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)(4) because reference character “9” has been used to designate both main bearing and auxiliary bearing (see figure 24, the main bearing should be labeled 19 as per the specification). 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.
It is noted that a set of supplemental drawings were submitted on July 31, 2023. These drawing do not appear to be for this application.
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 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 11, 12 and 14 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 claims 2, 5-7. 11, 12 and 14 are indefinite, the phrase “preferably” is indefinite.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 1,857,888 to Stout.
Re-claim 1, Stout discloses a brake system for a vehicle, comprising a wheel 20/24 and a tire 21 mounted on the wheel, the wheel has a chamber that is at least partially arranged within a volume defined by the tire (see figure 2), a friction surface (as part of disks 25) are provided at a wall delimiting the chamber, a brake shoe (elements 23) are arranged within the chamber, configured to be pressed against the friction surface for braking (through operation of shaft 27).
Re-claim 4, the friction surface is provided at a radially inner wall portion and an axially inner wall portion of the chamber.
Re-claim 5, a further friction surface is provided at a further wall portion of the wall delimiting the chamber. The brake arrangement includes numerous disks.
Re-claim 6, the wheel has at least one cavity (as formed by additional pneumatic tire 30, see page 2 lines 49-52) arranged within the volume defined by the tire, the cavity is located adjacent to a section of the wall at which the friction surface is provided, opposite of the friction surface.
Re-claim 7, a stiffening element is provided on the wheel, with a radially inner wall portion of the chamber. Element 30 is interpreted as a stiffening element.
Re-claim 8, the friction surface is formed by a wall surface of the wall delimiting the chamber, see figure 2.
Re-claim 11, the wall delimiting the chamber comprises cooling holes. The passages through bearing elements 26 will provide an airflow and thus cooling,
Re-claim 15, the tire 21 comprises a tire cavity. The tire cavity is one of the internal space of the tire, or the secondary pneumatic tire portion 30.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 9, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stout in view of DE 10 2020 216 507 A1 to Bausch et al.
Re-claims 9 and 10, Stout fails to teach what material is used to manufacture the friction surface, or what material forms the wall 24 delimiting the chamber.
Bausch et al. teach the common use of cast iron when forming parts of a brake, such as a brake disc. Cast iron is a relatively inexpensive and easily manipulated material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have looked to Bausch et al. when having selected cast iron for the elements of Stout, since cast iron is relatively inexpensive and easy to manipulate into a desired shape.
Re-claim 12, Stout fails to teach a magnetic dust collection device as part of the brake system.
Bausch et al. teach a brake system made from cast iron, and thus iron particles are dispersed during a brake action. Bausch et al. further teach a magnetic dust collector 26 present for collecting iron particles, thus reducing pollution. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the brake arrangement of Stout with a magnetic dust collector as taught by Bausch et al., thus preventing pollution as well as preventing particles from interfering with the roller bearings.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stout in view of US 8,333,437 to Matsuda et al.
Stout fails to teach how either tire element 21 or 30 is attached to the wheel, specifically using an adhesive.
Matsuda et al. teach a tire attached to a wheel rim using an adhesive 23. This provides a continuous connection structure between the tire and wheel rim, thus improving the connection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized an adhesive as taught by Matsuda et la. when having connected either tire element 21 and/or 30 to the wheel of Stout, thus ensuring a continuous connection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 2 and 3 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Romine and Porro each teach a magnetic dust collector. Glenn teaches a brake actuator within a chamber of a wheel.
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Siconolfi, can be reached at 571-272-7124. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW
November 18, 2025
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616