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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Australia on June 28, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the AU 2023902037 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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:
“lifting device” recited in claim 15
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.
The limitation “lifting device” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“device”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“lifting” or ‘for lifting’ and “to engage with the support arm”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “lifting device” is being interpreted so as to comprise ‘a jack,’ as taught by the Specification (paragraphs 17 and 39), or an equivalent 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 15 – 28 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 15 recites the limitation “a first end thereof” in the third paragraph of the body of the claim. It is generally unclear as to what element Applicant intends ‘thereof’ to refer to. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a first end of the support arm.”
Claim 15 further recites the limitation “second end thereof” in the fifth paragraph of the body of the claim. It is generally unclear as to what element Applicant intends ‘thereof’ to refer to. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a second end of the support arm.”
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the first and second ends thereof.” It is generally unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the ‘first and second ends of the tool arm’ or the ‘first and second ends of the support arm,’ each of which have been previously set forth in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the first and second ends of the support arm.”
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the tool arm.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret claim 18 so as to depend upon claim 16, rather than claim 15, which provides proper antecedent basis for the “tool arm.”
Claim 18 further recites the limitation “a vertical plane.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the ‘vertical plane’ previously set forth in claim 15, or whether Applicant intends to set forth a second ‘vertical plane’ which is separate and independent from the ‘vertical plane’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a second vertical plane.”
Claim 18 further recites the limitation “the position of the tool arm.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the post.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret claim 19 so as to depend upon claim 17, rather than claim 15, which provides proper antecedent basis for the “post.”
Claim 19 further recites the limitation “a distal end thereof.” It is generally unclear as to what element Applicant intends ‘thereof’ to refer to. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a distal end of the lower mount arm.”
Claim 19 further recites the limitation “the upper arm.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the upper mount arm.”
Claim 19 further recites the limitation “a lower side thereof.” It is generally unclear as to what element Applicant intends ‘thereof’ to refer to. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a lower side of the upper mount arm.”
Claim 24 recites the limitation “a vertical plane.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the ‘vertical plane’ previously set forth in claim 15, or whether Applicant intends to set forth a second ‘vertical plane’ which is separate and independent from the ‘vertical plane’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation so as to refer to the ‘vertical plane’ previously set forth in claim 1.
Claim 25 recites the limitation of “wherein the support arm is provided with a link member ... the link member is mounted above the support arm ...” It is generally unclear as to how the ‘link member’ can be mounted above the ‘support arm’ if the ‘link member’ is part of the ‘support arm,’ as recited by the limitation. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “wherein a link member ... the link member is mounted above the support arm ...”
Claim 26 recites the limitation “a vertical plane.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to either of the ‘vertical planes’ previously set forth in claims 15 and 24, or whether Applicant intends to set forth a third ‘vertical plane’ which is separate and independent from the ‘vertical planes’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a third vertical plane.”
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.
Claim(s) 15, 20 – 24, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bell (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0017239).
As to claim 15, Bell teaches a component handling device (abstract) comprising: a frame having a plurality of wheels to rest on the ground (figure 1, element 36 being the ‘frame’ and elements 34 being the ‘wheels’; paragraph 27), the frame having a front, a rear, a first side, and a second side (figure 1, front of element 36 being the ‘front,’ rear of element 36 being the ‘rear,’ left side of element 36 being the ‘first side,’ and right side of element 36 being the ‘second side’); a support shaft extending upwardly from the rear of the frame adjacent the first side (figure 1, element 26 being the ‘support shaft’; paragraph 27). Examiner notes “adjacent” is commonly defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “nearby.” Because the support shaft of Bell is ‘near’ the first side of the frame (figure 1, element 26 and left side of element 36), the support shaft is “adjacent” the first side. Bell further teaches a support arm pivotally mounted at a first end of the support arm to the support shaft to rotate through a vertical plane (figure 1, element 24 being the ‘support arm’ and right end of element 24 being the ‘first end of the support arm’; paragraph 27), the support arm extending forwardly from the support shaft (figure 1, elements 24 and 26); a lifting device secured to the rear of the frame to engage with the support arm adjacent the first end of the support arm (figure 1, element 14 being the ‘lifting device’; paragraphs 25 – 28); and a component support secured to a second end of the support arm (figure 1, element 12 being the ‘component support’ and left end of element 24 being the ‘second end of the support arm’; paragraphs 25 and 29); wherein the component support has a mount for holding a component of a wheel (figure 1, element 40 being the ‘mount’; paragraphs 29 – 32), the mount being located between the first and second ends of the support arm on a side of the support arm facing the second side of the frame (figures 1 and 2, element 12, right and left ends of element 24). Examiner notes that this can be found because Bell teaches that the mount is rotatably connected to the support arm (figure 1, elements 12 and 24; paragraph 29). It is the position of the Examiner that this ability to rotate the mount would place the mount such that at least a portion of the mount is between the first and second ends of the support arm (figures 1, 11b, and 12) and extends in a direction toward a side of the support arm facing the second side of the frame (figure 1, elements 40 and right side of element 36).
As to claim 20, Bell further teaches that the frame comprises parallel first and second side members connected together by a rear member (figure 1, left element 36 being the ‘first side member,’ right element 36 being the ‘second side member,’ and rear element 36 being the ‘rear member’).
As to claim 21, Bell teaches that each of the first and second side members and the rear member comprises a tubular member (figure 1, elements 36; paragraph 27).
As to claim 22, Bell teaches that a lower end of the support shaft is secured to a top end of the rear member adjacent the first side member (figure 1, lower end of element 26 being the ‘lower end of the support shaft’ and top surface of rear element 36 being the ‘top end of the rear member’).
As to claim 23, Bell teaches a strut that is provided extending between an outer side of the support shaft and an inner side of the first side member (figure 1, see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
460
571
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 24, Bell teaches that the first end of the support arm is pivotally mounted to an inner side of the support shaft and is mounted to rotate in the vertical plane (figure 1, elements 24 and 26; paragraph 27).
As to claim 28, Bell further teaches the lifting device comprising a jack (figure 1, element 14; paragraphs 25 – 28), a lower end of which is mounted to an upper surface of the rear member adjacent the lower end of the support shaft and an upper end of a piston of the jack being engaged with a pin extending outwardly from an inner side of the support arm adjacent the first end of the support arm (figure 1, elements 14, 36, and 14; paragraphs 25 – 28).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 – 19 and 25 – 27 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claim 16, Bell teaches that the component support includes a tool arm having a first end rotatably secured to the second end of the support arm and a second end located below the support arm (figure 1, element 23 being the ‘tool arm,’ wherein the upper end of element 23 is the ‘first end’ and the lower end of element 23 is the ‘second end’; paragraphs 26 – 27 and 45). Examiner notes that this can be found because Bell teaches that the tool arm is vertically adjustable on the second end of the support arm (figure 1, elements 23 and 24), such that the first end of the tool arm is secured to the second end of the support arm and the second end of the tool arm is below the support arm (figure 1, upper end of element 23, left end of element 24, and lower end of element 23). However, Bell does not teach the second end of the tool arm being between the first and second ends of the support arm, as recited by claim 16.
As to claim 25, Bell teaches a link member pivotally mounted to the support shaft such that the link member and an interconnecting member extending between the link member and the support arm (figure 1, see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
457
621
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Bell does not teach the link member being mounted above the support arm and the interconnecting member extending between distal ends of the link member and the support arm, as recited by claim 25.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hedley (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0109368) teaches a wheel component handling device comprising: a from having a front, a rear, a first side, and a second side; a support shaft extending upwardly from the rear of the frame adjacent the first side; a support arm mounted to a first end of the support arm to the support shaft to rotate through a vertical plane, the support arm extending forwardly from the support shaft; a lifting device to engage with the support arm adjacent the first end of the support arm; and a component support secured to a second end of the support arm; wherein the component support has a mount for holding a component of a wheel.
Fesselier (French Patent Number FR 2700301 A1) teaches a wheel component handling device comprising: a from having a front, a rear, a first side, and a second side; a support shaft extending upwardly from the rear of the frame adjacent the first side; a support arm mounted to a first end of the support arm to the support shaft to rotate through a vertical plane, the support arm extending forwardly from the support shaft; a lifting device secured to the rear of the frame to engage with the support arm adjacent the first end of the support arm; and a component support secured to a second end of the support arm; wherein the component support has a mount for holding a component of a wheel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (EST).
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights