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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 12, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gergele (FR 2844480).
As best depicted in Figure 1, Gergele teaches a non-pneumatic tire construction comprising a bead apex 34, a bead 35, a carcass 49 wrapped around respective beads, a plurality of belt layers 720,721, a pair of sidewalls (rubber layers on outside of carcass layer in respective tire sides ) and a tread 93. The tire of Gergele further includes a shear band (combination of 119 and 121) that is positioned on an inside of said carcass in a tire center (claimed top portion) and respective tire side portions (claimed side portions). Lastly, the claims as currently drafted fail to structurally distinguish the claimed shear band from the combination of components/layers 119 and 121.
With respect to claim 3, the tire of Gergele is devoid of an innerliner.
Regarding claim 4, bead 35 is depicted as including multiple wires.
As to claim 6, the claims are directed to a tire article and limitations pertaining to the method of manufacture fail to further define the structure of the claimed tire article.
With respect to claim 12, the shear band of Gergele directly contacts respective side portions of said carcass in an analogous manner to the claimed invention and as such, would be expected to act in a manner consistent with the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15, respective bead portions in the tire of Gergele are mounted on a rim 10 have first and second rim flanges.
As to claim 16, the left side of the tire includes a bead portion that is axially clamped (reference character 1037 is low point of bead that is clamped between adjacent rim portions).
With respect to claim 17, respective sidewalls are inclined in an axially inward direction and clamped in respective bead portions- this arrangement is analogous to that of the claimed invention and as such, is seen to satisfy the claimed behavior.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuwayama (US 2022/0001706).
As best depicted in Figures 2 and 5, Kuwayama teaches a tire construction comprising an innerliner 8, a bead apex 2b, a bead 2a, a carcass 3 wrapped around respective beads, a plurality of belt layers 4, a pair of sidewalls, and a tread 5. The tire of Gergele further includes a shear band 9 that is positioned on an inside of said carcass in a tire center (claimed top portion) and respective tire side portions (claimed side portions). Additionally, the claims as currently drafted fail to structurally distinguish the claimed shear band from shear band 9 of Kuwayama, it being noted that shear band 9 of Kuwayama can be formed with polyurethane (Paragraph 101) in the same manner as the claimed invention. Lastly, Applicant states that the claimed “non-pneumatic” tire can be formed by attaching a shear band to an inner surface of a pneumatic tire- thus, the structure of Kuwayama appears to be directly analogous to that required by the claimed invention (tire of Kuwayama can be fairly characterized as a “non-pneumatic tire”).
As to claim 6, the claims are directed to a tire article and limitations pertaining to the method of manufacture fail to further define the structure of the claimed tire article.
With respect to claim 13, the tire of Kuwayama includes a butyl innerliner 8 (Paragraph 81).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 5 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gergele.
Regarding claim 5, it is well taken that tires are not limited to a single tread thickness. One of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use any number of ratios between the thickness of the tread and the thickness of the shear band, including that required by the claimed invention. This is especially the case since the claims define an extremely broad range of thickness ratios and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed invention.
As to claim 18, Figure 1 depicts an assembly in which a bead to bead distance is smaller than an axial extent of said shear band. While an exact difference is not disclosed by Gergele, the general disclosure of Gergele is seen to encompass the claimed quantitative relationship and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for said relationship. It is emphasized that an axial extent of said shear band is even larger than an axial extent of the rim, which itself has a significantly greater axial extent than a distance between respective bead portions. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to include a shear band that is at least 10% wider than an axial distance between bead portions.
7. Claim(s) 1-6, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buschmann (DE 19750229).
As best depicted in Figure 1, Buschmann teaches a tire construction comprising a shearband 3 attached to an innerliner 4 or a shearband attached to an inner tire surface that is devoid of an innerliner, wherein said shearband covers an entire top surface (region directly beneath a ground contacting surface) and respective side portions. It is further noted that the claims fail to structurally distinguish the claimed shearband from that disclosed by Buschmann and as such, the tire of Buschmann can be fairly characterized as a “non-pneumatic tire” (Applicant describes a non-pneumatic tire as being formed by attaching a “shearband” to a pneumatic tire).
Lastly, regarding claim 1 (and claim 4), the additional structure of the claimed tire construction corresponds with fundamental tire components that are present in almost every modern day tire construction.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, as detailed above, the tire of Buschmann can be devoid of an innerliner.
As to claim 5, Buschmann teaches a maximum thickness of 5 mm for shearband 3. This in tun requires a tread thickness less than approximately 7 mm and such values are consistent with those that are commonly used in tire constructions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form a tire of Buschmann with conventional tire dimensions and such includes tread thickness values that satisfy the claimed quantitative relationship. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed relationship.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, the claims are directed to a tire article and limitations pertaining to the method of manufacture fail to further define the structure of the claimed tire article.
With respect to claim 15, the assembly of Buschmann includes a rim having first and second flanges 1d.
8. Claim(s) 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buschmann as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Griffoin (US 2021/0245556) and/or Shimizu (US 2007/0215266).
As detailed above, Buschmann is directed to a tire construction having a shearband in the form of a foam layer attached to a tire inner surface (with or without a tire innerliner). In such an instance though, Buschmann broadly teaches the use of closed cell foams without disclosing specific materials. In any event, polyurethane represents the most well-known and conventional foam material used in the tire industry. More particularly, polyurethanes having the claimed density are consistent with those that are commonly used in the tire industry, as shown for example by Griffoin (Paragraphs 25 and 36) and/or Shimizu (Paragraph 128). One of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to form the foam of Buschmann with conventional tire foams and such includes those encompassed by the broad ranges of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 8, 9, 19, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. It is particularly noted that Gergele fails to suggest, disclose, or teach (a) the claimed makeup of a shearband and (b) the claimed rim design in combination with a non-pneumatic tire having a shearband that extends over a center portion and side portions of a carcass.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached on 571-270-5545. 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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 March 11, 2025