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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
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 sidewall including a “convex exterior surface” or a “concave interior surface” as set forth in claims 27 and 37; 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "28", "22", and "38" have both been used to designate the same element in Figures 3-4.
Reference characters "34" and "30" have both been used to designate the same element in Figures 3-4.
Reference characters "24" and "26" have both been used to designate the same element in Figures 3-4.
Reference characters "70" and "36" have both been used to designate the same element in Figure 9.
It should be noted that a reference character denoting an overall element should include an arrowhead at the end of its 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal terms and is too long (see below). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “comprises”, “comprising”, “means”, and “said,” should be avoided.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term - -the- - should be inserted following the term “wherein” in line 1, for grammatical clarity.
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 27-46 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 27 and 37 are indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the limitation that the sidewall of the tire comprises “convex or concave exterior and interior surfaces”. Namely, if the exterior surface has a “convex exterior surface”, the interior surface will be “concave”; and vice versa. However, the aforementioned limitation implies that BOTH the exterior and interior surfaces have the SAME shape (i.e. concave or convex), which is impossible.
Claim 27 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “configured to be disposed”, given the fact that this phrase fails to describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claims 28-29 and 38-39 are indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “or any mixture thereof”. Namely, this phrase fails to define the actual parameters for a mixture of the preceding substances.
Regarding claim 36, the term "optionally" 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 § 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) 27-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho (5,050,656) in view of Whalen et al (5,047,470).
Per claims 27 and 37, Ho shows a non-pneumatic tire assembly including complementary inboard 21 and outboard 22 tire casing segments, each composed of a closed end and an open end, a peripheral band with exterior and interior surfaces, and an inner band 19 having exterior and interior surfaces. The interior band 19 is coaxially spaced radially inwardly of the interior surface of the peripheral band. The closed end is a resilient and contiguous sidewall extending radially between the interior surface of the peripheral band and the exterior surface of the inner band 19. The sidewall has a convex exterior surface and concave interior surface. A void is defined within the open end by the interior surfaces of the peripheral band, the exterior surface of the inner band, and the sidewall. The inner band interior surfaces of both tire casing segments 21-22 are disposed on an exterior surface of a rim of a wheel 12, such that the open ends of each segment do not form a sealed void therein.
Per claims 31 and 42, Ho shows a contiguous tread layer 31 disposed radially outwardly of the exterior surfaces of the peripheral bands of both tire casing segments 21-22.
Per claims 32 and 42, the contiguous tread layer 31 disposed directly on the exterior surfaces of the peripheral bands of both tire casing segments 21-22.
Per claims 33 and 43, the tread layer 31 is rubber.
Per claims 34 and 44, a shear band layer 29 is disposed between the tread layer 31 and the exterior surfaces of the peripheral bands of the tire casing segments 21-22.
Per claims 35-36 and 45, the shear band 29 may be a thermoplastic polymer.
Regarding claim 46, Ho does not disclose the material from which the wheel 12 is formed. However, it is well-known and established in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that a wheel may be formed of a thermoplastic polymer, for the purpose of reducing the weight of the wheel (and thus unsprung mass) in comparison to the same wheel made from a metal.
Regarding claims 27-31 and 37-40, Ho does not disclose the tire casing segments being formed of a composition having copolyether-ester. Whalen et al teaches the use of a composition having copolyether-ester that may be prepared from a poly(tetramethylene oxide) glycol with isophthalic or terephthalic acid and 1,4-butanediol. 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 form the tire casing segments of Ho from the composition taught by Whalen et al, dependent upon the desired chemical and physical properties of the tire, such as providing a resilient yet strong tire (thus ensuring a long useable life thereof).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references show non-pneumatic tire structure.
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