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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 14, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhns (US 3,865,264 A) in view of Lai (CN 201169246 Y).
Regarding claim 1, Kuhns discloses a spare tire anti-theft device for a vehicle (Fig 1), the device comprising: a latch (71A) configured to move between a locked configuration (Fig. 6) that prevents a tire hoist from releasing a spare tire from a tire storage space and an unlocked configuration (Fig. 7) that allows the tire hoist to release the spare tire from the tire storage space; a lug (93) operable between a first position and a second position; and a mechanical line (71B) including a first end operatively connected to the latch (71A) and a second end operatively connected to the lug (93), the mechanical line causing the latch to move from the locked configuration (Fig. 6) to the unlocked configuration (Fig. 7) when the lug is moved from the first position to the second position so that the tire hoist can release the spare tire from the tire storage space (Col. 3; Ll. 36-48).
Kuhns demonstrates a lock mechanism including an extending lug (93) rather than a lever.
Lai demonstrates a similar lock mechanism including a lever (22) to act on a latch (23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Kuhns and use the teaching of Lai and replace the lug with a lever to interact with the mechanical line because such a change would have required a mere choice of one known lock barrel interaction structure for another and would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kuhns discloses a ratchet gear (55) configured to operatively connect to a winch drum (41) so as to rotate in a first direction when the winch drum winds the spare tire into the tire storage space and in a second direction when the winch drum releases the spare tire from the tire storage space (Col. 5; Ll. 25-34), and the latch includes a pawl (fig. 6, 71) that is biased (via 73) into the ratchet gear in the locked configuration and moved away from the ratchet gear by the mechanical line in the unlocked configuration (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kuhns discloses a spring (73) that biases the pawl into the ratchet gear (Fig. 6) to prevent rotation of the ratchet gear in the second direction unless the lever is moved from the first position to the second position (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kuhns discloses the ratchet gear is configured to rotate in unison with the winch drum in the first direction when the winch drum winds the spare tire into the tire storage space and in the second direction when the winch drum releases the spare tire from the tire storage space (Col. 5; Ll. 25-34).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kuhns discloses the pawl allows the ratchet gear to rotate in the first direction when the lever is in both the first position (Abstract) and the second position.
Regarding claim 14, Kuhns discloses a vehicle comprising: a tire storage space accessible from an underside of the vehicle (Abstract); a tire hoist (Fig. 3) configured to wind a spare tire into the tire storage space and release the spare tire from the tire storage space (Abstract), and a spare tire anti-theft device including a locking mechanism (71A) configured to alternate between a locked configuration (Fig. 6) that prevents the tire hoist from releasing the spare tire from the tire storage space and an unlocked configuration (Fig. 7) that allows the tire hoist to release the spare tire from
the tire storage space, lock barrel (96) and lug (93) accessible without accessing the underside of the vehicle, and a mechanical line (71B) connecting the lug (93) to the locking mechanism (71A) such that moving the lever causes the mechanical line to move the locking mechanism into the unlocked configuration (Fig. 7).
Kuhns demonstrates a lock mechanism including an extending lug (93) rather than a lever.
Lai demonstrates a similar lock mechanism including a lever (22) to act on a latch (23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Kuhns and use the teaching of Lai and replace the lug with a lever to interact with the mechanical line because such a change would have required a mere choice of one known lock barrel interaction structure for another and would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, modified Kuhns discloses the locking mechanism includes a ratchet gear (55) and a pawl (noting the portion of 71A that contacts the ratchet gear), the pawl biased into the ratchet gear (via 73) when the locking mechanism is in the locked configuration (Fig. 6) and moved away from the ratchet gear when the locking mechanism is in the unlocked configuration (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 19, modified Kuhns discloses the ratchet gear rotates in a first direction when the tire hoist winds the spare tire into the tire storage space and in a second direction when the tire hoist releases the spare tire from the tire storage space, and the pawl allows the ratchet gear to rotate in the first direction when the locking mechanism is in the locked configuration (Abstract).
Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhns (US 3,865,264 A) in view of Lai (CN 201169246 Y) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Shen (CN 214728524 U).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, modified Kuhns does not specifically disclose a metal wire connecting the latch to the lever.
Shen demonstrates a device including a ratchet wheel (4.2), and a latch (3.1), whereby the latch is connected remotely to an actuating mechanism (1.21) by a steel wire (2.2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Kuhns and use the teaching of Shen and connect the latch to the lever by a steel wire in order to allow the device to place the actuator in a location remote from the latch thereby allowing the device to fit different applications or to place the actuating mechanism in a more convenient location.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhns (US 3,865,264 A) in view of Shen (CN 214728524 U).
Regarding claim 7, Kuhns discloses a spare tire anti-theft storage system for a vehicle, the system (Figs. 1 and 2) comprising, a winch drum (41) configured to wind a spare tire into a tire storage space (Fig. 1) and release the spare tire from the tire storage space (Fig. 2); a ratchet gear (55) operatively connected to the winch drum (Figs. 3-5) and configured to rotate in a first direction when the winch drum winds the spare tire into the tire storage space and in a second direction when the winch drum releases the spare tire from the tire storage space (Col. 1; Ll. 29-33); a pawl (71) configured to move between a locked configuration (Fig. 6) that prevents the ratchet gear from rotating in the second direction and an unlocked configuration (Fig. 7) that allows the ratchet gear to rotate in the second direction; and a release mechanism (96/93), the release mechanism configured to cause the pawl to move into the unlocked configuration thereby allowing the ratchet gear to rotate in the second direction and the winch drum to release the spare tire from the tire storage space (Col. 3; Ll. 35-48).
Modified Kuhns does not specifically disclose a release mechanism located at a remote location from the pawl.
Shen demonstrates a device including a ratchet wheel (4.2), and a pawl (3.1), whereby the latch is connected remotely to an actuating mechanism (1.21) by a steel wire (2.2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Kuhns and use the teaching of Shen and connect the latch to the lever by a steel wire in order to allow the device to place the actuator in a location remote from the latch thereby allowing the device to fit different applications or to place the actuating mechanism in a more convenient location.
Regarding claim 8, modified Kuhns discloses a biasing mechanism (73) applying a biasing force that biases the pawl into the locked configuration (Fig. 6) unless the release mechanism causes the pawl to move into the unlocked configuration (Fig. 7) against the biasing force.
Regarding claim 10, modified Kuhns discloses the pawl allows the ratchet gear to rotate in the first direction when in the locked configuration (Abstract).
Regarding claim 11, modified Kuhns discloses the ratchet gear (55) and the winch drum (41) are separate parts (Fig. 4) that rotate in unison around a common center axis.
Regarding claim 12, modified Kuhns discloses the tire storage space is located on an underside of the vehicle, and the release mechanism is accessible without accessing the underside of the vehicle (Abstract).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhns (US 3,865,264 A) in view of Shen (CN 214728524 U) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lai (CN 201169246 Y).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kuhns discloses a mechanical line (noting the steel wire 2.1 of Shen) having a first end and a second end, wherein the release mechanism includes a lug (noting 93 of Kuhns), the first end of the mechanical line is operatively connected to the pawl (as taught by Shen).
Modified Kuhns does not specifically disclose a lever, or a mechanical line operatively connected to the lever such that moving the lever causes the pawl to move into the unlocked configuration.
Kuhns demonstrates a lock mechanism including an extending lug (93) rather than a lever.
Lai demonstrates a similar lock mechanism including a lever (22) that acts to affect a mechanism when the lock barrel is turned.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Kuhns and use the teaching of Lai and replace the lug with a lever to interact with the mechanical line because such a change would have required a mere choice of one known lock barrel interaction structure for another and would have yielded predictable results.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhns (US 3,865,264 A) in view of Shen (CN 214728524 U) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Lai (CN 201169246 Y) and KR 100369040 B1.
Regarding claim 13, modified Kuhns discloses the housing adapted is to be connected to the inside surface of the side wall of the vehicle next to access holes (Abstract) not specifically disclose the release mechanism includes that is accessible from a fueling compartment of the vehicle.
KR 100369040 B1 demonstrates a similar device and includes a release mechanism (20) that is accessible from a fueling compartment of the vehicle (Figs. 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Kuhns and use the teaching of KR 100369040 B1 and locate the mechanism such that it is accessible within a fueling compartment of a vehicle because such a change would allow the device to be mounted similarly as demonstrated by Kuhns but would not require any additional openings through the side of the vehicle and visible, locating it within the fueling compartment would hide it from plain view, but allow it to be easily accessed as demonstrated by KR 100369040 B1.
Kuhns demonstrates a lock mechanism including an extending lug (93) rather than a lever.
Lai demonstrates a similar lock mechanism including a lever (22) to act on a latch (23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Kuhns and use the teaching of Lai and replace the lug with a lever to interact with the mechanical line because such a change would have required a mere choice of one known lock barrel interaction structure for another and would have yielded predictable results.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhns (US 3,865,264 A) in view of Lai (CN 201169246 Y) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of KR 100369040 B1.
Regarding claim 15, modified Kuhns does not specifically disclose the vehicle includes a fueling compartment including a gas tank inlet, and the lever is accessible from the fueling compartment.
KR 100369040 B1 demonstrates a similar device and includes a release mechanism (20) that is accessible from a fueling compartment of the vehicle (Figs. 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Kuhns and use the teaching of KR 100369040 B1 and locate the mechanism such that it is accessible within a fueling compartment of a vehicle because such a change would allow the device to be mounted similarly as demonstrated by Kuhns but would not require any additional openings through the side of the vehicle and visible, locating it within the fueling compartment would hide it from plain view, but allow it to be easily accessed as demonstrated by KR 100369040 B1.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhns (US 3,865,264 A) in view of Lai (CN 201169246 Y) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Migliorin (EP 1724231 A1).
Regarding claim 16, modified Kuhns demonstrates the vehicle is a pickup truck having a bed, and the tire storage space is located on the underside of the flatbed.
To the degree that it can be argued that Kuhns does not specifically disclose the pickup truck includes a flatbed, Migliorin teaches that it is known to include a spare tire under a flatbed (Paragraph 0002).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Kuhns and include the device on a vehicle having a flatbed because such a change would allow the device to be used on a vehicle commonly known to include a spare tire and would have yielded predictable results.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhns (US 3,865,264 A) in view of Lai (CN 201169246 Y) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of KR 19980011774 U.
Regarding claim 20, modified Kuhns discloses the tire hoist includes a winch drum (41), a cable (25) and a coupling mechanism (27) removeably attachable to the spare tire (Fig. 2), the winch drum configured to wind the cable to pull the tire into the tire storage space via the coupling mechanism (Fig. 1).
Modified Kuhns demonstrates a cable rather than a chain.
KR 19980011774 U discloses a similar device including a ratcheting winding spare tire hoist that includes a chain.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Kuhns and use the teaching of KR 19980011774 U and replace the cable with a chain because such a change would have required the mere substitution of one known spare wheel supporting structure over another and would have yielded predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T THEIS whose telephone number is 571-270-5700. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday - Thursday.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/M.T.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights