Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 10/28/2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from examination. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 10/28/2025 is acknowledged. The Examiner notes that the applicant indicates the election to be with traverse, however, does not provide any arguments. As such, the Examiner interprets the election to have been made without traverse. Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 18521091, filed 11/28/2023, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: numeral 48 in FIG. 1 as discussed in paragraph [0043]. 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. 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
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph {0043], line 6, the plug base is erroneously referred to as numeral 44. Correct numeral is 42. Appropriate correction is required.
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: cinching mechanism in claim 3.
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 3 recites the limitation of “cinching mechanism” in line 1. The Examiner interprets this under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because (A) the claim uses the placeholder term “mechanism” and (B) the terms “mechanism” is modified by the functional language “cinching” and (C) the term “mechanism” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the function of cinching. The Examiner interprets “cinching mechanism” as numeral 524 in instant FIG. 14 and equivalents thereof.
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 10-11 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the camera" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner replaces the dependency of claim 10 from claim 1 to claim 9, where this limitation is already recited.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the camera" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner replaces the dependency of claim 11 from claim 1 to claim 9, where this limitation is already recited.
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SCHLEGELMILCH (US-2017/0173899), hereinafter SCHLEGELMILCH. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claim 1, SCHLEGELMILCH discloses A tire patching kit for patching a tire positioned on a rim, wherein the tire has an interior and an exterior {[abstract], [FIG. 1] note the exterior of the tire (where 100/120 is) and the interior of the tire (where 120 is)}, the kit comprising:
a plug cable having a first end and a second end {[abstract] note the recovery cable is the plug cable, [FIG. 5] the plug or recovery cable 260 has a first end 264 and second end 268},
wherein the plug cable is sized and shaped to extend through the tire such that the first end of the plug cable is configured to extend through a puncture in the tire and to extend through an opening formed between the tire and the rim without removing the tire from the rim {[abstract] note the recovery cable is used without removing the tire from its rim, [FIG. 5] note the first end 264 has extended through the tear or puncture and since the tire is not removed from its rim and to operate, 264 has to extend through an opening formed between the rim and tire to come out and grab 242},
and wherein at least a portion of the second end is configured to remain exterior to the puncture when the first end of the cable has extended through the puncture {[FIG. 5] note the second end 268 is outside the tire},
a plug having a plug stem that is sized and shaped to be positioned in the puncture, wherein the plug has a plug base extending from the plug stem and configured to position against an interior surface of the tire {[FIG. 2] 120/142 is interpreted as the plug with 142 being the stem (called threaded rod) that is in the puncture as shown in FIG. 1 and 120 is the base (called patch) that as shown in FIG. 1 is in contact with the interior of the tire},
wherein the plug stem is attachable to the first end of the plug cable {[FIG. 5] note that the stem is 242 in this figure, and is connected to 264 or the first end of the plug},
and a compression block configured to apply pressure against the plug base {[FIG. 5] note 146-148 is interpreted as the compression block that eventually applies pressure against the plug base 120},
wherein the second end of the plug cable is movable to cause the plug cable to move through the puncture to pull the plug into the interior of the tire through the opening between the tire and the rim {[FIG. 5] note second end 268 and that it is movable since it has to pull plug stem 242 through inner patch 120 so that 120 can seal the tear},
and wherein the second end of the plug cable is movable so that the plug stem is pulled from the interior of the tire toward the exterior of the tire into the puncture while the compression block secures the plug base flush with the inner surface of the tire {[FIG. 5] note eventually the stem 242 will be pulled through the puncture and as shown in FIG. 1 comes out toward the exterior of the tire and upon tightening, the patch will be flush with the tire}.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHLEGELMILCH, in view of SONG (CN-114379122-A and its English translation), hereinafter SONG.
Regarding claims 9-11, SCHLEGELMILCH discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. SCHLEGELMILCH, however, is silent on a camera, camera cable and that it is attached to one of the ends of the plug cable.
In the same filed of endeavor that is related to tire repair, SONG discloses further comprising a camera to inspect the interior of the tire (claim 9), wherein the camera is attached to an end of the camera cable (claim 10), wherein the camera is attached to at least one of the first end and the second end of the plug cable (claim 11) {[0014] note that in an endoscope the camera is attached at the end of a cable thus, the camera and its cable attached to one end}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incoprtated the endoscopic camera of SONG in the repair kit of SCHLEGELMILCH. As disclosed by SONG, the advantage of this camera is the guiding assistance that it provides for the manual operation of the repair kit {[0028]}. Note that kit of SCHLEGELMILCH can benefit from this endoscopic camera attached to one of the ends of its cable to better help guide the stem 242 through the tear of puncture of the tire {[FIG. 5]}.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 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.
Regarding claim 2, SCHLEGELMILCH fails to disclose a compression cable that attaches to the plug base and that it is movable to secure the compression block again the plug base. The advantage of this additional cable is to be able to move the compression block out of the tire area after the repair is done. In the kit of SCHLEGELMILCH, the compression block remains integral with the plug base and stem and it is not feasible to remove it and thus there is no motivation to modify SCHLEGELMILCH for an additional cable to affect movement of the compression block. Claims 3-8 are dependent on claim 2 and thus contain the allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI whose telephone number is (571)272-1373. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-(alt Fri) 7:30-5:00.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748