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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The specification fails to describe the claimed radius of an outer peripheral surface of the tread member being a “maximum radius” as newly set forth in claim 1.
The specification fails to describe the pressing force being “vertically” applied to the non-pneumatic tire by a road surface as newly set forth in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claimed equation Wr ≤ Wa*(1-(μ*Fz*R)/(2Π*r2*μr*t*E)) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear from Applicant’s disclosure how a number of the parameters set forth in this equation are to be determined. Specifically, although the parameter “Fz” is claimed as being “a pressing force vertically applied to the non-pneumatic tire by a road surface”, it is unclear how the pressing force Fz is to be determined. As best understood, the pressing force Fz from a road surface vertically acting on or vertically applied to the non-pneumatic tire would be directly dependent on the load acting on the wheel upon which the tire is mounted. Thus, such pressing force depends on the vehicle’s weight and distribution of that weight across the tire assemblies on the vehicle. Moreover, in addition to the vehicle weight and the distribution of that weight directly affecting the pressing force, it is well-understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that a number of other factors, including whether the non-pneumatic tire is on a flat surface or an angled surface and whether the vehicle on which the non-pneumatic tire is mounted is at rest or moving would cause the pressing force applied to the non-pneumatic tire to vary. However, Applicant’s disclosure is silent as to all of these necessary conditions/parameters to determine the claimed pressing force. Also, although the parameter “μ” is claimed as being “a static friction coefficient between the road surface and the tread member, it is unclear how the static friction coefficient μ is to be determined. As best understood, the surface roughness of the road surface directly affects the static friction coefficient μ between the road surface and the tread member. However, Applicant’s disclosure is silent as to what value of roughness for the road surface is being used. Moreover, it is known in the art that known standards (e.g., ASTM, ISO, JIS, etc…) are used to determine static friction coefficients and such static friction coefficient values may vary dependent upon the specific testing method required by the standard employed. However, Applicant’s disclosure fails to disclose which standards are being applied to determine the claimed static friction coefficient μ and the claimed static friction coefficient μr. As such, the scope of this claim is unascertainable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3 and 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that Applicant has not argued or explained how amending claim 1 so that the pressing force is “vertically” applied to the non-pneumatic tire would overcome the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). As noted above, it is unclear how the pressing force Fz is to be determined. As best understood, the pressing force Fz from a road surface vertically acting on or vertically applied to the non-pneumatic tire would be directly dependent on the load acting on the wheel upon which the tire is mounted. Thus, such pressing force depends on the vehicle’s weight and distribution of that weight across the tire assemblies on the vehicle. Moreover, in addition to the vehicle weight and the distribution of that weight directly affecting the pressing force, it is well-understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that a number of other factors, including whether the non-pneumatic tire is on a flat surface or an angled surface and whether the vehicle on which the non-pneumatic tire is mounted is at rest or moving would cause the pressing force applied to the non-pneumatic tire to vary. However, Applicant’s disclosure is silent as to all of these necessary conditions/parameters to determine the claimed pressing force. As such the scope of this claimed limitation is unascertainable.
In response to Applicant’s argument with respect to the claimed static friction coefficient that “There are many different ways to determine this coefficient for a tire, and the claims are not limited to type of test”, the Examiner agrees that there are many different ways to determine the static friction coefficient for a tire. However, as noted above, the static friction coefficient values determined by the many different tests would result in different values for the static friction coefficient dependent upon the type of test employed. Applicant is invited to submit evidence for the Examiner’s consideration that the type of test employed to determine the static friction coefficient would not affect the value of the static friction coefficient and thus the scope of claim 1 as it pertains to the use of this coefficient in the claimed equations that are required to satisfied.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KIP T KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7953. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Samuel (Joe) J 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.
/Kip T Kotter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights