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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heineke (US 1542133) in view of Thostenson (US 2873777), Hessels (US 4093006), and Manley (US 1793864).
Regarding claim 1, Heineke discloses a wheel rim clamping device (as shown in fig. 5; pp. 5, ll. 12-28) for clamping a wheel rim (pp. 5, col. 1, ll. 49- 65), comprising:
a base (10; fig. 5; pp. 3, ll. 80- 90) having a bottom plate (the bottom part of the base plate, as annotated in fig. 6 below; pp. 3, ll. 80- 90), a vertical post (11; fig. 5; pp. 3, ll. 80- 90) extending upward from a center of the bottom plate (as shown in fig. 5; pp. 3, ll. 80- 90), and three guide rods (14’; fig. 5; pp. 5, ll. 69-79) arranged horizontally (as seen in fig. 5, guide rod horizontally extend; pp. 3, ll. 81-89, pp. 3, ll. 80- 83 states like parts are identified by the same reference characters) and radiating angularly apart from the vertical tube (fig. 5 shows that each guide rod are a certain angle apart from each other ; pp. 3, ll. 80- 90)
three clamping jaws (52; fig. 5; pp. 5, ll. 29- 40), each of which is slidably (fig. 5; pp. 5, ll. 56- 65, clamping jaw slides in 30’, pp. 2, ll. 19- 34) and correspondingly mounted on one of the guide rods (mounted on each guide rod as seen in fig. 5; pp. 5, ll. 56- 65), wherein the wheel rim is allowed to be placed between the clamping jaws (pp. 5, col. 1, ll. 49- 65);
a linkage mechanism (20’ and 39; fig. 5; pp. 5, col. 1, ll. 80- 89) having a triangular plate (20’; fig. 5; pp. 5, col. 1, ll. 80- 89) rotatable around the vertical post (as shown in fig. 2, the vertical post, 11, upwardly extends to the top of the plate. Heineke states in pp. 5, ll. 12-20 that the structure and function is the same between the two embodiments except for the slide mechanism and the shape of the rotor, thus as annotated in fig. 5 below, the rotor is rotating around the vertical post; pp. 2, ll. 104-117) and three curved rods (39, figs. 1 and 5, the 1st embodiment provides curved ends for the rods, pp. 3, ll. 80- 83 states like parts are identified by the same reference characters which indicates in fig. 5, the 2nd embodiment also shares rods with curved ends), respectively, provided corresponding with the clamping jaws (as seen in fig. 7, curved rods are connected to sliding block 30’ which the jaws sit upon, allowing them all to correspond together; pp. 5, ll. 29-33), wherein one end of each curved rod is connected with the corresponding clamping jaw (fig. 5; curved rods are connected to sliding block 30’ which the jaws sit upon, allowing them all to correspond together; pp. 5, ll. 29-33) and the other end of each curved rod is pivotally connected with the triangular plate (fig. 5; pp. 4, ll. 62- 70); and
a drive mechanism (6, 18, 25, 50, 51; fig. 5; pp. 5, ll. 12- 29) having a nut (51; fig. 5; pp. 5, ll. 12- 29) fixed on one of the clamping jaws (fig. 5; pp. 5, ll. 12- 29, a nut is fixed to clamping jaw via intermediate components, if intention was to have the nut directly fixed onto the clamping jaw, such limitation is not required for the functionality of the claimed invention) and a screw rod (25’; fig. 5; pp. 5, ll. 12- 29) provided on one of the guide rods (as seen in fig. 5, screw rod is provided on one of the guide rods via intermediate components; pp. 5, ll. 12- 29) and screwed to the nut (fig. 5; pp. 5, ll. 12- 29);
wherein when the wheel rim is placed on the clamping device and the screw rod is rotated (fig. 5; pp. 5, ll. 55- 65) to drive the nut (fig. 5; pp. 5, ll. 12- 29) and the clamping jaws (fig. 5; pp. 5, ll. 55- 65, when the slide 30’ moves, the jaw moves as well), the clamping jaws are simultaneously slid (fig. 5; pp. 5, ll. 55- 65) relatively close to each other (fig. 5; pp. 5, ll. 55- 65, jaws are able to be slid inward to be close to each other) on the guide rods (fig. 5; pp. 3, ll. 81-92) through the linkage between the curved rods and the triangular plate(fig. 5; pp. 2, ll. 104-117), thereby clamping the wheel rim (fig. 5; pp. 2, ll. 104-117).
PNG
media_image1.png
284
457
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
274
298
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Though, Heineke discloses a vertical post, Heineke does not disclose a vertical tube (which, by definition, is hollow). Though, Thostenson (US 2873777), concerned with the art of a clamping device for a wheel, discloses a vertical tube (12; fig. 5; col. 2, ll. 15- 26). Both Heineke and Thostenson are concerned with the art of a clamping device for a wheel rim, therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the vertical post, as taught by Heineke, to that of a vertical tube, as taught by Thostenson, for the known and predictable result of supporting the clamping elements.
Though, Heineke appears to show, in fig. 5, guide rods radiating at equal angles, it is not explicitly stated. Though, Hessels (US 4093006), concerned with the art of a clamping device for a wheel rim, teaches guide rods (33; fig. 2; col. 2, 13- 25) radiating at equal angles (col. 1, ll. 18- 34). Both Heineke and Hessels are concerned with the art of a clamping device for a wheel, therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the guide rods, as taught by Heineke, at equal angles, as taught by Hessels, to provide equal simultaneous force onto the wheel rim.
Though Heineke discloses where one end of the curved rod is connected with the corresponding clamping jaw, Heineke does not explicitly disclose wherein one end of each curved rod is pivotally connected with the corresponding clamping jaw. However, Manley (US 1793864), concerned with the art of a clamping device for a wheel, teaches wherein one end of each curved rod is pivotally connected with the corresponding clamping jaw (Manley, figs. 1 and 7; pp. 4, ll. 110- 125). Both Heineke and Manley are concerned with the art of a clamping device for a wheel rim, therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the end of the curved rod, as taught by Heineke, to pivotably connect with the corresponding clamping jaw, as taught by Manley, since it is a known means in the art to provide adaptable and simultaneous movement between parts.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heineke (US 1542133) in view of Thostenson (US 2873777), Hessels (US 4093006), and Manley (US 1793864) further in view of Foster (US 3056449).
Regarding claim 2, Heineke in view of Thostenson, Hessels, and Manley teach the limitations of claim 1, as described above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the clamping device further has an upright guide bar fixed in the vertical tube and protruding upward, which is used to guide the wheel rim to be placed between the clamping jaws.
However, Foster (US 3056449), concerned with the art of a wheel rim clamping apparatus, teaches wherein an upright guide bar (14, Foster; fig. 1; col. 1, ll. 63- 71), protrudes upwards (fig. 1, Foster; col. 1, ll. 63- 71) and is used which is used to guide the wheel rim to be placed between the clamping jaws.
Both Foster and Heineke (US 1542133) in view of Thostenson (US 2873777), Hessels (US 4093006), and Manley (US 1793864), are concerned with the art of a wheel rim clamping apparatus, therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the vertical tube, as taught by Heineke (US 1542133) in view of Thostenson (US 2873777), Hessels (US 4093006), and Manley (US 1793864), to upwardly extend, as taught by Foster, as a means to center a tire and wheel assembly (fig. 1, Foster; col. 1, ll. 63- 71).
Heineke in view of Thostenson, Hessels, and Manley further in view of Foster (US 3056449) discloses the claimed invention except for the upright bar fixed in the vertical tube. Though, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the vertical tube separable and the top portion being a bar, so that the upright bar would be fixed in the vertical tube, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art (Reference MPEP 2144.04 (V-C) Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T. FARRELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0401. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 5PM.
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 at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/MICHAEL THADDUES FARRELL JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights