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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
In claim 1, the recitation of “the at least two tire contact members” on line 5 does not have proper antecedent basis, as line 2 only recites “at least one tire contact member”. This renders the claims indefinite because the scope of the invention applicant intends to claim is unclear.
Additionally, in claims 16 and 17, the recitation of “the two or more tire contacting members” is unclear because of this conflicting recitation in claim 1.
In claim 5, the recitation of “the at least three contact members” does not have proper antecedent basis, as this claim depends from claim 1 which does not recite at least three contact members.
In claims 13 and 14, the recitation of “the faceplate” does not have proper antecedent basis, as these claims depend from claim 1, which does not recite a faceplate, rather than claim 6, where the faceplate is first recited. Accordingly, the scope of the claims is unclear.
In claim 20, the recitation of “the at least three contact members” does not have proper antecedent basis, as this claim depends from claim 19, which depends from claim 1 and neither claim recites at least three contact members.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 11-14, 16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Richardson. (US 2,841,874)
With respect to claim 1, Richardson teaches a tire measurement apparatus (tire gauge), comprising: at least one tire contact member (shoulder 16, roller 24) configured to engage an outer diameter of a tire along a tread of the tire, at least one of the contact members being movable (roller 24); and a tire measurement or size indicator (ruler 37, marker 40) configured to indicate a measurement or size measured based upon the at least two tire contact members. (col. 1, line 66 – col. 2, line 19, col. 2, lines 57-63, Figs. 1-12)
With respect to claim 9, Richardson teaches the movable contact member (roller 24) is arranged along a movable arm (second arm 21). (col. 2, lines 12-19, Fig. 1)
With respect to claim 11, Richardson teaches the tire measurement or size indicator includes a scale (ruler 37) and a pointer (marker 40). (col. 2, lines 57-63, Figs. 1, 11)
With respect to claim 12, Richardson teaches the pointer (marker 40) is operably connected to the movable arm (second arm 21). (col. 2, lines 57-63, Figs. 1, 11)
With respect to claim 13, Richardson teaches the scale (ruler 37) is arranged along a faceplate (scale bar 10) (col. 2, lines 57-63, Figs. 1, 11)
With respect to claim 14, Richardson teaches the faceplate (bar 10) includes one or more arced slots (grooves) in which one or more portions of the movable arm (locking mechanism) extend. (col. 2, lines 47-56, Figs. 1, 9)
With respect to claim 16, Richardson teaches at least one of the two or more tire contacting members (shoulder 16) is fixed. (col. 2, lines 6-11, Fig. 1)
With respect to claim 18, Richardson teaches the at least one tire contact member (roller 24) is arranged along a measurement arm (second arm 21), the at least one tire contact member being movable, the tire measurement apparatus further comprising a mounting base (bar 10) configured to be removably arranged along an inner diameter of the tire or of a tire-wheel assembly, the measurement arm extending from the mounting base. (col. 1, line 66 – col. 2, line 19, Fig. 1)
With respect to claim 19, Richardson teaches a method of measuring the outer diameter of a tire, the method comprising: providing a tire measurement apparatus as provided in claim 1; placing the tire measurement apparatus in contact with a tire, where the two or more tire contacting members are arranged along an outer diameter of the tire along a tread of the tire; and, measuring the tire to indicate a measurement or size of the tire, where a measurement or size is generated. (col. 3, lines 45-58)
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6-8, 15, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson in view of Harman. (GB 1601571)
With respect to claim 2, Richardson teaches all that is claimed, as in the above rejection, except wherein the at least one contact member is at least three contact members, where the at least three contact members are configurable to provide points of contact with the tire that define an arc.
Harman teaches a measurement apparatus for a cylindrical component comprising at least three contact members (probes 6, 7, 10), where the at least three contact members are configurable to provide points of contact with the object that define an arc. (page 2, lines 36-40, 66-80, Figs. 1-3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the structure of Richardson to include three contact members, as taught by Harman, as an alternative structure for determining the diameter electronically which would require less operator involvement.
With respect to claim 3, Richardson, as modified by Harman, teaches an outer diameter of the tire is determinable by calculation based upon a relative location between the points of contact of the at least three contact members. (Harman, page 2, lines 66-80)
With respect to claim 4, Richardson, as modified by Harman, teaches the calculation is performed using the coordinates for each point of contact associated with each of the at least three contact members, where the diameter is determined by doubling a radius determined using an equation of a circle and solving for a radius of the circle. (Harman, page 2, lines 66-80)
With respect to claim 6, Richardson, as modified by Harman, teaches a faceplate, the faceplate being operably connected to the at least three contact members, where a back side of the faceplate is configured to be arranged along a sidewall of the tire with each of the at least three tire contact members being arranged along the tire tread.
With respect to claim 7, Richardson, as modified by Harman, teaches a movable arm is operably attached to the faceplate, the movable arm being pivotable and/or translatable relative to the faceplate.
With respect to claim 8, Richardson, as modified by Harman, teaches the faceplate further includes the tire measurement or size indicator.
With respect to claim 15, Richardson, as modified by Harman, teaches the movable contact member is arranged along a movable arm, and where each of the faceplate and/or the movable arm include a handle. (note that although a handle is not specifically discussed in the references, any portion of the structure which can be held is considered to be a handle)
With respect to claim 17, Richardson teaches all that is claimed, as in the above rejection, except where, for the two or more tire contacting members, the movable tire contacting member is arranged adjacent to a pair of tire contacting members.
Harman teaches a measurement apparatus for a cylindrical component comprising at two or more tire contacting members (6, 7, 10) wherein a movable tire contacting member is arranged adjacent to a pair of tire contacting members. (page 2, lines 36-40, 66-80, Figs. 1-3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the structure of Richardson to include two or more contact members arranged as claimed, as taught by Harman, in order to efficiently detect the exterior of the tire.
With respect to claim 20, Richardson teaches all that is claimed, as in the above rejection, except wherein measuring the tire, the tire size is calculated using the coordinates for each point of contact associated with each of the at least three contact members, where the outer diameter is determined by doubling a radius determined using an equation of a circle and solving for a radius of the circle.
Harman teaches a measurement apparatus for a cylindrical component comprising at least three contact members (probes 6, 7, 10), wherein when measuring the tire, the tire size is calculated using the coordinates for each point of contact associated with each of the at least three contact members, where the outer diameter is determined by doubling a radius determined using an equation of a circle and solving for a radius of the circle. (page 2, lines 36-40, 66-80, Figs. 1-3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the structure of Richardson to calculate the diameter of the tire using three contact members, as taught by Harman, as an alternative structure for determining the diameter electronically which would require less operator involvement.
Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson.
With respect to claim 5, Richardson teaches all that is claimed, as in the above rejection, and teaches a contact member (roller 4) that is cylindrical.
Although Richardson does not explicitly teach wherein each of the contact members are cylindrical members, this would have been an obvious modification of the structure so that the advantages of a cylindrical contact member could be applied at all of the contact locations.
With respect to claim 10, Richardson teaches all that is claimed, as in the above rejection, except wherein the tire measurement or size indicator includes an electronic display.
However, electronic displays are well-known in the art and therefore it would have been an obvious modification of the structure of Richardson to include an electronic display in order to make the results more accessible to an external user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 4,064,632; US 7,472,490 and US 8,393,087 each teach an invention having similarities to the claimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jill E Culler whose telephone number is (571)272-2159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/JILL E CULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853