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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/11/2024 is being considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
All dependent claims preambles should be “The”
Claim 1 should read “a first surface for contacting an inner portion of a side wall of the wheel rim”
Claim 1 should read “a channel for receiving a radially outer edge”
Claim 1 should read “a toe portion projecting beyond a leading edge of the second surface”
Claim 1 should read “wherein, when installing a tyre on a wheel rim, at a cross-over point”
Claim 8 should read “ The tool according to claim 1, wherein the body is cranked such that, when the shoe is positioned on the wheel rim for installing the tyre, the handle portion is angled away from a plane of the wheel.
Appropriate correction is required and please check the rest of the claims for antecedent issues.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the pivot discussed in claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 contains the limitation “wherein the articulated joint comprises a pivot at a trailing end of the shoe opposite the leading tip of the toe portion.” When looking to Figure 5, the articulating joint only has one axis of rotation. The claim makes it seem there is a second articulating joint / pivot being claimed. If this were to be true, the Examiner would be unsure how it would work and how it would be connected. As such the specification lacks the description for one skilled in the art to understand where the pivot point is located. For Examination purposes, the articulated joint is to be assumed to be the same as the pivot joint just further limiting its location
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.
Claims 1 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsu (US 2018/0290508).
Regarding claim 1, Hsu discloses a tool for installing a tyre onto a wheel rim, the tool comprising:
a shoe, the shoe comprising:
a first surface (Figure 3c Item 354) for contacting an inner portion of the side wall of the wheel rim;
a second surface (between Item 330 and 354 is a hook portion as shown in figure 3c) for forming, with the first surface, a channel for receiving the radially outer edge of the wheel rim;
a toe portion (Item 350) projecting beyond a leading edge of the second surface in the circumferential direction of the wheel rim and continuing the first surface in the circumferential direction of the wheel rim; and
a shoulder portion (between Item 340 and 350), and
a body (Item 310), connected to the shoe, providing a handle portion (Item 320),
wherein, when installing a tyre on a wheel rim, at a cross-over point where the bead of a partially installed tyre crosses from outside the wheel rim to inside the wheel rim, the first surface and second surface are contactable with the inner portion of the side wall and radially outer edge of the wheel rim, respectively, with the toe portion projecting underneath the bead of the tyre at the cross-over point along the inner side wall of the rim, whereby advancing the shoe in the circumferential direction toward the cross-over point applies a radially outward force to the bead, and the shoulder portion urges the bead in the direction from outside the wheel rim to inside the wheel rim (Paragraphs 24-32).
Regarding claim 4, Hsu discloses the tool according to claim 1, wherein the toe portion is tapered to assist in lifting the bead over the radially outer edge of the wheel rim as the tool is advanced circumferentially (best shown in Figure 3a-c).
Regarding claim 5, Hsu discloses the tool according to claim 1, wherein the toe portion is configured to project along the inner portion of the side wall to lift the bead from inside (Paragraphs 24-32).
Regarding claim 6, Hsu discloses the tool according to claim 1, further comprising an arm extending from the body and provided with a bead-engaging portion (in the directions leading to Item 340), wherein when installing a tyre on a wheel rim, the bead-engaging portion is arranged to contact a portion of the tyre bead that is on the outside of the wheel rim (capable of), and wherein applying a force to the handle portion of the body, with the shoe acting as a fulcrum, enables the bead-engaging portion to apply a force to the bead to assist in lifting the bead over the radially outer edge of the wheel rim (Paragraphs 30-31).
Regarding claim 7, Hsu discloses the tool according to claim 6, wherein the bead-engaging portion comprises a roller (item 342).
Regarding claim 8, Hsu discloses the tool according to claim 1, wherein the body is cranked such that, when the shoe is positioned on a wheel rim for installing a tyre, the handle portion is angled away from the plane of the wheel (Figure 4b).
Regarding claim 9, Hsu discloses the tool according to claim 1, wherein a sole of the shoe has a curved surface (Figure 3a and 3b, under Item 362).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nemish (US 2008/0023150).
Regarding claim 10, Nemish discloses a tool for removing a tyre from a wheel rim, the tool comprising:
a removal hook (Item 8) comprising a leading edge for inserting between the tyre and the wheel rim; and
a body (Item 4), connected to the removal hook, providing a handle portion, for urging the removal hook to prise a portion of the bead of the tyre over the radially outer edge of the wheel rim (intended use, but capable of),
wherein the body is connected to the removal hook via an articulated joint to enable the body to be rotated relative to the removal hook (As discussed in Paragraph 29, Item 7 and 4 are connected by a pin, thus 7 can rotate when the pin is removed).
Regarding claim 11, Nemish discloses the tool according to claim 10, wherein the removal hook comprises a lip along the leading edge for retaining a portion of the tyre bead (leading edge being where Item 8 is denoted in Figure 1b).
Regarding claim 12, Nemish discloses the tool according to claim 10, wherein the body is cranked such that, when the removal hook is positioned between the outer side wall of a wheel rim and the bead of a partially removed tyre, the handle portion is angled away from the plane of the wheel (best shown in Figure 4a and 4b).
Regarding claim 13, Nemish discloses the tool according to claim 10, further comprising at least one motion restrictor to limit the extent of rotation of the body relative to the removal hook (the pin discussed in Paragraph 29).
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 2018/0290508) in view of Kimbel (US 1,307,131).
Regarding claim 2, Hsu discloses the tool according to claim 1. Hsu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the body is connected to the shoe via an articulated joint.
Kimbel teaches a tool wherein the body (item 1) is connected to the shoe (Item 6)via an articulated joint (Figure 1 and 2; Lines 58-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hsu to have the articulated joint as taught by Kimbel. Such a modification would allow a user to adjust the angle and distance between the leading edge and the shoe. This is beneficial because not all wheels are made to the same diameter, width, or material. Thus a level of adjustability might decrease any binding that may occur.
Regarding claim 3, Hsu in view of Kimbel discloses the tool according to claim 2, wherein the articulated joint comprises a pivot at a trailing end of the shoe opposite the leading tip of the toe portion (Kimbel Figure 1 and 2 shows the pivot away from the surfaces that contact the wheel or tire).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 2018/0290508) in view of Nemish (US 2008/0023150).
Regarding claim 14, Hsu discloses the tool according to claim 1. Hsu fails to explicitly disclose comprising a removal hook comprising a leading edge for inserting between the tyre and the wheel rim;
wherein the body is connected to the removal hook, providing a handle portion, for urging the removal hook to prise a portion of the bead of the tyre over the radially outer edge of the wheel rim,
the body is connected to the removal hook via an articulated joint to enable the body to be rotated relative to the removal hook.
Nemish teaches a tool wherein a tool mounting portion is on the first end of the handle, and a tool removal tool on a second end and wherein a removal hook (Item 8) comprising a leading edge for inserting between the tyre and the wheel rim; wherein the body (Item 4) is connected to the removal hook, providing a handle portion, for urging the removal hook to prise a portion of the bead of the tyre over the radially outer edge of the wheel rim, the body is connected to the removal hook via an articulated joint to enable the body to be rotated relative to the removal hook (Paragraph 27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the tire removal tool to the second end of the handle of Hsu as taught by Nemish. Such a modification would allow the tool of Hsu to be able to remove a tire from a rim and install a tire on the rim. Thus only needing one tool to work on a wheel.
Regarding claim 15, Hsu in view of Nemish disclose the tool according to claim 14, wherein the shoe and removal hook are positioned at opposite ends of the body (Nemish Figure 2 shoes the removal hook at 2 and the shoe at Item 3).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 2018/0290508) in view of Doring (EP 2000334A1).
Regarding claim 16, Hsu discloses the tool according to claim 1. Hsu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the body has a length in the range of from 80 mm to 180 mm.
Doring teaches a tool wherein the body has a length in the range of from 80 mm to 180 mm (Column 2 Lines 39-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the length of the body of Hsu to be in the range of from 80 mm to 180 mm as taught by Doring. Such a modification is a change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). At this size, the tool can fit easily within a user’s hand, yet not too large to occupy a lot of space when in storage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOM R RODGERS whose telephone number is (313)446-4849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/TOM RODGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
