movement means associated with the deformation means that is adapted to arrange the deformation means in one of a configuration of vertical extension, an intermediate configuration or configuration of horizontal extension; and to rotate the deformation means to one of either an aligned position or a transverse position (see, e.g., Figs. 15-18; Col. 9, lines 18-Col. 110, line 33 in Gonzaga et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if claims 9 and 10 are rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: it is the examiner’s opinion that the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest: that the movement means comprise at least one pair of movement arms which are movable in mutual close/away movement along said first axis and with which said deformation means are associated in a rotatable manner (claim 9); or, that said gripping and retaining means comprise: - at least one gripping and retaining structure movable between a retaining configuration of said reinforced tire and a release configuration of said reinforced tire; and - at least one blocking mechanism associated with said gripping and retaining structure and adapted to block the latter in said retaining configuration, preventing the transition thereof to said release configuration (claim 10), together in combination with the rest of the limitations in the independent and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 7,546,865 B2 to (Giovannucci et al.) disclose a machine for assembling and disassembling a tyre fitted with a rigid inner run-flat ring; US 6,848,158 B2 to (Spaggiari) discloses a device for inserting and extracting a support ring in a tire; US 6,609,293 B2 to (Corghi) discloses a device for operating on tires comprising an outer carcass and an inner toroidal ring of deformable material; US 6286574 B1 to (Michelot et al.) disclose a motor vehicle run-flat device that can be used on a standard rim having lateral flanges for holding the beads of a tire and a method of fitting a run-flat device on a motor vehicle wheel; and, DE 3411635 A1 to (Brandes) describes a tire receiving and transport device.
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 (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 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/