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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in paragraph [0034] of the description: 140.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 200 (Fig. 2), 300 (Fig. 3) and 400 (Fig. 4).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 19 is 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 19, the limitations “radially inner sidewall” and “radially outer sidewall” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what would be encompassed by these limitations (i.e., are the sidewalls of the tire somehow spaced in the radial direction so as to define a radially inner sidewall and a radially outer sidewall?). As best understood for examination purposes, the so-called “radially inner sidewall” is considered to be an axially inboard sidewall of the tire and the so-called “radially outer sidewall” is considered to be an axially outboard sidewall of the tire.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Talbot et al. (US 2017/0297372 A1; hereinafter “Talbot”).
Regarding claim 1, Talbot discloses a non-pneumatic tire 100 comprising: an outer annular portion 210; an inner annular portion 512; and a load bearing ring (comprised of shear band 300, connecting web 500 and connecting web 600 as shown in Fig. 1) positioned between the outer annular portion and the inner annular portion (Fig. 1); wherein the load bearing ring comprises at least one reinforcing layer (woven layers 460 and 470 of the three dimensional fabric structure 400 as shown in Figs. 3A; paragraphs [0038] and [0050]); and wherein each of the at least one reinforcing layers comprises one or more strips (at 462, 464) of multi angle tension control reinforcement (MATCR) material (Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 2, Talbot further discloses the MATCR material comprises a woven construction including a warp wire 464 and a weft wire 462 (Fig. 3A; paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 3, Talbot further discloses the warp wire provides circumferential strength to the composite (evident from Fig. 3A which shows the warp wire 464 extending in the circumferential direction).
Regarding claim 4, Talbot further discloses the weft wire deforms the warp wire radially, providing tension support and shear modulus in both the radial and lateral directions (evident from Fig. 3A and paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 5, Talbot further discloses the weft wire provides lateral stiffness (evident from Fig. 3A which shows the weft wire 462 extending in the axial or lateral direction).
Regarding claim 7, Talbot further discloses the weft wire alternates between going over and under each consecutive warp wire (Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 11, Talbot further discloses the warp wire and weft wire independently include a material selected from the group consisting of cotton, nylon, polyester, aramid, rayon, steel or other strengthening materials, composites, and combinations thereof (paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 12, Talbot further discloses the at least one reinforcing layer is coated with rubber, other polymer composite materials, or a combination thereof (paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 13, Talbot further discloses the at least one reinforcing layer comprises between 2 and 10 reinforcing layers 460, 470 (Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 14, Talbot further discloses the load bearing ring further comprises an outer matrix material 300 between the at least one reinforcing layer and the outer annular portion (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Talbot further discloses the load bearing ring further comprises an inner matrix material 600 between the at least one reinforcing layer and the inner annular portion (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Talbot further discloses the outer annular portion includes a tread pattern (paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 17, Talbot further discloses the outer annular portion includes one or more sub-surface layers (layer of tread rubber 210 and/or layers 310, 320 of shear band 300 as shown in Fig. 1) radially positioned beneath the tread pattern (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Talbot further discloses the inner annular portion is in direct contact with a wheel hub.
Regarding claim 19, Talbot further discloses the tire includes a radially inner sidewall (radially inward extending portion of 200 on the inboard side of the tire as shown in Fig. 1) and a radially outer sidewall (radially inward extending portion of 200 on the outboard side of the tire as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Talbot further discloses the tire further comprises spokes 510 between the load bearing ring at 300 and the inner annular portion (Fig. 1).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talbot in view of Sherhag et al. (US 2019/0263181 A1; hereinafter “Sherhag”).
Regarding claim 6, Talbot fails to expressly disclose the tensile strength of the warp wire and the weft wire.
Sherhag, however, teaches a tire the includes at least one reinforcing layer formed of a woven multi angle tension control reinforcement (MATCR) material that includes a warp wire and a weft wire (Fig. 1) that independently have a tensile strength of between 0.1 and 50,000 Newtons (at least 350 N per paragraphs [0040] and [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-pneumatic tire of Talbot so that the warp wire and weft wire of the MATCR material each have a tensile strength of between 0.1 and 50,000 Newtons, such as taught by Sherhag, with a reasonable expectation of success in ensuring the tire has sufficient durability and shock absorption for its intended use.
Regarding claim 8, Talbot fails to disclose the weft wire alternates between going over and under every two consecutive warp wires. Instead, as noted above with respect to claim 7, Talbot, in Fig. 3A, discloses the weft wire alternates between going over and under each consecutive warp wire.
Sherhag, however, teaches various weaving patterns for the MATCR material of the tire including where the weft wire can alternate between going over and under every two consecutive warp wires (paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-pneumatic tire of Talbot so that the weft wire alternates between going over and under every two consecutive warp wires, such as taught by Sherhag, as a well-known alternative weaving pattern that would have a reasonable expectation of success in achieving higher strength, increased load-bearing capacity, and greater flexibility.
Regarding claim 9, Talbot fails to disclose the weft wire passes through twisted warp wires.
Sherhag, however, teaches that the weft wire may pass through twisted warp wires (paragraph [0044]; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-pneumatic tire of Talbot so that the weft wire passes through twisted warp wires, such as taught by Sherhag, with a reasonable expectation of success in enhancing the sturdiness and stability of the woven layer by preventing the wires from shifting.
Regarding claim 10, Talbot fails to expressly disclose the warp wire and weft wire independently include up to 40 ends per inch.
Sherhag, however, teaches the warp wire and weft wire can independently include up to 40 ends per inch (“spacing between the steel warp cords is about 0.3 to about 4 mm” per paragraph [0038] and “spacing between the steel weft cords is about 0.3 to about 4 mm” per paragraph [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-pneumatic tire of Talbot so that the
the warp wire and weft wire independently include up to 40 ends per inch, such as taught by Sherhag, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing the MATCR with a desired stability and stiffness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references show other examples of non-pneumatic tires that comprise reinforcing layers of multi angle tension control reinforcement material.
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