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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 1 recites the limitation "the at least one pinch roller" in the second clause. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9,073,394 B1 to (Clasquin et al.).
(Clasquin et al.) disclose tire changing machines including force and position sensors facilitating automated detection of wheel rim and tire features by a controller. Dimensional and location information for features of interest may be detected and recorded for use by the controller to perform tire change procedures. Positioning error and malfunctioning machine components, including feedback sensors, may also be detected in an automated manner. (see Abstract)
Regarding claim 1: (Clasquin et al.) disclose at least one roller (one or more tire changing tools 116 and 117, pressing tool 156) driven by a driver (Col. 7, lines 55-67; Col. 8, lines 1-46) and configured to apply force to a tire of a wheel assembly; a feedback component (force detection elements 128 (FIG. 1b) and position detection elements 129 (FIG. 1a)) configured to detect a force of the tire against at least one roller (116); and a controller (control unit 120) configured to receive the force from the feedback component and generate a command for an alert in response to the force falling outside of a predefined threshold range (Col. 6, lines 46-64; Col. 9, lines 24-67; Col. 11, lines 10-21).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 8,186,215 B2 to (Douglas et al.).
(Douglas et al.) disclose a method and system for a wheel assembly service system. The system further includes a load device configured to apply a load to the tire during a rotation of the wheel assembly on the spindle, and a controller configured to determine a first force variation vector of the wheel assembly, initiating rotation of the tire with respect to the rim, determine a second force variation vector of the wheel assembly with the tire rotated with respect to the rim, and determine a force variation of at least one of the tire and the wheel using the first and second force variation vectors. The system also outputs at least one of the determined force variation vector values.
Regarding claim 1, the system of (Douglas et al.) comprises: at least one roller (load roller 108) driven by a driver and configured to apply force to a tire 107 of a wheel assembly (see Col. 3, lines 38-62); a feedback component (sensors 121 and/or 126) configured to detect a force of the tire 107 against the at least one roller 108 (Col. 4, lines 28-35); and a controller 122 configured to receive the force from the feedback component and generate a command for an alert in response to the force falling outside of a predefined threshold range (claim 6 of the document).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal
disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,446,971 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the patent describes a bead exerciser system…comprising: at least one roller driven by a driver and configured to apply force to a tire of the wheel assembly; a feedback component configured to detect a force of the tire against the .
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,097,730 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the patent describes a bead exerciser system, comprising: at least one roller driven by a driver and configured to apply force to a tire of a wheel assembly; a feedback component configured to detect a force of the tire against the at least one roller; and a controller configured to receive the force from the feedback component and generate a command for an alert in response to the force falling outside of a predefined threshold range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as describing features relevant to the present disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David B. Thomas whose telephone number is (571) 272-4497. The examiner’s e-mail address is: dave.thomas@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 11:30-7:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached on (. The fax phone 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.
/David B. Thomas/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DBT/
Prosecution Insights