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 (“a Ti-N alloy, steel, titanium, polymer, ceramic, or any other suitable material.” Benzing, 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.
Williams (Pages 1-9) discloses a multi-phase (Page 2 Para 5-6) Co-35Ni-20Mo-10Cr alloy (MP35N containing 35% Co, 35% Ni, 20% Mo, 10% Cr and 1% Titanium. Page 3 Table 2) “ i.e. a suitable material for a spring for aerospace applications” (capable of being used to form springs for aerospace applications (Page 1 line 1)], having an unmatched combination of strength and corrosion resistance, and strength beyond the capabilities of stainless steel (Page 1 Para 1-2)
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 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 suitable material; and Williams teaches a multiphase Co-35Ni-20Mo-10Cr 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);[ the combination modification being a substitution of one known element: helical springs of a Ti-N alloy, steel, titanium, polymer, ceramic, or any other suitable material of Benzing, for another know element: springs of a material Co-35Ni-20Mo-10Cr alloy, a suitable material for a spring for aerospace applications of William , to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143.I.(B) “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results “), 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 (Williams 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. 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 05/27/2026) 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 final of 01/20/2026, stand with clarification are included herein.
Applicant argument states:
Examiner erroneously characterizes the MP35N Alloy as taught in Williams as a Ti-N alloy”, “based on an incorrect assumption that MP35N is a titanium alloy”.
Examiner responds to Applicants arguments as follows:
In paragraph 5 of the final rejection of 01/20/2026, for the rejection of claim 1, Examiner described the teaching of Benzing for a non-pneumatic tire having helical interlaced springs “of a Ti-Ni Alloy” [which was an incomplete citation of Para 51 of Benzing], now clarified as “a Ti-N alloy, steel, titanium, polymer, ceramic, or any other suitable material.
In paragraphs following, Examiner described the teaching of the material of the springs Williams as “a Ti-N Alloy” (Table 2 Page 3 of Williams lists Ti at 1%, examiner did not intend this word choice to mean Williams taught any higher amount of Ti), and has clarified the wording to be “a suitable material for a spring for aerospace applications” [Williams Page 1 Para 1, 2], “a multi-phase Co-35Ni-20Mo-10Cr alloy. The incomplete citation of materials of the spring of Benzing, and the description of the material of Williams, was not a mischaracterization or an incorrect assumption, and does not reflect a lack of teaching by the references, and does not detract from the obviousness and motivation of the combination/modification of Benzing and Williams.
The motivation and obviousness of the combination of Benzing with the teaching of the material of Williams described on Page 3 of Final relies not on any mischaracterization or incorrect assumption, but rather on teaching of the spring material compositions and desirable/suitable properties Benzing and Williams. Wherein the teaching of Benzing for a helical spring of “a suitable material” and the teaching of Williams of a spring of a material being a multi-phase (Page 2 Para 2) Co-35Ni-20Mo-10Cr alloy (MP35N. Page 3 Table 2) [i.e. a suitable material for a spring for aerospace applications], having an unmatched combination of strength and corrosion resistance, and strength beyond the capabilities of stainless steel (Page 1 Para 1-2) . The combination modification being a substitution of one known element: helical springs of a Ti-N alloy, steel, titanium, polymer, ceramic, or any other suitable material of Benzing, for another know element: springs of a material Co-35Ni-20Mo-10Cr alloy, a suitable material for a spring for aerospace applications of William , to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143.I.(B) “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results “ ). The clarified rejection based on the combination/modification of Benzing in view of Williams is included in Paragraph 5 of this document.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights