Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
2. Each distinct part, including modified parts, should be labeled with a distinct reference character to be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4). Note at least the following informalities:
· The elements represented by reference characters 211 and 213 in the embodiment shown in Fig. 10 are distinct from the elements represented by these same reference characters shown in the embodiments of Figs. 8, 9A, and 9B
· The elements represented by reference characters 201 and 211 in the embodiment shown in Fig. 22 are distinct from the elements represented by these same reference characters shown in the embodiments of Figs. 8, 9A, and 9B.
3. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
· Reference characters “203a(203)” and “203b(203) is used in Fig. 6, whereas the specification identifies reference characters “203a” as a straight portion , “203b” as a bent portion, and “203” as a latch portion. Reference characters cannot share the same leader line.
· Reference character “20(2)” is used in Figs. 11 and 12, whereas the specification identifies reference characters “20” as a deformable portion and “2” as a skeleton portion. Reference characters cannot share the same leader line.
· Reference character “302(300)” is used in Figs. 13B and 14A-C, whereas the specification identifies reference characters “302” as a knit body and “300” as a tread member. Reference characters cannot share the same leader line.
4. The drawings are objected to because:
· Reference character “F” is not clearly legible in Fig. 11. Reference characters must be clearly shown and readily identifiable.
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.
Specification
5. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
· Reference elements such as “α”, “β”, and “γ” are not listed in the reference signs list.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 11, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Limozin et al (WO2016139111A1).
Regarding claim 1, Limozin et al discloses a knit body (44, 44’, 54, 54’, 64 “assembly” from Figs. 2-7) knitted out of a filament body including at least one metal fiber (48 “reinforcing element” from Figs. 2-7; Para [022] on page 3 of the attached translated document of Limozin et al) having a cross section orthogonal to a longitudinal direction (As shown in Figs. 6-8, each filament extends along a longitudinal direction, and therefore inherently has a cross section orthogonal to the longitudinal direction), the cross section having a profile that is convex polygonal (Para [023] on page 3 of the attached translated document of Limozin et al describes a possible “rectangular or square” cross section; Limozin et al discloses a cross section that is not limited to a circular shape. Although Limozin et al describes a circular cross section in detail, the phrase “When it is circular” denotes a specific embodiment and does not limit the disclosed cross section to being circular).
Regarding claim 2, Limozin et al discloses the knit body (Figs. 2-7) according to claim 1, wherein the profile of the cross section orthogonal to the longitudinal direction (Figs. 6-8) of the metal fiber is rectangle (“rectangular” per Para [023] on page 3 of the attached translated document of Limozin et al).
Regarding claims 4, Limozin et al discloses the knit body (Figs. 2-7) according to claim 1, configured into an endless shape (Figs. 6 and 7).
Regarding claims 5, Limozin et al discloses the knit body (Figs. 2-7) according to claim 1, wherein the filament body is a multifilament made of a plurality of the metal fibers (Para [024] of the attached translated document of Limozin et al).
Regarding claim 6, Limozin et al discloses the knit body (Figs. 2-7) according to claim 5, knitted out of only the multifilament (Refer to the highlighted paragraph on page 13 of the attached translated document of Limozin et al).
Regarding claim 11, Limozin et al discloses the knit body (Figs. 2-7) according to claim 2, configured into an endless shape (Figs. 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 12, Limozin et al discloses the knit body (Figs. 2-7) according to claim 2, wherein the filament body is a multifilament made of a plurality of the metal fibers (Para [024] of the attached translated document of Limozin et al).
Regarding claim 17, Limozin et al discloses the knit body (Figs. 2-7) according to claim 4, wherein the filament body is a multifilament made of a plurality of the metal fibers (Para [024] of the attached translated document of Limozin et al).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
11. 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.
12. Claims 3, 10, 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limozin et al in view of Shima et al (JP2001009984A) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above.
Regarding claim 3, Limozin et al fails to disclose the metal fiber is made of austenite stainless steel or aluminum alloy.
Shima et al, however, teaches the metal fiber is made of aluminum alloy (Refer to the highlighted portion on page 5 of the attached translated document of Shima et al).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the knit body of Limozin et al by substituting its metal fiber for a metal fiber such as aluminum alloy fibers as taught by Shima et al, with the motivation to use an alternative metal fiber suitable for forming filament elements.
Regarding claim 10, Limozin et al, as modified by Shima et al, discloses the knit body (Limozin et al: Figs. 2-7) according to claim 2, wherein the metal fiber is made of austenite stainless steel or aluminum alloy (Shima et al: refer to the highlighted portion on page 5 of the attached translated document of Shima et al).
Regarding claim 14, Limozin et al, as modified by Shima et al, discloses the knit body (Limozin et al: Figs. 2-7) according to claim 3, configured into an endless shape (Limozin et al: Figs. 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 15, Limozin et al, as modified by Shima et al, discloses the knit body (Limozin et al: Figs. 2-7) according to claim 3, wherein the filament body is a multifilament made of a plurality of the metal fibers (Para [024] of the attached translated document of Limozin et al).
Regarding claim 20, Limozin et al, as modified by Shima et al, discloses the knit body (Limozin et al: Figs. 2-7) according to claim 10, configured into an endless shape (Limozin et al: Figs. 6 and 7).
13. Claims 1, 3, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemmerich (US1217461) in view of Limozin et al and Shima et al.
Regarding claim 16, Kemmerich discloses a tire comprising: a skeleton portion (Figs. 1 and 3) including a rim member (4 “rim”; Fig. 3), a plurality of body springs (1 “spring steel strips”; Fig. 3) latched on the rim member (4; Fig. 3), and a plurality of interlink springs (2 “wire” and/or 3 “steel bands”; Fig. 3) interlaced with the body springs (1; Fig. 3); and a tread member disposed on at least an outer periphery of the skeleton portion (lines 60-65), but fails to disclose the tread member includes the knit body according to claims 1 and 3.
Limozin et al, however, teaches a tread member (12, 20; Fig. 8) that includes a knit body (44, 44’, 54, 54’, 64 “assembly” from Figs. 2-7) knitted out of a filament body including at least one metal fiber (48 “reinforcing element” from Figs. 2-7; Para [022] on page 3 of the attached translated document of Limozin et al) having a cross section orthogonal to a longitudinal direction (As shown in Figs. 6-8, each filament extends along a longitudinal direction, and therefore inherently has a cross section orthogonal to the longitudinal direction), the cross section having a profile that is convex polygonal (Para [023] on page 3 of the attached translated document of Limozin et al describes a possible “rectangular or square” cross section) as set forth in claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the tire of Kemmerich by substituting its tread member for a tread member that includes the claimed knit body, such as taught by Limozin et al, with the motivation to use a known tread material in a spring-based tire structure that would improve the durability of the tire.
Kemmerich, as modified by Limozin et al, further fails to disclose the metal fiber is made of austenite stainless steel or aluminum alloy.
Shima et al, however, teaches the metal fiber is made of aluminum alloy (Refer to the highlighted portion on page 5 of the attached translated document of Shima et al) as set forth in claim 3.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the tire of Kemmerich, as modified by Limozin et al, by substituting its metal fiber for a metal fiber such as aluminum alloy fibers as taught by Shima et al, with the motivation to use an alternative metal fiber suitable for forming filament elements.
14. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 13, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemmerich (US1217461) in view of Limozin et al.
Regarding claims 7, 13, 18, and 19, Kemmerich discloses a tire comprising: a skeleton portion (Figs. 1 and 3) including a rim member (4 “rim”; Fig. 3), a plurality of body springs (1 “spring steel strips”; Fig. 3) latched on the rim member (4; Fig. 3), and a plurality of interlink springs (2 “wire” and/or 3 “steel bands”; Fig. 3) interlaced with the body springs (1; Fig. 3); and a tread member disposed on at least an outer periphery of the skeleton portion (lines 60-65), but fails to disclose the tread member includes the knit body according to claims 1, 2, 4, and 5.
Limozin et al, however, teaches a tread member (12, 20; Fig. 8) that includes a knit body (44, 44’, 54, 54’, 64 “assembly” from Figs. 2-7) knitted out of a filament body including at least one metal fiber (48 “reinforcing element” from Figs. 2-7; Para [022] on page 3 of the attached translated document of Limozin et al) having a cross section orthogonal to a longitudinal direction (As shown in Figs. 6-8, each filament extends along a longitudinal direction, and therefore inherently has a cross section orthogonal to the longitudinal direction), the cross section having a profile that is convex polygonal (Para [023] on page 3 of the attached translated document of Limozin et al describes a possible “rectangular or square” cross section), wherein the profile of the cross section orthogonal to the longitudinal direction (Figs. 6-8) of the metal fiber is rectangle (“rectangular” per Para [023] on page 3 of the attached translated document of Limozin et al), the knit body configured into an endless shape (Figs. 6 and 7), and wherein the filament body is a multifilament made of a plurality of the metal fibers (Para [024] of the attached translated document of Limozin et al) as set forth in claims 1, 2, 4, and 5.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the tire of Kemmerich by substituting its tread member for a tread member that includes the claimed knit body, such as taught by Limozin et al, with the motivation to use a known tread material in a spring-based tire structure that would improve the durability of the tire.
Allowable Subject Matter
15. Claims 8 and 9 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.
Conclusion
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEKWON CHOI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5805. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joe) Morano, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/TAEKWON CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/Kip T Kotter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615