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 .
1) In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
2) The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3) 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.
Weisberg
4) Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weisberg (US 1,439,590).
Weisberg discloses a tread element 22 comprising reinforcing members and ribs 27, 29 [FIGURE 5]. In FIGURE 5, the reinforcing members are illustrated as dashed lines. In FIGURE 2 (related embodiment), the reinforcing members are illustrated as dashed lines and identified using reference characters 29, 30, 31 and 32. In FIGURE 5, each rib 27, 28 is illustrated as having “a radial cross-sectional shape of a minor-arc, a semi-circle, or a major arc”.
As to claim 18, the claimed tread belt is anticipated by Weisberg’s tread element shown in FIGURE 5.
Great Britain 401
5) Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Great Britain 401 (GB 161,401).
Great Britain 401 discloses a tread E comprising puncture proof band H, wire mesh sheets F and circumferential ribs, which fit into circumferential channels B, D [FIGURES 1-2]. In FIGURE 1, each rib of the tread is illustrated as having “a radial cross-sectional shape of a minor-arc, a semi-circle, or a major arc”.
As to claim 18, the claimed tread belt is anticipated by Great Britain 401’s tread shown in FIGURE 1.
Australia 346
6) Claims 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Australia 346 (AU 236,346) in view of Colby et al (US 2015/0328936) and Feltes et al (US 2012/0145302).
Australia 346 discloses a vehicle tire (“two piece tire”) comprising a vulcanized rubber tread 2 and a tire 6. FIGURE 2 is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
294
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The rubber tread 2 comprises suitable reinforcement such as one or more layers of canvas, nylon or other reinforcing material and thereby constitutes a “tread belt”. The tread 2 comprises ribs 4 wherein the ribs 4 are integral to an inner surface of the tread 2 [FIGURE 2]. The tire 6 (“body”) was obtained by grooving a worn tire to form grooves 5 wherein the grooves are integral to an outer surface of the tire 6 (“body”). Australia 346 teaches that the grooves and ribs have a dovetail cross section [FIGURE 2, page 2 lines 11-12]. Thus, the ribs 4 and grooves 5 constitute a plurality of locking mechanisms wherein each groove 5 defines a lockable cavity being at least partially defined by a lip that protrudes into the lockable cavity wherein the lip defines the opening of the cavity. The vehicle tire is assembled by arranging the tread 2 around a partially inflated tire 6 and then inflating the tire 6 to obtain tight engagement of the ribs in the grooves wherein the inner surface of the tread and the outer surface of “the rubber cap” form a direct contact interface. Optionally, attachment of the tread 6 to the tire 6 may be rendered more positive by using adhesive. Australia 346 does not recite the tread having a maximum thickness of about 1 inch to about 3 inches and does not recite an rubber innerliner.
As to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Australia 346’s vehicle tire such that tire 6 (“body”) comprises: a supporting carcass positioned inward along the radial direction from the rubber cap and abutting the rubber cap, two sidewalls that extend inward along the radial direction from axial outer edges of the rubber cap, and a rubber inner liner positioned inward along the radial direction from the supporting carcass and inward along an axial direction of the two-piece tire from the two sidewalls since (1) Colby et al teaches a known vehicle tire (truck tire / heavy load tire) adapted to have a precured tread attached thereto comprises remaining rubber tread obtained after partial removal of old tread and a tire carcass comprising belt package and body plies comprising rubber containing strands of reinforcement, sidewalls and beads [FIGURE 1, paragraphs 6, 21, 22] and (2) Feltes et al teaches a known vehicle tire (truck tire / heavy load tire) comprising rubber tread 22, belt package 32, carcass ply 31, sidewall portions 28, butyl rubber inner liner 29 and bead cores 26 [FIGURE 1, paragraphs 23-26]. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use known tire construction for Australia 346’s tire 6. When using the known tire construction disclosed by Colby et al and Feltes et al, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that the tire 6 comprises rubber and thereby defines a “rubber cap located at an outermost position of the body”. The claimed tread belt reads on the tread 2 having reinforcement. With respect to the claimed protrusions and lockable cavities, Australia 346 teaches forming protrusions and lockable cavities in the inner surface of the tread and the outer surface of the tire 6. The claimed locking mechanisms read on the ribs 4 / grooves 5. The claimed protrusion reads on a rib 4. The claimed lockable cavity reads on groove 5 in the FIGURE 2 embodiment.
With respect to maximum thickness (claim 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Australia 346’s two piece tire such that the maximum thickness of the tread A (tread belt) is about 1 inch to about 3 inches (25.4 mm to 76.2 mm) since Colby et al, directed to a retreading a worn truck tire using a precured tread, teaches that typical overall tread thickness for truck tires is generally 12 mm to 30 mm [FIGURES 1-2, paragraph 27].
As to claim 2, FIGURE 2 shows the ribs 4 (protrusions) filling at least 90% of a volume each of the grooves 5 (lockable cavities) corresponding thereto.
As to claim 3, Australia 346 teaches that adhesive is optional.
As to claim 4, each groove 5 (“lockable cavity”) has a radial cross-sectional shape of a trapezoid [FIGURE 2].
As to claim 5, each rib 4 (“protrusion”) has a radial cross-sectional shape of a trapezoid [FIGURE 2].
As to claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Australia 346’s two piece tire such that a maximum depth of the lockable cavity is 0.5 to 3 cm (5 to 30 mm) since (1) Australia 346 shows providing the lockable cavities with a depth less than the thickness of the tread [FIGURE 2] and (2) Colby et al teaches providing a tread with a thickness of 12 to 30 mm [paragraph 27].
7) Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Australia 346 (AU 236,346) in view of Colby et al (US 2015/0328936) and Feltes et al (US 2012/0145302) as applied above and further in view of Magistrini et al (US 3,667,527).
As to claims 13-17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Australia 346’s two piece tire such that a spacing between the protrusions and/or lockable protrusions is about 0.5 cm to about 10 cm (about 5 mm to about 100 mm) since (1) Australia 346 shows providing the detachable tread with four protrusions [FIGURE 2] and (2) Magistrini et al teaches providing a detachable tread for a two piece tire (heavy load size 12.00R20) having three protrusions such that width L’ of reinforcement layers 4, 5 is, for example 210 mm (width L’ being similar to the tread width of the tread( wherein FIGURE 1 illustrates the spacing of the protrusions to be about 19% width L’ (the spacing of the protrusions thereby being about 40 mm).
As to claims 14 and 15, Australia 346 teaches using a trapezoidal shape for the cross sectional shape of the protrusions and cavities [FIGURE 2].
As to claims 16 and 17, note Feltes et al’s teaching that a butyl rubber innerliner (barrier layer) is a known feature of the known tire construction.
Luchsinger-Caballero
8) Claims 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luchsinger-Caballero (US 2,609,026) in view of Colby et al (US 2015/0328936) and Feltes et al (US 2012/0145302) and optionally Australia 346 (AU 236,346).
Luchsinger-Caballero discloses a pneumatic tire for automobile, truck or bus comprising tread A, casing B and inner tube C [FIGURE 1]. A portion of FIGURE 1 is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image2.png
394
398
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The tread A (“tread belt”) has a coupling profile 2 and comprises rubber and reinforcement [col. 3 lines 70-75, col. 4 lines 1-26]. The casing B (“body”) has a coupling profile 3 and comprises two sidewalls [FIGURES 1-2]. The casing B (“body”) comprises a coupling band 8 which carries a coupling profile 3 and is provided with air discharge channels 9 [FIGURES 1-2, col. 6 lines 36-69, col. 7 lines 3-10, col. 8 lines 3-5]. The casing B (“body”) is built up using rubber and cord plies [col. 6 lines 36-48]. Luchsinger-Caballero notes that the coupling band 8 replaces the conventional non-skid tread band during manufacture of the casing B [col. 6 lines 49-58]. Thus, Luchsinger-Caballero teaches casing B (“body”) comprising a rubber cap located at an outermost portion of the body, a supporting carcass positioned inward along the radial direction from the rubber cap and abutting the rubber cap, and two sidewalls that extend inward along the radial direction from axial outer edges of the rubber cap.
Luchsinger-Caballero teaches that the tread A (“tread belt”) may have a coupling profile comprising ribs 10 and that the casing B (“body” comprising “rubber cap” and “supporting carcass”) may have a coupling profile comprising grooves 11 [FIGURE 5]. A portion of FIGURE 5 is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image3.png
270
598
media_image3.png
Greyscale
When the tread A (“tread belt”) is assembled on the casing B (“body” comprising “rubber cap” and “supporting carcass”), each rib 10 is inserted into a corresponding groove 11 such that the tread A is mechanically coupled to the casing B [col. 9 lines 20-27, col.12 lines 50-65]. Luchsinger-Caballero teaches that the ribs of coupling profile of the tread A may be provided along one or both of their flanks with undercut slight notches 30 at their bases in such a way that the notches conform to corresponding projections 31 provided at edges of the grooves of the coupling profile of the casing B [FIGURE 17, col. 12 lines 1-9]. FIGURE 17 is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image4.png
168
662
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to the ribs and grooves, Luchsinger-Caballero also teaches that other factors such as dovetailing the margins and undercutting the ribs may be added to contribute to ensuring and maintaining the assemblage [col. 12 lines 66-73]. In FIGURE 5, the coupling profile of the tread A comprises ribs and the coupling profile of the casing B comprises grooves. At col. 13 lines 65-66, Luchsinger-Caballero teaches that the coupling profile of the tread A may comprises grooves and the coupling profile of the casing B may comprise ribs. Luchsinger-Caballero teaches that the tread A may be changed and replaced when the tread A is worn and that the tread A may be changed and replaced when road conditions (dry, slippery or snow covered) suggest such a change for better driving of the vehicle [col. 1 lines 9-14]. Luchsinger-Caballero does not recite the tread having a maximum thickness of about 1 inch to about 3 inches and does not recite an rubber innerliner.
As to maximum thickness (claim 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Luchsinger-Caballero’s two piece tire for a truck such that the maximum thickness of the tread A (tread belt) is about 1 inch to about 3 inches (25.4 mm to 76.2 mm) since Colby et al, directed to a retreading a worn truck tire using a precured tread, teaches that typical overall tread thickness for truck tires is generally 12 mm to 30 mm [FIGURES 1-2, paragraph 27].
As to rubber inner liner (claim 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the casing B of Luchsinger-Caballero’s two piece tire such that the body comprises:
a supporting carcass positioned inward along the radial direction from the rubber cap and abutting the rubber cap, two sidewalls that extend inward along the radial direction from axial outer edges of the rubber cap, and a rubber innerliner positioned inward along the radial direction from the supporting carcass and inward along an axial direction of the two-piece tire from the two sidewalls
since it is well known / conventional in the tire art, as evidenced by Feltes et al [FIGURE 1, paragraphs 23, 25] to provide a pneumatic tire such that the tire comprises two sidewalls, a carcass and a rubber innerliner so that the tire can be inflated and function as a pneumatic tire.
As to plurality of locking mechanisms (claim 1), Luchsinger-Caballero teaches providing the tread A (“tread belt”) and casing B (“body”) with a plurality of ribs and corresponding grooves [FIGURE 5] wherein each rib 10 (“protrusion”) may have a section having a radial cross sectional shape of a trapezoid and each groove 11 (“lockable cavity”) may have a section having a radial cross sectional shape of a trapezoid [FIGURE 17(A)]; the groove 11 (“lockable cavity”) having a projection 31 defining a lip protruding in the lockable cavity and defining an opening of the cavity. Also, it is noted again that (1) in FIGURE 5, the coupling profile of the tread A comprises ribs and the coupling profile of the casing B comprises grooves and (2) at col. 13 lines 65-66, Luchsinger-Caballero teaches that the coupling profile of the tread A may comprises grooves and the coupling profile of the casing B may comprise ribs.
As to claim 2, FIGURE 17 shows the rib 10 (“protrusion”) and groove 11 (“lockable cavity”) having a size such that the rib 10 fills at least 90% of a volume of the groove 11.
As to claim 3, Luchsinger-Caballero teaches mechanically coupling the tread A to the casing B using the ribs and grooves [col. 9 lines 20-27, col.12 lines 50-65] instead of using an adhesive.
As to claims 4-5, see FIGURE 17. IN ANY EVENT: As to claims 4-5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Luchsinger-Caballero’s two piece tire such that the ribs and grooves have the claimed radial cross sectional shape of a trapezoid since Australia 346 teaches mechanically coupling a tread 3 to a casing 6 using grooves 5 and ribs 4 having a dovetail cross section; such dovetail cross sections defining trapezoidal radial cross sectional shapes.
As to claim 10 (depth = 5 mm to 30 mm), Luchsinger-Caballero shows the height of the ribs and the depth of the grooves being less than the thickness of the tread [FIGURES 5, 15-16] and teaches that the ribs have a height of 4 mm to 8 mm and the grooves have a depth of 4 mm to 8 mm [FIGURE 17(a), col. 8 lines 24-30].
9) Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luchsinger-Caballero (US 2,609,026) in view of Colby et al (US 2015/0328936) and Feltes et al (US 2012/0145302) and optionally Australia 346 (AU 236,346) as applied above and further in view of Linderme (US 1,518,529) and Japan 321 (JP 07-081321).
Luchsinger-Caballero teaches mechanically lockable protrusions and cavities but does not recite protrusions having a diameter and cavities having a diameter.
Linderme discloses a pneumatic tire [FIGURES 1-4] comprising a tread T (“tread belt”) and a casing C (“body”). FIGURE 4 is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image5.png
336
506
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The tread T comprises tread rubber, fabric F and recesses 12 (“lockable cavities”) . The casing C comprises a channel 6 and two sidewalls. The entire surface 11 of the channel comprises rubber. The casing C also comprises integral rubber lugs 7 (“protrusions”). Each recess 12 (“lockable cavity”) has a truncated cone shape and an annular lip 13. Each lug 7 (“protrusion”) has a neck portion 8 and a truncated cone shaped head 9 forming an annular flange. In arranging the tread T on the casing C, the casing C is deflated, the tread T is slipped into the channel 6 such that the lugs 7 and recesses 12 are interlocked, and the casing is inflated such that the casing C is expanded to tightly fit the tread T.
As to claims 7-9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Luchsinger-Caballero’s two piece tire such that the protrusions have a diameter and the cavities having a diameter and such that
a maximum diameter of the protrusion is 0.5 cm to 3 cm
(5 mm to 30mm) [claim 7],
a diameter of an opening of the lockable cavity is 0.5 cm to 2 cm
(5 mm to 20 mm) [claim 8],
a maximum diameter of the lockable cavity is 0.6 cm to 3 cm
(6 mm to 30 mm) [claim 9]
since (1) Luchsinger-Caballero teaches that the two piece tire comprises lockable protrusions and cavities, (2) Linderme, directed to a two piece tire having a detachable tread, teaches mechanically coupling a tread T to a casing C using protrusions 7 and cavities 12 wherein each protrusion 7 has a circular shape in plan view (the size of this circular shape being defined by a diameter) and each recess has a circular shape in plan view (the size of this circular shape being defined by a diameter) and (3) Japan 321, directed to a two piece tire having a detachable tread, teaches mechanically coupling a tread 6 to a casing 7 using protrusions 20 and cavities 23 wherein for example the protrusion has a length = 20 mm and a width = 10 mm and the recess has a length = 20.5 mm and width = 10.5 mm [FIGURES 1-4, machine translation, INVENTION EXAMPLE 1 in TABLE 1]. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the known lockable protrusions and cavities disclosed by Linderme for the lockable protrusions and cavities desired by Luchsinger-Caballero; Japan 321 providing guidance for size in millimeters for lockable protrusions and cavities.
10) Claims 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luchsinger-Caballero (US 2,609,026) in view of Magistrini et al (US 3,667,527) and optionally Australia 346 (AU 236,346).
Luchsinger-Caballero, which is discussed above, does not recite that the spacing between the protrusions / cavities is about 0.5 cm to about 10 cm.
As to claims 13-15 and 17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Luchsinger-Caballero’s two piece tire such that a spacing between the protrusions and/or lockable protrusions is about 0.5 cm to about 10 cm (about 5 mm to about 100 mm) since (1) Luchsinger-Caballero shows providing the detachable tread with four protrusions [FIGURE 15] and (2) Magistrini et al teaches providing a detachable tread for a two piece tire (heavy load size 12.00R20) having three protrusions such that width L’ of reinforcement layers 4, 5 is, for example 210 mm (width L’ being similar to the tread width of the tread( wherein FIGURE 1 illustrates the spacing of the protrusions to be about 19% width L’ (the spacing of the protrusions thereby being about 40 mm).
As to claims 14-15, see FIGURE 17. IN ANY EVENT: As to claims 14-15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Luchsinger-Caballero’s two piece tire such that the ribs and grooves have the claimed radial cross sectional shape of a trapezoid since Australia 346 teaches mechanically coupling a tread 3 to a casing 6 using grooves 5 and ribs 4 having a dovetail cross section; such dovetail cross sections defining trapezoidal radial cross sectional shapes.
As to claim 17, note inner tube C.
11) Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luchsinger-Caballero (US 2,609,026) in view of Magistrini et al (US 3,667,527) and optionally Australia 346 (AU 236,346) as applied above and further in view of Feltes et al (US 2012/0145302)
As to claim 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the casing B of Luchsinger-Caballero’s two piece tire such that the body comprises:
a supporting carcass positioned inward along the radial direction from the rubber cap and abutting the rubber cap, two sidewalls that extend inward along the radial direction from axial outer edges of the rubber cap, and a rubber innerliner positioned inward along the radial direction from the supporting carcass and inward along an axial direction of the two-piece tire from the two sidewalls
since it is well known / conventional in the tire art, as evidenced by Feltes et al [FIGURE 1, paragraphs 23, 25] to provide a pneumatic tire such that the tire comprises two sidewalls, a carcass and a rubber innerliner so that the tire can be inflated and function as a pneumatic tire.
Remarks
12) Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 7-10 and 13-18 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection and the reasons presented therein.
13) No claim is allowed.
14) 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.
15) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN D MAKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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 B Smith (Whatley) 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.
/STEVEN D MAKI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
March 7, 2026