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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 8 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/24/2023 were filed before the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 – 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 2 – 8 recite “the tool for driving out a chain pin” and should recite “the tool for driving out the chain pin”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5 and 6 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.
Regarding claim 5, the term "like" in the limitation hook or lever tire-like engagement renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of examination the limitation will be examined as hook or lever tire engagement.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the boundary contour” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as “a boundary contour”.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhuang (TW201325766 A).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Zhuang teaches a tool for driving a chain pin out of a chain link (chain fastening tool, 1; Page 21), comprising: a handle body (shell, 10) which extends along a longitudinal axis (Page 21) and has a positioning element (abutment, 30) at a first end along the longitudinal axis (Page 31); and a press-out device (body, 20) having an upper and a lower projection (two insertion portions, 251; Paragraph [0018]), each of the upper and lower projections delimiting an intermediate element connecting the two upper and lower projections (placement area, 25, Page 27) wherein through bores coaxial (Pages 26 and 27 bores found at 252) with one another are provided in the two upper and lower projections (251) and a driving screw (40) with a press plunger (adjustment part, 42) is screwed into the upper projection at an end (second end, 202) thereof oriented towards the lower projection (Page, 26), wherein the handle body (10) has, at the first end along the longitudinal axis, a guide device (32) extending the handle body (10) along the longitudinal axis (Fig. 31) in which the press-out device (20) is movably mounted along the longitudinal axis of the handle body (10; Fig. 32) between a first position (Page 30), in which the positioning element (30) and the intermediate element (25) of the press-out device (20) form a chain space for positioning the chain link (Page 30), and a second position (Page 31), in which the press-out device (20) is spaced apart from the positioning element (30).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhuang teaches the tool for driving the chain pin out of a chain link (chain fastening tool, 1; Page 21) wherein the handle body (10) forms, at the first end along the longitudinal axis a recess (second hollow part, 15) which lengthens the handle body (10) in the direction of the longitudinal axis (via 30, housed in recess) and is delimited by side walls (Page 28), wherein the guide device (32) is integrated into the side walls (Page 31).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhuang (TW201325766 A).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhuang teaches the tool for driving the chain pin out of a chain link according to claim 1 as discussed above.
Zhuang does not teach wherein the press-out device can be fixed in the first position against the handle body by a magnet; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zhuang to further include a magnet, as claimed, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 4, Zhuang teaches the tool for driving the chain pin out of a chain link (chain fastening tool, 1; Page 21) wherein the positioning element (30) has a circular recess (33) and is formed on the handle body (10) in such a way that an edge (322) is formed between the positioning element (30) and the handle body (10; Page 30) , the edge (322) delimiting a support surface (Page 30) for a chain link (61) positioned in the chain space (25) towards the handle body (10).
Zhuang does not teach a semicircular recess; however; it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zhuang to further include a magnet, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 5, Zhuang teaches the tool for driving the chain pin out of a chain link (chain fastening tool, 1; Page 21) wherein a hook or lever tire engagement element (52) of a tire lifter (Paragraph [0023]) is formed at the second end of the handle body remote from the guide device (32).
Zhuang teaches the component formed separate from the body at a second end and not on the handle body, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zhuang to further include a magnet, as claimed, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 6, Zhuang teaches the tool for driving the chain pin out of a chain link (chain fastening tool, 1; Page 21) wherein a recess (14) is formed in a region between the first and the second end (Page 32) of the handle body (10), a boundary contour of which the handle body (10) as well as the recess (14) thereof in relation to a surface of the handle body (10) correspond to an outer contour as well as a component thickness of a chain lock or replacement chain link (recess is capable of corresponding to an outer contour as well as a component thickness of a chain lock or replacement chain link as shown on Page 22).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhuang (TW201325766 A) in view of Tsai (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0077002 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Zhuang teaches the tool for driving the chain pin out of a chain link according to claim 1 as discussed above.
Zhuang does not teach the tool for driving out a chain pin wherein at least one element for gripping a tire valve is formed in a side of one of the two upper and lower projections of the press-out facing away from the intermediate element.
Ichikawa, however, teaches at least one element (72) for gripping a tire valve (Paragraph [0043]) is formed in a side of one of the two upper and lower projections (70) of the press-out facing away from the intermediate element (74).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zhuang to further include at least one element for gripping a tire valve, as taught by Ichikawa, to provide a device that incorporates all repair aspect of a tire wheel, thus preventing the loss of individual components.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhuang (TW201325766 A) in view of Conley (U. S. Patent 1,335,092 A).
Regarding Claim 8, Zhuang teaches the tool for driving the chain pin out of a chain link according to claim 1 as discussed above.
Zhuang does not teach the tool for driving out a chain pin wherein at least one nipple tensioner is formed in a side of one of the two upper and lower projections of the press-out device facing away from the intermediate element.
Conley, however, teaches at least one nipple tensioner (9) is formed in a side of one of the two upper and lower projections (Ridges formed on 4; Fig. 1) of the press-out device (4) facing away from the intermediate element (U-shaped spaces between ridged formed in 4; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zhuang to further include a nipples tension, as taught by Conley, to provide a device that incorporates all repair aspect of a tire wheel, thus preventing the loss of individual components.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723