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 § 112
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the tire" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the tire rubber" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 lists a plurality of materials and uses the term “preferably”. The claim further includes the language “other combinations of blends can be carried out”. As such, the metes and bounds of the claimed are not clearly set forth.
Claim 1 includes the language “thickness increase between 1% to 300%”. This language fails to provide a clear and concise understanding of the claimed invention because the claim fails to include a reference point or reference thickness (a thickness increase in relation to what).
Claim 2 includes the language “optionally” in line 2. This language fails to provide a clear and concise understanding of the claim since there is a question whether or not the disclosed additives are in fact required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the cutout (2A), (2PA), (2CH), (2PE)" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the three additives" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 includes the language “optionally” in line 3. This language fails to provide a clear and concise understanding of the claim since there is a question whether or not the disclosed additives are in fact required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the male (6AB)" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the final edge of (6AB) " in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the lower face" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the upper face" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the plastic" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the regions (9AB) (10AB) (12AB)" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 includes the language “being able to comprise in an open model”. This language fails to provide a clear and concise understanding of the claim since there is a question whether or not an open model is in fact required or simply the capability.
Claim 5 does not provide a clear and concise understanding of the claimed invention since it appears that claim 4, from which claim 5 depends from, requires structure 6AB and 5AB. Thus, claim 5 requires the removal of structural limitations that are required by claim 4 (which would essentially broaden the scope of the claims).
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the guide’s male side" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the female side" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the cutout face" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the closing limiter" in lines 10 and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 includes the language “being able to comprise movement limiting guides”. It is unclear if such language positively requires the movement limiting guides or if said language simply requires a shield having the capability of including movement limiting guides.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the region (2AB), (3AB), (4AB), (5AB), (6AB), (7AB)" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the internal part" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the inner tube" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 includes the language “optionally coated internally”. This language fails to provide a clear and concise understanding of the claim since there is a question whether or not the disclosed internal coating is in fact required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the inner tube" in lines 5 and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the extreme lateral region (AVU)" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 includes the language “new” anti-punctures shielded layer. It is unclear exactly what component this language is referring to.
Claim 8 includes the language “being able to comprise”. It is unclear if such language positively requires the disclosed structural limitations.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the element (222)" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the element (222AM)" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the deformation fins" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 includes the language “being able to comprise”. It is unclear if such language positively requires the disclosed structural limitations.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the industrialization process" in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 includes the language “the function of spacer”. This language fails to provide a clear and concise understanding of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 includes the language “optionally” in line 6- it is unclear if such language positively requires the disclosed materials.
Claim 11 includes the language “being able to have a subdivision of sections”. It is unclear if such language positively requires the disclosed structural limitations or simply the capability.
Claim 12 includes the language “being able to comprise”. It is unclear if such language positively requires the disclosed structural limitations or simply the capability.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the constructive process" in lines 6 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 includes the language “optionally”- it is unclear if the relevant structural limitations are required.
Claim 13, which is dependent from claim 1, refers to (PO) and there is no indication what (PO) refers to. Similarly, claim 13 includes the language (2PE) and such a term is not defined in claim 1 or claim 13.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the tire sidewall" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 14 and 15 include the language “being able to comprise”. It is unclear if such language positively requires the disclosed structural limitations or simply the capability.
Claim 15, which depends from claim 1, refers to (2P) and (2PA) and neither of these are defined in claim 1 or claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 August 19, 2025