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.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: connection means configured to, means for moving, connecting rod means, driving means comprising at least…in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “able to” and claim 6 recited “can slide”, which are terminologies not positively reacting a feature. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bartoli (2010/0243173).
PNG
media_image1.png
263
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bartoli discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, i.e., a device for removing tires from/onto rims comprising:
- connection means 3, Fig. 10 partially shown here configured to receive a support rod 2b provided in a tire removing machine;
- a hook 9 able to be introduced between a bead of a tire and an edge of a rim on which the tire is mounted;
- means 2d for moving said hook alternatively between a position external to said bead of a tire Fig. 1 and edge of the rim and an inserted position Fig. 10, according to a trajectory constrained by 18 of movement over said edge without contact, said movement means comprising:
- first connecting rod means 16 for dragging said hook;
- second connecting rod means 15 for guiding said hook;
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (HINGE PIN)]- driving means 21 rotatably integral Figs. 6-7 with said first connecting rod means 16 by means of a transverse pin annotated partial Fig. 10,
wherein said driving means comprise at least one command element driven either manually or automatically.
Regarding claim 2, PA (prior art, Bartoli) meets the limitations, i.e., the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein said hook 9 has a body which defines a lower end shaped as a crook Fig. 10.
Regarding claim 3, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the device as claimed in claim 2, wherein said hook comprises a zone upper zone, opposite to said lower end, to which a first end of said second connecting rod means 15 is hinged by means of a respective hinge pin annotated partial Fig. 10, above.
[AltContent: textbox (HINGE PIN)]Regarding claim 4, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein said hook 9 comprises a median fulcrum zone to which a second end of said first connecting rod means is hinged by means of a hinge pin annotated partial Fig. 10.
Regarding claim 5, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the device as claimed in claim 3, wherein said second connecting rod means 15 comprise a second end, @17 opposite to said first end @ hinge pin, which is connected to a transverse pin 17, the ends of which can slide guided bilaterally in corresponding slots 18 which face each other in a specular manner and are formed in the transverse thicknesses of respective flanges 5a, 5b slots for both plates/flanges for the alternative embodiment [0084].
Regarding claim 6, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein said first connecting rod means 16 comprise a head defined by the round left corner, Fig. 10 defining an opening keyed onto said transverse pin. Note that limitations from specification are not read into the claims, and “keyed” is considered met by the integration or coupling of the pin and the opening.
Regarding claim 11, PA meets the limitations, i.e., a tire changing machine, further comprising the device for removing and mounting tires from/onto rims as claimed in claim 1 Fig. 1.
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.
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 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartoli in view of Goracy (6,276,423) and Ochoa (7,866,365).
PNG
media_image4.png
469
346
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Bartoli meets all of the limitations of claim 7, except for said command element to be manually driven and comprises a lever equipped with an end able to be gripped and having a body with an adjustable length.
Goracy teaches portable tire bead breaker having a manual actuator comprising a lever 25 to be gripped. 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 Bartoli with manual actuating lever as taught by Goracy to provide a portable tire changing machine.
Combination meets the claim, except for the handle to be adjustable.
PNG
media_image5.png
469
276
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Ochoa teaches a portable tire demounting tool having a telescopic handle 312. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to further modify the modified invention of Bartoli and Goracy with telescopic handle/lever as taught by Ochoa to able the device to be adjustable for a reach of a user.
Regarding claim 8, PA (prior art, Bartoli modified by Goracy and Ochoa) meets the limitations, i.e., telescopic handle.
Regarding claim 9, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the device as claimed in claim 7, comprising a bracket 24 keyed onto [[said transverse pin]] a first connection means 21 and a bushing 35 attached to said bracket 24 and configured to accommodate the end of said lever telescoping lever 25, as modified on the opposite side with respect to said grippable end 26, Fig. 1, except for the bracket to be keyed into the transvers pin.
[AltContent: textbox (TRVS PIN)]Bartoli’s arrangement or configuration is adapted for the actuator to engage the second connecting means 15, however modifying the device by engaging the actuator with the first connecting means, as an alternative means of achieving the same results would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, requiring routine experimentations with predictable results and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikes, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartoli.
[AltContent: textbox (TRVS PIN)] Bartoli meets the limitations of claim 10, i.e., the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein said command element is automatically driven pneumatic/hydraulic jack and comprises an actuator mounted integral with said tire removing machine and having another rod 21 which is articulated, at a distal end thereof, to a concurrent end of third connecting rod means 22, which have an opposite end in turn articulated to said second connecting rod means 15 by means of said transverse pin annotated, Fig. 10 meeting the claim, except for connecting to the second connecting means instead of the first connecting means.
Bartoli’s arrangement or configuration is adapted for the actuator to engage the second connecting means 15, however modifying the device by engaging the actuator with the first connecting means, as an alternative means of achieving the same results would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, requiring routine experimentations with predictable results and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikes, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon at this time, are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Magnani, Tran and Corghi 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/
June 24, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights