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.
Claims 31, 33, 35, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendrick (US 490,438) in view of Waite (US 796167) and optionally, Fries (US 593,931).
Regarding claim 31, Hendrick discloses a tire-forming flexible tube (see tire depicted in Fig. 1),
the tire-forming flexible tube comprising an outer layer made of a first elastomeric material (see outer section C formed of india rubber or gutta percha, pg 1, line 87-pg 2, line 6), and
an inner filament made of a second elastomeric material, the inner filament enclosing a holding tube (see inner part D having annular hole, which forms a holding tube, tube material not required to be different from inner rubber layer material; pg 2, lines 15-23; tire sections are formed of india rubber or gutta percha, pg 2, lines 2-6).
In the alternative, if Hendrick's disclosure of an annular hole is insufficient; it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured inner filament with a holding tube since Fries, similarly directed towards a tire with annular hole, teaches forming the inner wall of a tubular filling with a lining made of textile material cemented to it to secure lightness and provide sufficient rigidity (pg1, lines 39-46).
Hendrick does not disclose the tire as having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end and the second end of the tire-forming flexible tube are configured to be joined together to form a tire; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the tire with joinable first and second ends since Waite, similarly directed towards a tire, teaches a tire split with first and second ends that are configured to be joined to form a tire (col 2). One would have been motivated to configure the tire with joinable ends to facilitate easy and quick mounting on a wheel rim for use (col 2).
Hendrick's tire has a uniform structure and shape along its length (see Figs. 1 and 2). As to the size of the tire being determinable by adjustment of the length of the tire-forming flexible tube, Examiner notes that the claim does not recite the manner or type of adjustment performed or the time at which the adjustment takes place. Waite discloses the joinable tire as consisting of a severed elastic or cushioned ring at that the ends are drawn together and contracted upon a wheel rim (col 1, last paragraph). Tire size adjustments can be made based on what the fastener can accommodate. Additionally, the size of the tire is also viewed as being determined to a greater degree at the time of manufacturing the tire where the length of the tire tube can be adjusted to fit the intended tire applications. Waite discloses the tire as a severed elastic ring (pg 1, left col, last paragraph)--as such, the size of the tire would be determined based on the length of the tube when it is severed.
Regarding claim 33, Hendrick discloses the outer tire section C is to be of firmer and harder substance than the inner, for resisting effects in use for abrasion and wear (pg 2, lines 13-15).
Regarding claim 35, Hendrick discloses a longitudinal bore (see annular hole in Figs. 1-2). Examiner notes that the claim does not particularly distinguish the holding tube and bore structures.
Regarding claim 38, Hendrick does disclose a wheel (tire mounted rim) and is directed towards a bicycle wheel (pg 1, lines 8-16). Examiner also notes that the recitation of particular vehicle type concerns the intended use of the tire and that the tire is capable of being mounted and used on various types of vehicles, including the ones recited in the claim.
Claims 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendrick (US 490,438) in view of Waite (US 796167) and Fries (US 593,931).
Regarding claim 32, Hendrick does not expressly disclose the holding tube as comprising a wall made of a reinforced polymeric material, the wall forming an open-ended lumen; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the wall with a reinforced polymeric material since Fries, similarly directed towards a tire with interior tube, teaches forming the inner wall of a tubular filling with a lining made of textile material cemented to it to secure lightness and provide sufficient rigidity (pg1, lines 39-46) and Fries discloses "rubber composition" as the example uniting cement (pg 1, lines 30-31; rubber cement is a polymeric material). The severed ends of Hendrick (modified by Waite) would result in an open-ended lumen.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendrick (US 490,438) in view of Waite (US 796167), optionally Fries (US 593,931), as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Gostlin (US 918,846).
Regarding claim 36, Hendrick's tire has an essentially dome shaped cross-section wherein the base of the dome is sized and shaped to be received within the rim of a wheel (see Fig. 1). Hendrick does not disclose lateral slits configured to receive a rim frame of the wheel; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the tire base with lateral slits to receive a rim since Gostlin, similarly directed towards a tire, teaches configuring a tire with annular flanges 4 that fit snugly over the edges of rim flanges 2 to prevent the ingress of moisture between the tire and rim (pg 1, lines 38-57; as seen in Fig. 2, the flange ends fit into lateral slits of the tire base).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claim implies continuous production or availability of the tube in arbitrary lengths, allowing a) custom cutting on demand and b) predictable fitment across multiple rim sizes. Applicant argues that the Office Action's proposed combination does not obtain a cut-to-size elastomeric tube that forms a complete tire by joining ends. There is no disclosure or motivation in either art for manufacturing a tube segment cut to length and then seamlessly joined into a tire. Applicant argues that Hendrick and Waite are pre-formed and do not disclose being adjustable or being cut-to-size.
In response, Examiner notes that Applicant's arguments are not commensurate in scope with the pending claim language. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "cut-to-size elastomeric tube" or custom cutting on demand) are not recited or necessarily required by the rejected claims. 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). The claims merely recite the size of the tire is "determinable by adjustment of the length of the tire-forming flexible tube." The claim does not recite the manner or type of adjustment performed or the time at which the adjustment takes place. Applicant points out that the tire's "adjustability is limited to what the threaded fastener can accommodate." While the adjustability is limited, it is still adjustable within what the fastener can accommodate. Additionally, the size of the tire is also viewed as being determined to a greater degree at the time of manufacturing the tire where the length of the tire tube can be adjusted to fit the intended tire applications (Waite discloses the tire as a severed elastic ring, pg 1, left col, last paragraph; as such, the size of the tire would be determined based on the length of the tube when it is severed). The claim language does not require the length of the be "changed freely" or require a specific structure for "end-joining behavior."
Applicant argues that no less than 4 references (Hendrick, Waite, Fries, and Gostlin) where required to arrive at the invention claimed in claim 36. Applicant argues that having 4 or more references in combination, amounts to hindsight reasoning.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Here, Applicant has not particularly pointed out any supposed errors in the combination of references, only that there are 4 references involved. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 ROBERT C DYE whose telephone number is (571)270-7059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/ROBERT C DYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619