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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraphs [0034]-[0035] are merely copies of the claims with the term claim(s) replaced with the phrase “[present invention of]”. These paragraphs should either be deleted from the specification or rewritten in narrative form.
Appropriate correction is required.
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” 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”.
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 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.
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).
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.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references show airless tires and/or disclose properties of elastomer or resin materials.
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