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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-9 and 27-32, in the reply filed on 03 April 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Molloy (US-20220048224-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Molloy teaches a tire structure, wherein a smaller second tire is concentrically disposed within a larger first tire, wherein one side wall of the first and second tires have been removed (Molloy, Abstract, Par. 0064-0066, and Fig. 2). Molloy thus teaches a tire structure comprising a first tire and a second tire, wherein the first tire further comprises an annular tread area and a bottom sidewall (sidewall that is not removed) that is radially attached to a bottom edge of the annular tread area, wherein a top edge of the annular tread area obtained by removing a top sidewall (sidewall that is removed) defines an opening that leads to a tire cavity, wherein the second tire is concentrically disposed within the tire cavity.
Regarding claim 2, Molloy teaches the first tire has a diameter that is greater than the diameter of the second tire (Molloy, Par. 0066).
Regarding claims 3-4, Molloy teaches that the detached sidewall is cut from the tires and that tire cutoff (i.e. the detached sidewall) is placed in between the tires (Molloy, Par. 0066), and thus teaches that the detached sidewall is disposed between an inner face of the first tire and the second annular tread area of the second tire.
Regarding claim 5, Molloy teaches that the second tire comprises a second annular tread area and a second circular sidewall (sidewall that is not removed) that is radially attached to a first edge of the second annular tread area, and wherein a second edge of the second annular tread area defines a second opening that leads to a cavity (Area where the sidewall was removed) (Molloy, Oar. 0064-0066).
Regarding claim 7, Molloy teaches the second cavity is at least partially filled with tires (Molloy, Par. 0064-0068).
Regarding claims 8-9, Molloy teaches the second tire is placed inside the first tire concentrically (Molloy, Par. 0064-0066), and thus teaches a majority of a surface area of the second annular tread area comes into contact with an inner face of the first tire, and that the second circular sidewall is disposed adjacent to the circular sidewall of the first tire.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6 and 27-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Molloy as applied to claims 1 and 5 above.
Regarding claim 6, Molloy teaches that smaller tires are placed within larger tires, and thus renders obvious a third tire placed into the second tire (Molloy, Par. 0064-0066). This is further shown as including a third tire would be an obvious duplication of parts (i.e., a duplication of a tire), see MPEP 2144.04, VI, B.
Regarding claim 27, Molloy teaches a concentric tire structure, wherein smaller tires are concentrically disposed within larger tires, wherein one side wall of the tires have been removed (Molloy, Abstract, Par. 0064-0066, and Fig. 2). Molloy thus teaches a concentric tire structure comprising a first tire, a second tire,, and a third tire, wherein the each tire further comprises a bottom sidewall (sidewall that is not removed) that is radially attached to an annular tread area and a top edge of the annular tread area that is obtained by removing a top sidewall (sidewall that is removed), wherein the top edge of the annular tread area further defines an opening that leads to a tire cavity, wherein the second tire is concentrically disposed within the tire cavity of the first tire and the third tire is concentrical disposed within the tire cavity of the second tire. Furthermore, regarding the third tire that is disposed within the second tire, Molloy teaches that smaller tires are placed within larger tires, and thus renders obvious a third tire placed into the second tire (Molloy, Par. 0064-0066). This is further shown as including a third tire would be an obvious duplication of parts (i.e., a duplication of a tire), see MPEP 2144.04, VI, B.
Regarding claim 28, Molloy teaches a diameter of the first tire is greater than the diameter of the second tire and the diameter of the second tire is greater than a diameter of the third tire(Molloy, Par. 0066).
Regarding claims 29-30, Molloy teaches that at least one of the that the detached sidewalls are cut from the tires and that tire cutoff (i.e. the detached sidewall) is placed in between the tires (Molloy, Par. 0066), and thus teaches that the detached sidewall is disposed between an interstitial space between the inner face of the first tire and the annular tread area of the second tire.
Regarding claims 31-32, Molloy teaches the concentric tire structure further comprises a fill material that is tires (Molloy, Par. 0064-0067).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights