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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The phrase “means” is used in line 7.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 line 16, the phrase “the” should appear before “handle”; Claim 13 line 1, the phrase “that” should be deleted. 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 8-14 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 8 recites the limitation "the tread surface" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the ground" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the vehicle" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the key" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the inside wall" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, it is unclear which locking means is being addressed, the recited “the locking means” is understood from the specification as feature 24 which is not operated by a key, rather locking means 30 is operated by a key, thus it appears the recited “the locking means” should be changed to “the further locking means”, as it is this locking feature that is engaged by a key.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the width" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2620672 A1 to Mizuno et al. in view of US 8,099,984 to Wu.
Re-claim 8, Mizuno et al. teach a device for preventing rotation of a vehicle wheel, comprising: a housing 1; three arms 3 are held within the housing and protrude in a radial direction, the arms are equipped with removably attachable grip elements 6a to be arranged on a tread surface 5a of a tire 5; the grip elements are equipped with means (such as elements 6) for engagement with a ground surface to prevent removal (or movement) of the vehicle; operating means (internal gear structure and 35, see figures 2 and 5) to allow the extension or contraction of the arms; the operating means is equipped with locking means (such as lock, see figure 4) capable of preventing the extension of the arms when engaged; a hub 24b is rotatable within the housing; the hub operated by using a handle 35c and a crank 35. However, Mizuno et al. fail to teach the handle that can be (which is optional, as the phrase “can be” is not definitive) folded into a recess in the hub; with the device equipped with a further locking means arranged to prevent the removal of the handle from the recess.
Wu teaches a wheel locking device having a handle and crank arrangement with a locking means (such as placement within a recess) that prevents an extension and contraction of an arm, when the handle is placed within a recess, the device is further equipped with a further locking means 5/51 that prevents removal of the handle from the recess. This arrangement allows the handle to remain with the wheel locking mechanism, as well as a retracted storage for the handle so as to prevent damage to the handle when not in use. The handle arrangement when having been used with the wheel locking device of Mizuno et al. would have provided a readily available handle stored within a recess of the hub, thus eliminating the need for carrying an a separate handle and crank mechanism. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the separate handle and crank mechanism of Mizuno et al. with an integral handle and crank mechanism of the type taught by Wu, as this would have provided the wheel locking device of Mizuno et al. with an integrally formed and provided handle and crank mechanism, which reduces the need for carrying a separate handle and crank.
Re-claims 9 and 10, Wu teaches the locking means (or further locking means) engaged and disengaged using a key; in addition, Wu teaches that turning a key moves a tongue 51 that engages a slot 23 formed in the handle.
Re-claim 11, Mizuno et al. show extensions (sidewalls of element 6) that extend behind and over at least a portion of an inside wall of a tire (see figure 2). However, Mizuno et al. is silent regarding the range of the extension, such as 30 mm to 100 mm. Selecting a value of between 30 and 100 mm is considered an engineering or design choice, one that is selected based upon various conditions such as overall tire height, such that the extension covers a sufficient portion of the tire sidewall. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and as a matter of design choice to have formed the extension with a range of between 30 and 100 mm, as this range is not indicated as solving any problem in the art or is indicated for any particular reason, and this range would have allowed the wheel locking device to hold and restrain the tire in a sufficient manner.
Re-claim 12, the ground engaging means is equipped with a protrusion (see bar portion 3 that extends over the outer surface of element 6, figure 1) to prevent removal (or movement) of the vehicle.
Re-claim 13, Mizuno et al. fail to specify the length of the protrusion as being between 40 and 300 mm. One factor dictating the length of the protrusion would be the size of the tire. Selecting a value of between 40 and 300 mm for the protrusion would have provided the protrusion with sufficient length, as thus surface area for maintaining the wheel in position, and thus not allowing the wheel to easily move. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and as a matter of design choice to have designed the protrusion with a length of between 40 and 300 mm, as this range is not indicated as solving any problem in the art or is indicated for any particular reason, and this range would have allowed the wheel locking device to hold and restrain the tire in a sufficient manner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ramsauer and Kaiser et al. each teach a handle stored in a recess and locked against removal. Van Heerden, Jeppesen, West and Jennison each teach a wheel locking device.
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128.
The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Robert Siconolfi, can be reached at 571-272-7124. The fax phone number for the
organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding
should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW /THOMAS J WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 October 2, 2026
