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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/09/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-5 have been amended. Claims 1-5 are pending. Examiner’s further notes: The amendment fails to provide the proper status identifiers in accordance with MPEP 714 Section IIC. However, for the sake of compact prosecution the examination will proceed on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Figures: The examiner provides illustrations from the prior art with additional annotations as needed to facilitate discussion of the claim elements. Moreover, it is held that guidance as provided by the figures is sufficient to enable public possession of an inventive concept. That is, an enabling picture may be used to reject claims directed to an article to include: anticipating claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). And when the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979), see MPEP 2125.The examiner provides marked-up reproductions of applicable drawings (as needed) to facilitate discussion of the prior art.
Claims 1, 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Smith (US 4,574,859).
[AltContent: textbox (End face)]Regarding claims 1, 3-4, Smith discloses a multi-piece tire rim assembly to include a flange 77 and bead seat 54.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (radially extending axially inward surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (radially extending axially outward surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Outer fillet)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Inner fillet)][AltContent: textbox (circumferentially extending tapered radially inward surface (continuously tapered))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The assembly is configured to have at least one tire flange 77 including an end face and a circumferentially extending tapered radially inward surface formed as a single continuous taper, the circumferentially extending radially inward surface further including an outer fillet provided at an edge between a radially extending axially outward surface of the tire flange and the circumferentially extending tapered radially inward surface, and an inner fillet provided at the edge between a radially extending axially inward surface of the tire flange and the circumferentially extending tapered radially inward surface.
[AltContent: textbox (θ1)][AltContent: textbox (θ2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second tapered surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Bead seat)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First tapered surface)]
PNG
media_image2.png
230
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
At least one bead seat including a first tapered surface inclined at an angle of θ1 formed on a circumferentially extending radially outward surface of the bead seat, and a second tapered surface inclined at an angle of θ2 formed on a circumferentially extending radially inward surface of the bead seat, wherein θ1 is greater than θ2. And as depicted above, the circumferentially extending tapered radially inward surface of the tire flange has a taper matching a taper of the first tapered surface; and the outer and inner fillets are provided as curved transitional surfaces at the edges
As to upon tire inflation, the circumferentially extending tapered radially inward surface of the tire flange is completely mounted within the first tapered surface of the bead seat, such that tire loads are transferred to the first tapered surface and support reactions are carried by the second tapered surface, thereby preventing fretting, reducing stress concentration on the tire flange, and enhancing rigidity of the bead seat in the critical region under load; and imparts a gradually increasing section in critical region of the bead seat under load, thereby enhancing rigidity of the bead seat and restricting the tire flange from establishing contact with a radially extending axially inward flange surface of the bead seat upon tire inflation; and for preventing stress concentration on the tire flange:
The tire flange and bead seat assembly of a multi-piece wheel rim is considered to be and examined as an apparatus. A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claimed, see MPEP 2114 II. It being further noted, Smith’s apparatus anticipates claim 1 as there are no structural differences between what Smith presents and what is claimed.
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.
Figures: The examiner provides illustrations from the prior art with additional annotations as needed to facilitate discussion of the claim elements. Moreover, it is held that guidance as provided by the figures is sufficient to enable public possession of an inventive concept. That is, an enabling picture may be used to reject claims directed to an article to include: anticipating claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). And when the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979), see MPEP 2125.The examiner provides marked-up reproductions of applicable drawings (as needed) to facilitate discussion of the prior art.
Claims 2, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 4,574,859), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Balaji (WO 2020/194072 A1 – of record).
Regarding claims 2, 5, Smith does not explicitly disclose a thickness difference within the tire flange to create the clearance. However, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, see MPEP 2144.04. Moreover, Balaji discloses a tire flange 403 suitable for retaining and supporting a wall of a tire substantially the same function as Oba’s side ring 15. The flange 403 being shaped to have:
PNG
media_image3.png
281
643
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A radially extending axially outward surface and a radially extending axially inward surface, wherein the radially extending axially outward surface divided into an upper surface and a lower surface; wherein a thickness T1 formed between the upper surface and the radially extending axially inward surface and a thickness T2 formed between the lower surface and the radially extending axially inward surface; and wherein the thickness T2 is less than the thickness T1 as clearly depicted above. Moreover, one of ordinary skill would appreciate such a change in shape that would provide a means for providing a clearance between the lower surface and a radially extending axially inward flange surface of a bead seat flange.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith’s tire flange to have a change in thickness as claimed and taught by Balaji to provide a means for securing a clearance between the radially extending surface of the flange and the radially extending surface of the bead seat. As to thereby preventing direct contact between the lower surface and the flange surface; and the thickness T1 and T2 are configured in relation to the load acting on the wheel, such that the rigidity of the bead seat is maintained while reducing mass of the tire flange: This relates to intended use and fails to require any tire structure different from that as suggested by the prior art to perform the claimed use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571) 272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights