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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because (reference character 22 in Fig 2 has no callout directed to the teeth of the housing; and no drawing contains reference character 27 described in paragraph 19 for the side of locking element facing user). 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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: reference characters identifying the hub, housing, arms are inconsistent in the spec e.g. Para 17 hub is incorrectly associated with reference 3; para 18 reference character 3 is incorrectly association with the housing.
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 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.
Specifically, Claim 16, 24, 28, 29 and 30 recite “means for” language:
Claim 16 in line 5 means for language is recited: “means for attaching anti-slip elements”, but lacks sufficient structure for the means in the claim, however the specification in Para 31 and Fig 7 describes structure of the attachment.
Claim 16 in lines 8 means for language is recited “operating means equipped with locking means preventing extension of arms when anti-slip elements are engaged on the tread surface of the tire” with sufficient structure in lines 9-13 immediately following.
Claim 16 in line 13 means for language is recited: “means for limiting the travel of anti-slip elements along the length of the arms during assembly and attachment of anti-slip elements” but lacks sufficient structure for the means however the specification in Para 35 describes structure of the attachment.
Claim 24 in line 2 means for language is recited: “means to be fixed to” but lacks sufficient structure for the means, however Para 36 of the specification recites various structures related to the means language.
Claim 28 in line 2 means for language is recited: “adjustable means for fastening” but lacks sufficient structure for the means, however Para 39 of the specification recites various structures related to the means language.
Claim 29 and 30 in line 2 means for language is recited: “adjustable means” recite with sufficient structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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.
Claims 16-30 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 16, the recitation “main anti-slip elements” is indefinite as it is unclear if these are the same or different from the “detachable anti-slip elements” in line 3 of Claim 16. For the purposes of examining, Examiner has interpreted ‘”main anti-slip elements” to be any additional anti-slip element attached to the at least three arms.
Regarding Claim 17, is indefinite because it depends upon cancelled claim 15. Examiner suggests changing claim 17 to be dependent upon claim 16.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being by anticipated by US-2873783-A to O’Higgins (“O’Higgins”).
Regarding Claim 16, O’Higgins discloses a traction and anti-skid device (Col 1 lines 15-17, Fig 1, 2) for limited and emergency use (Col 2 lines 7-9) on wheel tires for easy assembly use and storage (Col 2 lines 7-9), the said device comprising of a main body and housing (18 “central casing”, 16 “central plate” with 19 “shaft” extending therefrom) with protruding arms (13 rack members”) and detachable (removably connected in 12 “sleeve” by 14 “set screw” Col 1lines 46-49, Col 2 lines 7-9, Fig 1, 2 ) anti-slip elements (10 “traction hook” with 11 “shaft portion” [i.e. arm] and 13 “rack members” [i.e. teeth]), wherein; a plurality of at least three arms (five tractions hooks with integral 11 shaft portions arms Col 1 lines 46, Fig 1) is held within a main housing (18 “central casing” and rotatable 16 “central plate with 17 “spiral threads” [i.e. locking means element of housing] ) and protruding radially therefrom with means for attaching (radially outer hook portion integrally attached to 10) anti-slip elements, a hub (rotatable 16 “central plate with 17 “spiral threads” [i.e. locking means element of housing]) and shaft extending therefrom Col 1 lines 60-63 ) rotatable within the housing, rotatable by a handle (wrench or other operating handle or tool” applied to 20 “square or other flatside end”, Col 1 lines 62-64) whereas to allow the extension or contraction of said arms (Col 2 lines 1-5), operating means equipped with locking means (12 “sleeve” in which 11 shaft portion of 10 traction hooks slide; 15 “coil spring/resilient means” restraining inward movement of 10” i.e. means for limiting travel;14 “set screw” and 13 “rack member” of 10) preventing extension of arms when anti-slip elements are engaged on the tread surface of the tire, there are locking means (13 “rack members” engaging 17 “spiral thread’ of 16 ) of the movement of the arms which comprise of a locking element (17 “spiral thread” of 16 [i.e. of housing], 13 “rack members” of hooks) located between the hub and the housing the locking element (17 “spiral threads”) being operable into a position where teeth (“12 “rack members”) engage with a second set of teeth (17 “spiral threads”) located along the inner periphery of the housing, and whereas the arms, have a means for limiting the travel (14 “set screw” and 15 “coil spring” , 13 “rack members) of anti-slip elements along the length of the arms during assembly and attachment of anti-slip elements (Col 1 lines 60-Col 2 lines 1-5), and wherein anti-slip elements are prepared for additional anti-slip elements to be fixed to and between main anti-slip elements (Col 2 lines 23-26).
Regarding Claim 24, O’Higgins discloses the anti-skid device according to claim 16, wherein additional anti-slip elements are available( as many as might be deemed suitable, Col 2 lines 22-26) and have means to be fixed to and between main anti-slip elements.
Regarding Claim 25, O’Higgins discloses the anti-skid device according to claim 16, wherein additional anti-slip elements (as many as might be deemed suitable, Col 2 lines 22-26) are provided in different sizes to fit a variety of wheel sizes (addition of more elements would accommodate wheels of various diameters/sizes, “deemed suitable” of Col 2 lines 22-26).
Claim(s) 16-18, 22-23, 26-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being by anticipated by KR-20040014677-A to Kim (“Kim”).
Regarding Claim 16, Kim (NPL U with more complete English Translation Para 1-21, 30-58 and clearer images) discloses a traction and anti-skid device (“anti slip device mounted on tire”, Para 17 Fig 2) for limited and emergency use (“when driving on snowy or icy roads”, Para 17 Fig 2) on wheel tires (10, dashed outline , Fig 2) for easy assembly use and storage ( “easy to attach/detach” Para 17), the said device comprising of a main body and housing (112) with protruding arms (140 “rack” having radial outer 142 hooks and radially inner 143 rack [i.e. teeth] shown Fig 2) and detachable anti-slip elements (24 “friction members”, , Para 39-42, Fig 2, Fig 4), wherein; a plurality of at least three arms (Four 140 “racks”, with 143 rack [i.e. teeth] shown Fig 2) is held within a main housing (110 with cover 130 Fig 2, 4 ) and protruding radially therefrom with means for attaching (via 142 to 22 to 24 via wire Para 39, Fig 2) anti-slip elements (24 ”friction member” upon 22 “towing bar”, Para 39, Fig 2), a hub (126 central “sun gear”) rotatable within the housing (in 110 upon 112 “sun gear rotation shaft”, Para 49), rotatable by a handle (“a rod member, such as a rod or screwdriver to rotate the 122 ”rotating part”, Para 49, Para 54 ) whereas to allow the extension or contraction of said arms, operating means (100 “motion conversion mechanism” including shafts 112, 113, 114 and gears 127 126 128, para 39, 43, 44-54, Fig 2, 4): including equipped with locking means (122, 124, 134, 136, 125, Para 44-54) preventing extension of arms when anti-slip elements are engaged on the tread surface of the tire, there are locking means (134, 135, 136 allow 122 “rotating part” via 125 “spring” to engages [i.e. first position] or disengages [i.e. second position] 122 from 126 , Para 49- 50) of the movement of the arms (142 via 140 move when 122 and 126 engage, Para 47) which comprise of a locking element (122 and 126 engage/disengage via 125 Para 44-54) located between (Fig 4 ) the hub and the housing the locking element (122) being operable into a position (125 spring is compressed, 122 engages [i.e. first position] with and rotates 126 which engages 127, Para 44-54) where teeth (122 and 126) engage with (Para 47) a second set of teeth (teeth on 127 128 ) located along the inner periphery of the housing, and whereas the arms, have a means for limiting the travel (via locking means, travel or 140 is limited) of anti-slip elements along the length of the arms during assembly and attachment of anti-slip elements, and wherein anti-slip elements are prepared for additional anti-slip elements to be fixed to and between main anti-slip elements (Para 39 describes a first and a second 24, attached to 22, the second being an additional anti-slip element, Fig 2, Para 39, 42).
Regarding Claim 17, Kim discloses the anti-skid device according to claim 16, but does not disclose wherein said locking element is movable between a first position where the teeth engage the housing teeth and a second position out of contact with the teeth (as described in paragraph 18 of this document).
Regarding Claim 18, Kim discloses the anti-skid device according to claim 17, wherein the teeth of locking element are sloped (all locking element teeth of 122, 126, as well as housing 127 128, are sloped, Fig 4) so to more easily interlock with corresponding teeth in the housing.
Regarding Claim 22, Kim discloses the anti-skid device according to claim 16, wherein said anti-slip element is held in a wire hoop (wire (not shown), having both ends connection [i.e. hoop], secured to 24 “friction members” Para 39, Fig 2) with ends that fits into a bracket (22 “towing bar”, Para 39, 42, Fig 2) removably connected at the end of the arm making anti-slip elements detachable from arms for compact storage.
Regarding Claim 23, Kim discloses the anti-skid device according to claim 16, wherein the arms, have a spring loaded stop and release button for limiting the travel of anti-slip elements along the length of the arms.
Regarding Claim 26, Kim discloses the anti-skid device according to claim 16, wherein additional anti-slip elements are made of heavy duty textile or flexible rubber (Para 41) like material, but does not disclose additional anti-slip elements equipped with metal studs.
Regarding Claim 27, Kim discloses the anti-skid device according to claim 16, wherein additional anti-slip elements are made of a flexible string, wire, chain (metal chain, Para 41) and or wire mesh.
Regarding Claim 28, Kim discloses the anti-skid device according to claim 16, wherein additional anti-slip elements have adjustable means for fastening to anti-slip elements (metal chain added to increase or decrease the length or quantity of the friction members, constitutes an adjustment to quantity or length thereof, Para 41).
Regarding Claim 29, Kim discloses the anti-skid device according to claim 28, wherein adjustable means comprise of a hook and loop material (BRI: hook and loop material, a material having hooks and loops; metal chain, Kim Para 41; it is known in the art that chains commonly are connected by terminal a hooks).
Regarding Claim 30, Kim discloses the anti-skid device according to claim 28, wherein adjustable means comprise of hook (142 Fig 4) is attached with flexible means (142 are on outer end of 140, having adjustable length, i.e. adjustable means; the anti-slip elements are attached to 22 that are attached to hooks, as described in paragraph 18 of this document)
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 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.
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of US-8113252-B2 to Reil (“Reil”).
Regarding Claim 19, Kim discloses the anti-skid device according to claim 17, wherein the locking element includes a rib (122 shows a flat rib like portion, Fig 4) protruding through a window (123 “insertion hole” a circular window in cover, Fig 4, Para 48), in the hub whereas the hub is rotated using a handle and a crank the handle interfacing with teeth (described in paragraph 18 of this document) but does not disclose, said the handle being a hinged handle.
Reil discloses a handle (115 “tensioning handle”, Col 3 lines 61-67, Col 4 lines 1-6 Fig 1a, 3b ) for a tire traction device (100), wherein the handle and crank is a hinged handle (318 “hinge”, Col 6 lines 22-25, Fig 3b), stowable in a recess ( 316 “recess”, Col 6 lines 9-16) in the housing.
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the anti-skid device and the hinged handle in a single combined apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the anti-skid device (of Kim) and teaching of the hinged handle of Reil, to modify the handle of the anti-skid device of Kim, such that it is a hinged handle hingedly and integrally attached (like Reil) to 122 [thus the handle would include teeth on 122 interfacing with the housing], and stowable in recess in housing (like Reil) with the motivation have to reduce the number of separate parts, and to be conveniently attached to and stowable in housing for greater convenience, having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Kim and Reil discloses the anti-skid device according to claim 19, wherein the handle can be folded into a recess in the hub (as described in paragraph 31 of this document).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Kim and Reil discloses the anti-skid device according to claim 16, wherein said anti-slip element is equipped on its inner and outer surfaces with multiple studs irregularly spaced (24 has studs [angled pointed shapes] with diagonal spacing that varies between axial sides of outer surface; Fig 2).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Mast (DE-202004004887-U1), Palmer (US-6341635-B1), Laub (US-5513684-A), Dondurer (US-20120153707-A1), Furu (US-11938763-B2) , Regensburger (US-4209049-A), unnamed inventor (DE-202004004887-U1), Abry (WO-2021080435-A1, NO-20191262-A1), Wang (CN-209904464-U), Ricciardi (EP-0030521-A1), and Bennett (GB-2272193-A) disclose anti-skid devices for vehicle wheels having one or more of: housing, arms, anti-slip elements, locking elements, pivoting crank handles, teeth, with means for operating, locking and limiting travel of anti-slip elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVA LYNN COMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Joe Morano can be reached at 571-272-6684. 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.
/EVA L COMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights