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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 5, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the “sidewall” (as in claims 1 and 15) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, the “lifting actuator” (as in claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, the “four-bar linkage” (as in claim 4) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, the “stopping portion” (as in claim 8) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, the “hinge point” (as in claim 9) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, the “vertical axis” (as in claims 14 and 20) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The specification is Also objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The Specification should include a Description and a Numeral directed to each of the following; “sidewall”, “lifting actuator”, “four-bar linkage”, “stopping portion”, “hinge point”, and “vertical axis”.
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.
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: “a plurality of control means configured to activate the lifting actuator for lifting or for lowering and to set the wheel-holder unit in rotation” in claims 11 and 17. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification in applicant’s PG-PUB describes “the plurality of control means” as being, “foot pedals” (see paragraph 214). Thus, in view of the specification, the limitation, “a plurality of control means”, is being interpreted as a plurality of foot pedals and/or equivalents thereof.
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.
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 1-14 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. Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected base claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sidewall" in Line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to expedite prosecution, the examiner has interpreted this limitation as actually disclosing “a sidewall”. However further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6 and 10-20 are rejected As Best Understood, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dressler (2015/0273960).
In reference to claims 1 (As Best Understood) and 15, Dressler discloses a tyre changing machine (10) for mounting and demounting a tyre to and from a corresponding rim of a vehicle wheel (see Abstract), comprising:
- a wheel-holder unit (16) rotatable about a first vertical axis of rotation (see figure below) and configured to support the rim of the wheel from which or to which a respective tyre is to be demounted or mounted (see Abstract);
- a frame (12, Figure 1) having a front portion (see figure below) and a flank (11) and resting on a floor (Figure 1);
- a bead breaker unit (30), mounted on the flank of the frame and connected thereto and including an abutment surface (see figure below), a bead breaking arm (30) articulated to the frame to rotate about a second vertical axis (axis X in Figure 2), a paddle shaped bead breaker tool (32) mounted on the bead breaking arm, a bead breaker actuator (i.e. piston 40), connected to the bead breaking arm to move the bead breaker tool towards and away from the abutment surface (paragraphs 31 and 52), so as to detach the bead of the tyre from an annular edge of the rim of the wheel with the tyre tread resting on a supporting surface (i.e. surface 56, which has been formed as a platform, see paragraph 33.) at floor level and a sidewall (i.e. sidewall of the wheel) in contact with the abutment surface;
- a lifting device (formed from 52, 54 and 56, see paragraph 33), including a lifting arm (52) and a supporting platform (again at surface 56 that has been formed as a platform, see paragraph 33) defining a horizontal supporting surface on which to rest the wheel (Note; the definition of the term “platform” is defined according to www.merriam-webster.com as being; “a flat horizontal surface” thereby meeting the claimed limitation of the supporting platform), the supporting platform being connected to the lifting arm and movable between a lowered position, where it can receive the wheel to be lifted off the floor, and a raised position, where it is lifted to make it easier to place the wheel on the wheel-holder unit (paragraph 33), and a lifting actuator (formed from 40, 42, 44, 46, 48 and 50), connected to the lifting arm to move the supporting platform between the raised position and the lowered position (paragraph 33 and Figures 2 and 3);
- a box-shaped body (see figure below) operatively coupled to the flank of the frame (Figure 1), the box-shaped body having a lateral wall (see figure below) defining the abutment surface and internally defining a compartment (see internal space/compartment of the box-shaped body in Figure 3 that receives 46, 48 and 50 therein), wherein the lifting actuator is at least partly positioned (i.e. at 46, 48 and 50) in the compartment in the box-shaped body (Figure 3).
The examiner notes the method claim 15 merely discloses the normal operation of the device of claim 1 and therefore the same reasoning as previously discussed above for claim 1 applies mutatis mutandis to the subject matter of claim 15.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First vertical axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Front portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Abutment surface/Lateral wall)]
PNG
media_image1.png
422
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Box-shaped body)]
In reference to claim 3, Dressler discloses that the lifting arm is movable in a plane (i.e. a vertical plane) parallel to the abutment surface (because the abutment surface is also vertical, Figure 1).
In reference to claim 5, Dressler discloses that the lifting device comprises an auxiliary platform (at 52 or as one of members 56) integral with the lifting arm and configured to define an additional supporting surface for the wheel (Figure 1).
In reference to claim 6, Dressler discloses that the lifting actuator is configured to position the lifting arm substantially parallel to the floor and the auxiliary platform juxtaposed with the supporting platform, with the supporting platform at the raised position (Figures 1-3).
In reference to claims 10 and 16, Dressler discloses that the bead breaker unit comprises a driving element (36), mounted on the bead breaking arm and configured to drive the bead breaker actuator (paragraphs 37-39), the driving element alternately adopting an advance position, where it drives the bead breaker actuator to move the bead breaker tool towards the abutment surface, and a return position, where it drives the bead breaker actuator to move the bead breaker tool away from the abutment surface (Figures 1-3 and paragraphs 38-41). The examiner notes the method claim 16 merely discloses the normal operation of the device of claim 10 and therefore the same reasoning as previously discussed above for claim 10 applies mutatis mutandis to the subject matter of claim 16.
In reference to claims 11 and 17, Dressler discloses that a plurality of control means (i.e. foot pedals 20, which meets the limitation of the control means, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 9g above) configured to activate the lifting actuator for lifting or for lowering and to set the wheel-holder unit in rotation (paragraphs 55, 58 and 59). The examiner notes the method claim 17 merely discloses the normal operation of the device of claim 11 and therefore the same reasoning as previously discussed above for claim 11 applies mutatis mutandis to the subject matter of claim 17.
In reference to claims 12-14 and 18-20, Dressler discloses that the supporting platform (56) provides a flat surface facing upwards (paragraph 33), because as previously discussed above, supporting platform (56) is a “platform” which again is defined according to www.merriam-webster.com as being; “a flat horizontal surface” thereby meeting the structural limitations of the claim) and since all the structural limitations have been met it will also allow for a wheel resting thereupon to be pivoted about a vertical axis. The examiner notes the method claims 18-20 merely disclose the normal operation of the device of claims 12-14 and therefore the same reasoning as previously discussed above for claims 12-14 applies mutatis mutandis to the subject matter of claims 18-20.
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 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dressler (2015/0273960) in view of Cunningham (7882882).
In further reference to claim 5, assuming arguendo that Dressler lacks,
the lifting device comprising an auxiliary platform integral with the lifting arm and configured to define an additional supporting surface for the wheel.
However, Cunningham teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a lifting device (150, Figures 9 and 10) comprising an auxiliary platform (160/166, Figure 11) integral with a lifting arm (152) and configured to define an additional supporting surface for a wheel (Column 4, Lines 43-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the lifting device, of Dressler, with the known technique of providing the auxiliary platform, as taught by Cunningham, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that can temporarily force a tire into an oval shape (Column 4, Lines 43-45).
In reference to claim 6, Cunningham discloses a lifting actuator (61, see Figures 3 and 14) that is configured to position the lifting arm substantially parallel to the floor (Figures 3 and 18) and the auxiliary platform juxtaposed with the supporting platform (i.e. of Dressler), with the supporting platform at the raised position (Figures 3 and 18).
In reference to claim 7, Cunningham discloses that the auxiliary platform comprises a guiding portion (at 168 in Figure 11 or at 158 in Figure 10) that defines a ramp (see Figure 11 showing that when moving from the upper part of 168 to element 166, a vertical ramp is provided) sloping towards the supporting platform (i.e. when combined with Dressler) and configured to make it easier to move the wheel towards the wheel-holder unit (Figures 3, 10 and 11).
In reference to claim 8, Cunningham discloses that the auxiliary platform comprises a stopping portion (formed from 166 and 168) oriented transversely to the lifting arm and configured to act as a mechanical stop for the wheel (Figure 11).
In reference to claim 9, Cunningham discloses that the lifting actuator is connected (at least through the connection of parts therebetween) to the lifting arm at a hinge point (42) interposed between a first end (formed as a lateral side of the arm, see Figure 3) and a second end (formed as another lateral side of the arm opposite to the first end, see Figure 3) of the lifting arm, the lifting arm being pivoted about the hinge point (Figure 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 4, is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cunningham et al. (6044888) also shows that it is known to provide a tire changer with a lift and spin device (40).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J SCRUGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-2.
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 at 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 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.
/ROBERT J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723