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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Statz (US 3,565,490; newly cited) in view of HYTREL 4556 (previously cited non-patent literature).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Statz, in the embodiment shown in Figs. 1 and 2, discloses a wheel assembly for a non-pneumatic tire 10 comprising: an inboard wheel segment (“right” side wheel plate member 12 shown in Figs. 1 and 2) comprising an inboard tubular body having an exterior inboard rim surface (unlabeled radially outer surface of inboard wheel plate member 12 shown in Figs. 1 and 2) a first inboard segment end (axially inboard end of the inboard wheel plate member 12) having an inboard annular lip (“right” side flange 24 shown in Figs. 1 and 2) extending radially outward from the exterior inboard rim surface (Figs. 1 and 2), and a second inboard segment end (axially outboard end of the inboard wheel plate member 12 shown in Figs. 1 and 2) having an inboard wheel segment connecting surface (unlabeled surface of “right” side central hub portion 22 shown in Figs. 1 and 2) an outboard wheel segment (“left” side wheel plate member 12 shown in Figs. 1 and 2) comprising an outboard tubular body having an exterior outboard rim surface (unlabeled radially outer surface of outboard wheel plate member 12 shown in Figs. 1 and 2), a first outboard segment end (axially outboard end of the outboard wheel plate member 12 shown in Figs. 1 and 2) having an outboard annular lip (“left” side flange 24 shown in Figs. 1 and 2) extending radially outward from the exterior outboard rim surface (Figs. 1 and 2), and a second outboard segment end (axially inboard end of the outboard wheel plate member 12 shown in Figs. 1 and 2) having an outboard wheel segment connecting surface (unlabeled surface of “left” side central hub portion 22 shown in Figs. 1 and 2); wherein the inboard and outboard wheel segment connecting surfaces are coupled together to form a joint (unlabeled joint shown in Fig. 1), wherein the exterior inboard and exterior outboard rim surfaces cooperate to form a wheel assembly rim surface (radially outer surface upon which the tire 10 is seated as shown in Fig. 1), and wherein the inboard and outboard wheel connecting surfaces abut one another, in a flush configuration (lines 51-55 of col. 2; Fig. 1).
Statz fails to expressly disclose the inboard and outboard wheel segments being formed from a polymer-based composition consisting of a copolyether-ester having a melt flow rate of about 0.5 g/10 min or more up to about 10 g/10 min or less as determined at 220°C under a 2.16 kg load according to ISOI133.
HYTREL 4556, however, teaches a polymer-based composition consisting of a copolyether-ester having a melt flow rate of about 0.5 g/10 min or more up to about 10 g/10 min or less as determined at 220°C under a 2.16 kg load according to ISOI133 (note page 1).
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 wheel assembly of Statz by forming its inboard and outboard wheel segments from a polymer-based composition consisting of a copolyether-ester having a melt flow rate of about 0.5 g/10 min or more up to about 10 g/10 min or less as determined at 220°C under a 2.16 kg load according to ISOI133 for its polymer-based composition, such as taught by HYTREL 4556, as a well-known material that would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing predictable material and physical properties, such as exceptional toughness and resilience, high resistance to creep, impact and flex fatigue, and good melt stability.
Regarding claim 2, Statz further discloses the inboard wheel segment connecting surface or the outboard wheel segment connecting surface is singular or plural (evident from Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 3, Statz further discloses the joint extends through the wheel assembly rim surface (evident from Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Statz further discloses at least one fastener 14 that couples the inboard and outboard wheel connecting surfaces (lines 55-57 of col. 2; Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 6, Statz further discloses the inboard and outboard wheel connecting surfaces each comprise a respective plurality of openings 30, the plurality of openings of the inboard connecting surface being aligned with the plurality of openings of the outboard connecting surface (lines 55-57 of col. 2; Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 7, Statz further discloses the inboard and outboard wheel segment connecting surfaces extend radially inward and perpendicular to the rotational and longitudinal axis of the inboard and outboard tubular bodies (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Statz further discloses the inboard and outboard wheel segment connecting surfaces substantially enclose the second inboard and outboard segment ends (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Statz further discloses the inboard and outboard wheel segment connecting surfaces enclose the second inboard and outboard segment ends (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Statz further discloses the inboard and outboard wheel segment connecting surfaces have at least one mounting bore hole at 34, 34 extending therethrough (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 13, the method by which the wheel assembly is formed (i.e., injection molded) is not afforded full patentable weight in a product claim (note MPEP 2113).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Conclusion
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 KIP T KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7953. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6 EST Monday-Friday.
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) J 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.
/Kip T Kotter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights