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 .
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 1-7 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “configured to contact” is generally narrative (see section 4 below) and fails to describe any actual physical structure of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is further indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “having conductivity”.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inner circumferential portion side" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation has not been previously set forth in the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the ground-contact portion tire" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation has not been previously set forth in the claims. Furthermore, this limitation appears grammatically incorrect or incomplete.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manesh et al (8,109,308) in view of Ogawa et al (7,038,006) and in further view of Mizuno et al (6,302,173).
Per claim 1, Manesh et al shows an airless tire 10 including an annular tread portion 70, an annular inner circumferential portion 20 radially inward of the tread portion 70; the inner portion 20 contacting a wheel. A spoke portion 40 connects the tread portion 70 and the inner portion 20. The tread 70 includes a first portion having a ground-contact surface and a second portion radially inwardly opposite the first portion. The second portion, spoke portion 40, and inner portion 20 include a resin or elastomer, which includes an antistatic agent (column 10, line 39), that is polymer or surfactant based. It should be noted that all substances “have conductivity”.
Per claim 3, the resin or elastomer is thermoplastic.
Per claims 6-7, Manesh et al discloses the tensile shear strength of the tire portions being greater than 1.0 MPa.
Regarding claims 1-2, Manesh et al does not disclose the percentage by mass of the antistatic agent with respect to the base resin or elastomer. Ogawa et al teaches the use of a resin material including an antistatic agent (column 6, line 29 and column 7, line 26) that makes up less than 60% by mass per 100% of the resin material (column 7, line 32-34). The antistatic agent is thermoplastic-based. Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide the resin or elastomer with the percentage by weight of antistatic agent suitable to achieve the desired chemical and physical characteristics of the airless tire, such that the tire does not fail during use.
Regarding claim 4, Manesh et al as modified by Ogawa et al does not disclose the complex elastic modulus of the resin or elastomer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide the resin or elastomer of Manesh et al as modified by Ogawa et al with a complex elastic modulus suitable to prevent the airless tire from failing due to vibration during use.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Manesh et al as modified by Ogawa et al does not disclose the electrical resistance value of “the ground-contact portion tire” (taken to be referring to the ground-contacting surface of the first portion of the tire) being less than 100 MΩ. However, Mizuno et al teaches the use of a tire having a ground-contacting surface of a tread portion thereof which has an electrical resistance of less than 100 MΩ. Therefore from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide the resin or elastomer of Manesh et al as modified by Ogawa et al with a volume resistivity suitable to prevent electrical flow through the tire.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manesh et al in view of Ogawa et al as applied to claims 1-4 and 6-7 above, and further in view of Sakogawa et al (6,011,090).
Manesh et al as modified by Ogawa et al does not disclose the volume resistivity of the resin or elastomer being between 1.0x106 to 1.0x1010 Ω·cm. Sakogawa et al teaches the use of a resin having a volume resistivity of 1.0x102 to 1.0x1012 Ω·cm. Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide the resin or elastomer of Manesh et al as modified by Ogawa et al with a volume resistivity suitable to prevent electrical flow through the tire.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 30 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the phrase “configured to contact” in claim 1 is not indefinite since a tire “has many portions, some of which (i.e., the tread surface) are configured to come into contact with a road surface”, and that a person of skill in the art “would readily understand” that the phrase “configured to contact” “describes a portion of the tire” that is “meant to contact a road when used”. However, as set forth in sections 3-4 above, the phrase “configured to contact” is a generally narrative and indefinite, as it does not positively recite any physical structure of the invention.
It should be noted that the Applicant has failed to address any of the other indefiniteness issues set forth in the prior Office action (which are repeated above).
It should be noted that the Applicant only argues that the references do not disclose the tire having an electrical resistance value less than 100 MΩ, which is a newly added limitation, and provides no other arguments with respect to the obviousness rejection set forth in the prior Office action (and repeated above). Therefore, it appears that the Applicant tacitly agrees that the art rejections of the prior Office action are proper and meet the original limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The reference discloses electrical resistance values of a tire.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON R BELLINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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) 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.
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights