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 information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 26 May 2026 and 11 June 2026 have been considered by the examiner.
It should be noted that the lined through reference is the US Publication of a US Patent that was previously cited in the application, and therefore is already of record.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 26 May 2026. These drawings are approved.
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) 16-35 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luchini et al (8,851,131) in view of Asper (WO 2020/076507).
Per claims 16 and 23, Luchini et al shows a non-pneumatic tire 40 having a lower ring 46 with a first diameter, and an upper ring 44 having a second diameter, with the second diameter greater than the first diameter. A plurality of spokes extend between, and interconnect, the lower 46 and upper 44 rings.
Per claims 17 and 24, the spokes are substantially C-shaped.
Regarding claims 18 and 25, the apex of each spoke is circumferentially offset from a base thereof by a distance. Luchini et al does not disclose that the offset distance being in the range of 0.5 to 2 times the difference between the second and first diameters. 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 set the offset distance of the spoke apex with respect to the difference between the first and second diameters at any value suitable for allowing the spokes to support a desired load without failing during use.
Regarding claims 21-22 and 28-29, Luchini et al does not specify the thickness or width of the spokes. 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 form the spokes of Luchini et al with a width and thickness suitable to support the desired loads imparted thereon during use without failing.
Regarding claims 16 and 23, Luchini et al does not disclose the values of tension or compression stiffness of the spokes, or the ratio therebetween. Asper teaches the use of a non-pneumatic tire having spokes, and that each plurality of spokes (i.e. spoke ring 110) has a stiffness value (k). Asper further teaches that the stiffness value is dependent upon the material and geometry of the spokes; further stating that spoke rings with a higher stiffness are more resistant to deformation and compression (see paragraph [0027]). It should be noted that while Asper does not use the units of N/mm/degree, it is known in the art that the stiffness value (k) is measured in N/mm, and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the stiffness value per degree is related to the circumference of the tire (and further that the stiffness value would be the same at the location of each spoke). 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 spokes of Luchini et al with tension and compression stiffness values suitable to allow the tire to support the desired loads imparted thereon during use without failing, and the desired handling and ride characteristics.
Regarding claims 19-20 and 26-27, Luchini et al as modified by Asper does not specify that the spokes has at least one of linear tension and compression behavior. However, this is a function of the chemical and mechanical properties of the material used to form the spokes. Therefore, 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 spokes from a material having linear tension and/or compression behavior, dependent upon the desired ride and handling characteristics.
Regarding claims 30-35, these claims set forth a method of manufacturing a non-pneumatic tire having the features of claims 16-29 above, including modeling and calculating values of parameters such as tension stiffness and compression stiffness. Such a method is well-known and common in the art, allowing one of ordinary skill, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to design a tire capable of supporting the desired loads imparted thereon during use without failing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the “claimed tension stiffness and compression stiffness value ranges are not arbitrary values” and that the claimed value ranges “provide desirable non-pneumatic tire performance characteristics”. This is an argument of surprising or superior results. However, The Applicant has failed to provide any evidence (i.e. test data with respect to the prior art), in the form of a declaration or affidavit filed under 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132, to support these arguments.
The Applicant argues that the rejection of claim 16 based on “routine optimization” is improper because the claimed tension stiffness and compression stiffness “have not been established as result-effective variable”. However, this is not the case. Namely, the rejection sets forth that the material forming a non-pneumatic tire inherently has both tension and compression stiffness values. Furthermore, it is known that the configuration of the tire affects these values. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the combination of the type of material and configuration (shape, etc.) of the tire would lead to a desired tension and compression stiffness profile. Therefore, these characteristics are clearly result-effective variable. The Applicant has failed to provide any evidence, in the form of a declaration or affidavit filed under 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132, to support these arguments.
The Applicant appears to argue that “hindsight” was used in the rejection for the routine optimization statement. However, this is not the case (see section 7 below).
The Applicant argues that the rejection fails to disclose a reference using the dimensional value of N/mm/degree when discussing tension or compression stiffness. First, this is due to the fact that this value label is a custom or unique measurement used by the Applicant. Second, the rejection above (maintained from the previous Office action) has been expanded to discuss this dimensional value label. Namely, N/mm is the known unit of measurement of spring stiffness (k) (i.e. force over displacement). Measuring the spring stiffness of the material of a resilient tire over the circumference thereof (measured in degrees) would yield the claimed N/mm/degree value. The Applicant has failed to provide any evidence, in the form of a declaration or affidavit filed under 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132, that this dimensional unit is inherent or obvious based upon the structure of a resilient tire or other toroidal object.
The Applicant argues that the claimed ratio of the tension stiffness to compression stiffness is not a “result-effective variable”. Again, the ratio of the tension stiffness to the compression stiffness of a material is inherent to the resiliency characteristics of the material. It again appears that the Applicant is arguing surprising or superior results. The Applicant has failed to provide any evidence, in the form of a declaration or affidavit filed under 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132, to support these arguments.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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