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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5 and 6 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on October 18, 2022.
Claim Interpretation
The prosecution history of the parent application 14/629,089 (paragraph 7 of the Office action mailed January 17, 2018 in the parent application; remarks filed April 17, 2018 in the parent application; paragraph 4 of the Office action mailed September 21, 2018 in the parent application) established that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “plurality of pressurized load cells” in view of parent specification paragraphs 0005 and 0026-0027 is a plurality of load cells each inflated to a pressure at or above atmospheric pressure. See MPEP 2111-2111.01.
The prosecution history of the parent application 14/629,089 (paragraph 7 of the Office action mailed January 17, 2018 in the parent application; remarks filed April 17, 2018 in the parent application; paragraph 8 of the Office action mailed September 21, 2018 in the parent application; remarks filed December 20, 2018 in the parent application) established that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed first and second “beaded portions” is the radially innermost thickened portions of the sleeve member (instant claims 4 and 16) or the tire (instant claim 12). See MPEP 2111-2111.01.
The prosecution history of the parent application 14/629,089 (paragraph 7 of the Office action mailed January 17, 2018 in the parent application; remarks filed April 17, 2018 in the parent application) established that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed wheel “barrel portion” between the first and second flange portions in view of parent specification paragraphs 0003 and 0024 is the hollow or tubular part between the two flange portions, regardless of tube wall shape (e.g., nonflat tube walls as depicted in parent Fig. 1A or flat tube walls as depicted in parent Figs. 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 8A, and 9A). See MPEP 2111-2111.01.
Applicant’s specification has used “sleeve member” to mean a sleeve and “valve member” to mean a valve, so this usage governs the broadest reasonable interpretation of each of these terms in the claims (MPEP 2111, 2111.01).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 10, 12-14, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (3,191,654) cited by applicant in view of Smith (1,086,947), Shavitch (1,270,223), Jameson (1,294,108), and Ryder (1,392,853).
The only difference between the Anderson et al. tire and the claimed tire is the inner tube 11 provided as a single tube rather than a continuous ring of pressurized load cells (embodiments of Figs. 1-11, col. 1 line 9 - col. 8 line 62: wheel rim 1 clearly depicted as having the claim 1 barrel portion between first and second flange portions, tire 4 having first and second beaded portions surrounding bead cores 5, inner tube 11, sleeve member 6 (inner tire) integral with (and thus permanently attached to) inner tube 11 and with inner first and second beaded portions surrounding bead cores 7 and outer reinforcing band (wire layers 8 and wear layers 9), inflation valve 14 fluidically connected to the remainder of the tire cavity, the sleeve member, and the inner tube), however it is well known to provide tire inner tubes in the form of a continuous ring of pressurized load cells fluidically connected by check valves in order to avoid loss of inflation pressure in the entire inner tube due to a puncture, as evidenced for example by Smith (embodiment of Figs. 1-2, p. 1 lines 8-92), Shavitch (embodiment of Figs. 1-3, p. 1 line 9 - p. 2 line 14), Jameson (embodiment of Figs. 1-4, p. 1 line 8 - p. 2 line 113), and Ryder (embodiment of Figs. 1-5, p. 1 line 12 - p. 2 line 79); it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above inner tube in the form of a continuous ring of pressurized load cells fluidically connected by check valves in order to avoid loss of inflation pressure in the entire inner tube due to a puncture. Note that the instant claims are product claims and so are not limited to the manipulations of the recited method steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP 2113).
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., circumferentially continuous contact between the sleeve member and the interior surface of the tire at the first and second beaded portions of the tire) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant's arguments filed October 27, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See paragraph 11 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrienne C. Johnstone whose telephone number is (571)272-1218. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1PM-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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
ADRIENNE C. JOHNSTONE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1749
Adrienne Johnstone /ADRIENNE C. JOHNSTONE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 February 23, 2026