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 .
2. Status of Claims
• Claims 1 and 18 are pending.
• Claims 1-6, 17 were previously cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
4. Claim(s) 1 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2010300587A to Benzing and further in view of NPL U (“MP35N: A Superalloy for Critical Oil and Gas Applications”, by Williams (“Williams”)
5. Regarding Claim 1, Benzing discloses a nonpneumatic tire (for aerospace use (“having greater strength and durability” for use on “on planetary space surfaces “ Para 6, Para 9), comprising a plurality of helical springs (310 ”interlaced springs” Para 24, lines 5-12, Para 47 lines 4-12, claims 7 and 8, Fig 3-5, 9, 10), wherein the plurality of helical springs for are constructed of a suitable material (e.g. “Ti-N alloy” Para 51, lines 7-9).
Benzing does not disclose wherein the plurality of helical springs are being constructed of a multiphase Co-35Ni-20Mo-10Cr alloy ( i.e. MP35N Alloy®, i.e. a Ti-N alloy).
Williams (Pages 1-9) discloses a multiphase Co-35Ni-20Mo-10Cr alloy (i.e. MP35N Alloy®).”Page 1, Para 1- 2, including 35% Co, 35% Ni, 20% Mo, 10% Cr and 1% Titanium per Page 3 table 2, Page 1 Para 5-6 describing the multiple phases HCP and FCC structures (i.e. multiphase (i.e. a multiphase Co-35Ni-20Mo-10Cr alloy i.e. MP35N Alloy®, i.e. a Ti-N alloy) capable of being used to form springs (Page 1 line 2) for aerospace applications (Page 1 line 1).
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the non-pneumatic tire having helical springs and the helical springs formed of a multiphase Co-35Ni-20Mo-10Cr alloy, in a single combined apparatus.
It would have been obvious (since Benzing teaches helical springs formed of a Ti-Ni Alloy; and Williams teaches a multiphase Co-35Ni-20Mo-10Cr alloy (i.e. a Ti-NI Alloy), capable of being used to form springs) to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the non-pneumatic tire of Benzing and the teaching of the multiphase Co-35Ni-20Mo-10Cr alloy used to form springs, of Williams; to modify the helical springs of Benzing to be formed of multiphase a multiphase Co-35Ni-20Mo-10Cr alloy (as taught by Williams), with the motivation to utilize springs constructed from a material having an unmatched combination of strength and corrosion resistance, and strength beyond the capabilities of stainless steel (Page 1 lines Para 1 lines 6-7, Para 2 lines 6-7), having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
6. Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Benzing and Williams.
7. Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Benzing and Williams discloses the non-pneumatic tire of claim 1, wherein the plurality of helical springs are interlaced (as described in paragraph 5 of this document).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks 12/16/2025) with respect to claim 1 and 18 rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, as addressed below. The rejections of the non-final of 07/16/2025, stand and are included herein.
Applicant argument states:
Williams does not specifically mention that MP35N could be applied to the field of tires or non-pneumatic tires.
There is no incentive for a person skilled in the art to combine the teaching of Williams with Benzing, absent the teachings of Applicants invention.
An improper hindsight was used to arrive at the combination of Benzing with Williams utilizing the teachings of Applicants invention.
Examiner responds to Applicants arguments as follows:
Williams teaches the material: Co-35Ni-20Mo-10Cr alloy of helical springs. Benzing is relied upon for the nonpneumatic tire with helical springs. Williams does state the field to which his teaching is applied includes aerospace. It is irrelevant that he does not mention tires or non-pneumatic tires specifically.
In paragraph 5 of the non-final rejection of 07/16/2025, for the rejection of claim 1, Examiner describes a combination modification relying on the teaching of Benzing for a non-pneumatic tire having helical interlaced springs of a Ti-Ni Alloy and the teaching of Williams for a helical spring of a Co-35Ni-20Mo-10Cr alloy. The combination modification being a substitution of one known element: Ti-Ni Alloy material of Benzings helical springs, for another know element: Williams material Co-35Ni-20Mo-10Cr alloy, to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143.I.(B) “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results “ ).
Examiner was not using hindsight, but the statutory basis of 35 USC 103 and KSR Rational in regard to obviousness to combine prior art references, as referenced in of the non-final of 07/16/2025 and including in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Final rejection dated 01/28/2025.
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 EVA LYNN COMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Joe Morano can be reached at 571-272-6684. 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.
/EVA L COMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615