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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the terminology “movable” has been used to define structural relationship between, e.g., flange 3 and mouth 2 or air delivery barrel 8 and the flange 3. The barrel 8 is attached to the flange 3, e.g., Figs. 4 and 5 and it does not seem to be “movable” relative to flange 3. Further flange 3 is disclosed to be fastened to mouth 2 by bolts at holes 4, [0040]. Accordingly, it seems that flange 3 and barrel 8 do not move relative to mouth 2. As best understood, a “removable” flange (fasteners @4) and a removable barrel (buckle 31 and groove 28) are being described.
Applicant is required to point out the relative movement in defining “a moveable flange” or amend accordingly.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein four flange recesses are provided on an…”,while further limits the four flanges recited in claim 1, claim can also appear to recite additional four recesses. Applicant may wish to amend by reciting, e.g., “said four flange recesses”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
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 1-10 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “movable” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “removable” while the accepted meaning is “not stationary” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Please see the objection above.
Claim 1 also recites for a fixed stand that is movably mounted at aa bottom end of the movable flange. It is unclear what defines a “fixed” stand if it movably coupled to the flange.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: art of record considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious an air valve for a tire bead seater comprising four flange recesses that are provided at a position of an outer surface of the air delivery barrel that is close to a bottom end of the air delivery barrel, together in combination with the rest of the limitations as recited in claim(s).
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon at this time, are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Kunau and Brahler are cited to show related inventions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI SHAKERI whose telephone number is (571)272-4495. The fax phone number for forwarding unofficial documents for discussion purposes only is (571) 273-4495. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
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 on 571 272 8548. The fax 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.
/Hadi Shakeri/
December 13, 2025 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights