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
1. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “studded raised structures are focused in a part of the traction component corresponding to a middle section of the cross member” as set forth in Claim 2; must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
2. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
· Reference characters “60” and “70” have both been used to designate the same element in Figure 6A.
· Reference characters “62” and “72” have both been used to designate the same element in Figure 6A.
· Reference characters “21”, “36”, and “56” have been used to designate the same element in Figure 8.
· Reference characters “29”, “32”, and “52” have been used to designate the same element in Figure 8.
· Reference characters “21”, “36”, and “56” have been used to designate the same element in Figure 8.
· Reference character “25/38/58” is not clearly associated with distinct structures in Figure 8.
· Reference character “29/32/42/52” is not clearly associated with distinct structures in Figure 8A.
· Reference characters “25” and “251” have been used to designate the same element in Figure 8A.
· Reference characters “25” and “252” have been used to designate the same element in Figure 8A.
· Reference character “21/36/56” is not clearly associated with distinct structures in Figure 8A.
References cannot share the same leader line.
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.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
· “a trapezoidal” in line 3 should read “a trapezoid”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “mechanism for connecting” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
It should be noted that the specification defines the “mechanism for connecting” as eyelet(s), button(s), buckle(s), gluing, and sewing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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 1-2, 16, and 21-22 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.
Claims 1-2, and 21-22 are indefinite because the claims include multiple recitations of the same element without clarity as to whether the recited elements refer to the same element previously set forth in the claims or to an additional element. Please note the following:
Claim 1: “a traction component” in line 12; “a plurality of raised structures” in line 12-13
Claim 2: “a traction component” in line 1-2
Claim 21: “a tire” in line 2; “a surface” in line 2; “a plurality of raised structures” in line 7-8; “a surface side” in line 8; “a traction component” in line 9; “a plurality of raised structures” in line 9-10; “a stud” in line 11
Claim 22: “a traction component” in line 1-2
Claim 16 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “are configured to project away”. Namely, no physical structure is present in these claims to define this phrase. It is suggested that the term “are configured to” be removed from this phrase.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 6-7, 10-17, 19-21, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangold (DE 3504236) in view of Spindler (WO 2012095248) and Abe (US 10232672).
Regarding claim 1, Mangold discloses a device (5 “running net”) for increasing traction between a tire (not shown, but described in paragraph [0022]) and a surface the tire is in contact with, comprising two or more line structures (1 “outer strand”; 3 “inner strand”), at least two of which configured for encircling along two side walls of the tire, respectively (described in paragraph [0022]; Fig. 1); a plurality of cross members (7 “belt sections”) configured for contacting a tread portion (Fig. 1) of the tire, the cross members (7) comprising mechanism for connecting the two or more line structures together (Figs. 2 to 4); wherein at least one of the cross members comprises a strap (7), one or more traction components (21 “rivet socket” in Fig. 5) attached to at least a surface side of said strap (Fig. 5).
Mangold does not disclose wherein said one or more traction components further comprise a plurality of raised structures arranged on a surface side of the traction components and wherein with respect to a traction component having a plurality of raised structures attached thereto, at least one of the plurality of raised structures is fitted with a stud and at least another one of the plurality of raised structures is not fitted with any stud.
Spindler, however, teaches a device for increasing traction between a tire and a surface the tire is in contact with, comprising: wherein said one or more traction components (8 “engagement means”; Fig. 6b) comprises a plurality of raised structures (11 “web”; Fig. 6b) arranged on a surface side of the traction components (8; Fig. 6b) and wherein with respect to a traction component (8; Fig. 6b) having a plurality of raised structures (11; Fig. 6b) attached thereto.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the device of Mangold by substituting its one or more traction components for one or more traction components comprising a plurality of raised structures arranged on a surface side of the traction components such as taught by Spindler as a well-known alternative traction component arrangement that would provide predictable results for providing a desired profile for the intended use of the tire while also ensuring that the replacement of the traction component can be more easily accomplished if needed and/or desired.
Mangold, as modified by Spindler, fails to disclose at least one of the plurality of raised structures is fitted with a stud and at least another one of the plurality of raised structures is not fitted with any stud. Abe, however, teaches at least one of the plurality of raised structure (4 “blocks”) is fitted with a stud (23 “stud pin”) and at least another one of the plurality of raised structures (4) is not fitted with any stud (23; Figs. 1, 2(a), and 2(b)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the raised structures of the traction component of Mangold, as modified by Spindler, by including stud pins on some raised structures and not others, as taught by Abe, as this represents a known and predictable variation in traction devices.
Mangold, as modified by Spindler and Abe, discloses Claims 6 and 25: wherein the strap is made of a material comprising textile (described in the paragraphs [0014-0016] from Mangold); Claims 7 and 26: wherein the strap material comprises one or more of nylon, polyester, polypropylene, leather, and cotton (described in the paragraphs [0014-0016] from Mangold); Claim 10: wherein said plurality of cross members form a pattern comprising a sequence of lines substantially parallel to each other (Fig. 3 from Mangold from Mangold); Claim 11: wherein said plurality of cross members form a pattern comprising a sequence of lines unparallel to each other (Fig. 4 from Mangold); Claim 12: wherein at least two lines in the sequence that are adjacent to each other meet at a common end to form a “V” form (Fig. 4 from Mangold); Claim 13: wherein an angle (A) between the two lines forming the “V” form is in a range of between approximately 45 degrees and approximately 90 degrees (Fig. 4 from Mangold); Claim 16: wherein said plurality of raised structures (19 from Mangold) are configured to project away from said surface side of the traction components when said device is fitted onto the tire (Figs. 4 and 5 from Mangold); Claim 17: wherein at least one of said two or more line structures is a cable, a chain, or a rope (Para [0024] from Mangold); Claim 19: wherein among said one or more cross members, at least one pair of cross members which are immediately adjacent to each other are arranged to resemble two unparallel sides of a trapezoidal when said at least one pair of cross members connect the line structures of the device together (Fig. 4 from Mangold); Claim 20: wherein among said one or more cross members, each pair of cross members which are immediately adjacent to each other join each other at a common end which is an end of both cross members (Fig.4), the common end being in contact with one of said at least two line structures or the connecting mechanism connecting that line structure (Fig. 4 from Mangold); Claim 21: said strap (7 “belt sections” from Mangold) for increasing traction between a tire and a surface the tire is in contact with, wherein the strap (7 from Mangold) can be fitted onto the device to connect the two or more line structures (1 “outer strand” and 3 “inner strand” from Mangold) of the device together, wherein the strap (7 from Mangold) comprises one or more traction components (21 “rivet socket” in Fig. 5 from Mangold) attached to at least one side of said strap (Fig. 5 from Mangold); wherein said one or more traction components (8 “engagement means”; Fig. 6b from Spindler) comprises a plurality of raised structures (11 “web”; Fig. 6b from Spindler) arranged on a surface side of the traction components (8; Fig. 6b from Spindler) and wherein with respect to a traction component (8; Fig. 6b from Spindler) having a plurality of raised structures (11; Fig. 6b from Spindler) attached thereto, at least one of the plurality of raised structures is fitted with a stud (13 “abrasion-resistant projecting element”; Fig. 6b from Spindler) and at least another one of the plurality of raised structures is not fitted with any stud (Fig. 6b from Spindler).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Mangold, as modified by Spindler and Abe, fails to expressly disclose the claimed angle set forth in these claims.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions, as a matter of routine optimization, to have formed the angle to be between approximately 45 degrees and approximately 50 degrees, between 50 degrees to approximately 60 degrees, or between approximately 60 degrees and approximately 75 degrees to achieve a desired traction profile.
9. Claims 2, 3, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangold in view of Spindler and Abe, as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Walrave et al (US 4171718).
Regarding claims 2 and 22, Mangold, as modified by Spindler and Abe, discloses wherein with respect to a traction component having the plurality of raised structures attached thereto.
Mangold, however, fails to disclose the studded raised structures are focused in a part of the traction component corresponding to a middle section of the cross member.
Walrave et al, however, teaches studded structures (5 “central profile”; Figs. 4 to 6) are focused in a part of the traction component (strip; abstract) corresponding to a middle section of the cross member (Figs. 4 to 6; col 3, line 4 – 8 and 18 – 22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the traction component of the device of Mangold, as modified by Spindler and Abe, by concentrating the studded raised structures in the middle section of the cross member, as taught by Walrave et al, in order to improve traction and wear performance in the region of highest load.
Regarding Claims 3 and 23, Mangold, as modified by Spindler and Abe, fails to disclose wherein said stud is made of a material comprising one or more of carbon, nickel-manganese alloy, boron, tungsten carbide, and titanium.
Walrave et al, however, teaches a stud is made of tungsten carbide (Col. 5, line 29 – 32).
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 traction component of the device of Mangold, as modified by Spindler and Abe, by using tungsten carbide for the stud, such as taught by Walrave et al, as a well-known suitable material for traction studs due to its high hardness and wear resistance.
10. Claims 4 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangold in view of Spindler and Abe, as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Liu (CN 101712266).
Regarding claims 4 and 24, Mangold, as modified by Spindler and Abe, fails to disclose wherein said plurality of raised structures are made of a material comprising one or more of rubber, thermoplastic polyurethane, metal, alloy, plastic, sand, polystyrene, and textile.
Liu, however, teaches a device for increasing traction between a tire and a surface the tire is in contact with, wherein the device includes raised structures which can be made from a material comprising sand (Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs [0003] and [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the device of Mangold, as modified by Spindler and Abe, by using sand for the raised structures, such as taught by Liu, as a well-known suitable material that would provide predictable material and physical properties such as good durability while also providing a desired tractive profile.
11. Claims 5 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangold in view of Spindler and Abe, as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Bernard et al (US 20040182486).
Regarding claims 5 and 27, Mangold, as modified by Spindler and Abe, fails to disclose wherein each of said plurality of raised structures has a length of from 3 inches to 20 inches and a width of from 0.3 inches to 6 inches.
Bernard et al, however, teaches a traction component (20 in Fig.1) having one or more raised structures (50 in Fig. 2) that can have a length of from 3 inches to 20 inches and a width of from 0.3 inches to 6 inches (Paragraphs [0021] and [0104]; claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the device of Mangold, as modified by Spindler and Abe, by forming the raised structures with the claimed dimensions, such as taught by Bernard et al, to provide a desired traction profile for the intended use of the device which enables the raised structures to obtain the required grip on the surface the tire is in contact with.
12. Claims 8 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangold in
view of Spindler and Abe, as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Curry et al (US 20150053322).
Regarding claims 8 and 28, Mangold, as modified by Spindler and Abe, fails to expressly disclose the width of the strap.
Curry et al, however, teaches a device for increasing traction between a tire and a surface the tire is in contact with, that comprises straps having a width of between approximately 3/4 inch and approximately 6 inch (paragraphs [0041], [0074], and [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the device of Mangold, as modified by Spindler and Abe, by forming its straps to have a width of between approximately 3/4 inch and
approximately 6 inch, such as taught by Curry et al, to ensure that the straps can adequately secure the traction components thereon while also being able to be sufficiently secured to the ring mechanisms.
13. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangold in view of Spindler and Abe, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stetson (US 2020586).
Regarding claim 9, Mangold, as modified by Spindler and Abe, fails to disclose wherein each strap is spaced from a neighboring strap by a distance ranging between 0 and approximately 30 inch.
Stetson, however, teaches the spacing of the bands or straps in a tire traction device is
dependent upon the surface to which the tire traction device is subjected (Col. 2, lines 47-55 of page 2).
From this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, as a matter of routine optimization, to have modified the device of Mangold, as modified by Spindler and Abe, by spacing each strap from a neighboring strap by a distance ranging between 0 and approximately 30 inches to provide a desired traction profile for the intended use of the device.
14. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangold in view of
Spindler and Abe, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gordon (US 2782494).
Regarding claim 18, Mangold, as modified by Spindler and Abe, fails to disclose wherein at least one of said two or more line structures is made of a material that comprises any one or more of metal, alloy, plastic, thermoplastic polyurethane, rubber, and textile.
Gordon, however, teaches a tire traction device that includes line structures S in the form of chains made of metal (lines 60-66 of col. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the device of Mangold, as modified by Spindler and Abe, by forming its line structures from metal, such as taught by Gordon, to achieve desired and predictable material and physical properties, such as good strength and durability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references show traction elements for tires.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEKWON CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-5805. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 9 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel Morano, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/TAEKWON CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615