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 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.
It is noted that this application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” without “for” a specific function, 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: movement means in claim 4, for moving the probe or the working tool relative to the other.
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 § 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, 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gonzaga (7,188,626).
CLAIM 1
PNG
media_image1.png
459
305
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gonzaga discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, i.e., a device for fitting/removing tires, the device comprising:
at least one supporting frame base of T1, T2 associable with a tire changing machine and movable along at least one substantially
PNG
media_image2.png
505
250
media_image2.png
Greyscale
vertical direction of work Fig. 2, to vary the level thereof with respect to a rim @G of a wheel;
at least one working tool R1 associated in a movable manner extendable and retractable relative to the support, annotated Fig. 3 with said at least one supporting frame T1 at least between a first working position Fig. 6 and a second working position Fig. 8 and adapted to interact with a tire Figs. 6-8 to fit/remove said tire 12 on/from said rim 8; and
PNG
media_image3.png
219
535
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (SUPPORT FRAME)] at least one probe member 3 connected to said at least one supporting frame T1, adapted to abut against said tire 12, Fig. 6 and operatively connected Figs. 9-11 to said at least one working tool R1 in such a way as to activate the displacement thereof sensor 3 abuts the tire resulting in sending suitable signals to control unit 34, which starts a sequence of operations 06:35-64 with respect to said at least one supporting frame T1 from said first working position to said second working position due to the interaction of said probe member itself with said tire.
PNG
media_image5.png
389
367
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, PA (prior art, Gonzaga) meets the limitations, i.e., the device according to claim 1, wherein said at least one working tool R1 is associated in a movable manner with said at least one supporting frame T1 between said first working position Fig. 6 and said second working position Fig. 8 along at least one operating direction arrow Fig. 8 transverse to said direction of work vertical close to/away from the rim 8, said probe member 3 being adapted to activate the displacement of said at least one working tool R1 along said operating direction arrow Fig. 8 as a result of the interaction with the tire.
CLAIM 16
Gonzaga discloses all of the limitations of claim 16, i.e., a device for fitting/removing tires, the device comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
459
305
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at least one supporting frame T1, annotated Fig. 3, above associable with a tire changing machine and movable along at least one substantially vertical direction of work Fig. 2;
at least one working tool R1 associated in a movable manner with said at least one supporting frame T1 at least between a first working position Fig. 6 and a second working position Fig. 8 and adapted to interact with a tire 12 to fit/remove said tire on/from a rim 8; and
at least one probe member 3 connected to said at least one supporting frame T1, adapted to abut against said tire and operatively connected to said at least one working tool 06:35-65, .
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.
PNG
media_image6.png
417
236
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 3-9 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzaga in view of Gonzaga et al. (8,752,605 “Gonzaga`605).
Gonzaga meets all of the limitations of claim 3, except for said at least one working tool R1 to be associated movable in rotation with said at least one supporting frame T1 around at least one axis of work transverse to said direction of work vertical so as to displace along said operating direction arrow, Fig. 8.
Gonzaga`605 teaches an automated tire fitting/removing device having a working tool 10 defining a fitting and removing tool that is associated movable in rotation with a supporting frame 4 around at least one axis of work pin 13 or 18a transverse to said direction of work vertical so as to displace along an operating direction Figs. 1-3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of Gonzaga with the tire removing/fitting tool arrangement 10 as taught by Gonzaga`605 for a multipurpose device for use with any tire type with or without bead-saver edge 02:20-24.
Regarding claim 4, PA (prior art, Gonzaga modified by Gonzaga`605) meets the limitations, i.e., the device according to claim 3, wherein said probe member 3 operably coupled to 10, as modified is associated movable with said at least one working tool 10, G`605 around at least one axis 13, and further comprising movement means 12, 17, 18, Gonzaga`605, Fig. 1 operatively connected to said probe member 3 and to said at least one working tool 10.
PNG
media_image7.png
303
358
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the device according to claim 4, wherein said probe member 3 is movable between a home position Fig. 2 probe not engaged and at least one sensing position e.g., Fig. 6 wherein the probe member activates said movement means via control commands to command the displacement of said at least one working tool 10 from said first operating position to said second operating position.
Regarding claim 6, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the device according to claim 4, wherein said probe member 3 comprises at least a first portion base 5 and at least a second portion 5a, 3 movable with respect to said first portion 5 between said home position Fig. 4 and said sensing position Fig. 3, the relative movement of said first portion 5 and of said second portion 5a being adapted to actuate said movement means via sensor 3 sending a suitable signal activating sequence of cascade operations 06:35-40.
Regarding claim 7, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the device according to claim 4, further comprising actuating means M1, Gonzaga of said movement means articulated arms, 12, 17, 18 modified Gonzaga operatively connected to said probe member 3 and configured to actuate said movement means 12, 17, 18 after reaching said sensing position.
Regarding claim 8, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the device according to claim 7, wherein said actuating means M1 are of the electrical type Gonzaga.
PNG
media_image8.png
343
269
media_image8.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (10b)][AltContent: textbox (10a)]Regarding claim 9, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the device according to claim 4, wherein said movement means 12, 18, 17 are adapted to move in rotation said at least one working tool 10 around said axis of work 13 between said first working position and said second working position, e.g., Figs. 6 an 8, Gonzaga or Figs. 1-3 Gonzaga`605 after reaching the sensing position by said probe member 3, the latter being moved away from said at least one working tool 10 as a result of the actuation of said movement means Fig. 4, Gonzaga.
Regarding claim 13, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the device according to claim 1, wherein said at least one working tool R1/10 is protruding with respect to said at least one supporting frame T1, Fig. 6 and comprises one fitting element 10a, annotated partial Fig. 2 of said tire and at least one removing element 10b, annotated Fig. 2 extending away from said at least one supporting frame T1 and being mutually movable from each other.
Regarding claim 14, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the device according to claim 13, wherein said fitting element 10a and said removing element 10b are mutually movable around an axis of hinging 13, Gonzaga`605 substantially parallel to said axis of work e.g., 14, Gonzaga`605, Figs. 1-3.
Regarding claim 15, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the device according to claim 14, wherein one of said fitting element 10a, annotated above and said removing element elements 10b is associated idle fixed in rotation with respect to the other around said axis of hinging 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 are 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.
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 a tire fitting/removing device comprising at least one probe and a working tool with a movement means comprising a least one linkage kinematically connected to the probe member and to the working tool, wherein the linkage and the probe are mutually movable in rotation around a first axis substantially parallel to the working axis of the tool and wherein the linkage and the tool are mutually movable in rotation around a second axis substantially parallel to the first axis, 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. Clasquin et al. and Vignoli 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/
January 9, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723