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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: VEHICLE TIRE COVER CASING AND A METHOD OF MANUFACTURING A VEHICLE TIRE COVER CASING
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: It appears that each occurrence of the term “wheel(s)” should be replaced with the term -- tire(s) -- for clarity inasmuch as the tire, not the wheel, is the component of the wheel assembly that is covered with the sleeve to improve the adhesion of the wheel assembly during rolling. Further, it is the tire, not the wheel, that includes tread to provide traction.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 35, 37, 40, 42, 53 and 54 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 35, the phrase “its circumferential path” should be replaced with -- the circumferential path -- for clarity.
Regarding claim 35, the phrase “its central area” should be replaced with -- the central area -- for clarity.
Regarding claim 54, the phrase “its surface” should be replaced with -- the surface -- for clarity.
Regarding claim 54, the preamble “The method of manufacturing a sleeve” should be replaced with -- The method of manufacturing the sleeve -- for clarity.
Regarding claims 35, 37, 40, 42 and 53, each occurrence of the term “same” should be deleted as such term is superfluous in these claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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 35-54 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “wheel(s)” in claims 35-54 is used by the claim to mean “tire(s),” (i.e., the ring or band placed over the rim of a wheel to provide traction) while the accepted meaning is “the circular frame or disk arranged to revolve on an axis.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Regarding claim 35, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the annular geometry”, “such proportions” and “the mutual contact between its central area and the at least one adjacent lateral area”.
Regarding claim 36, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the tread”. Further the limitation “a vehicle” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a vehicle” refers to “a vehicle” previously set forth in claim 35 or if it refers to a distinct vehicle as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 41, the limitation “an adjacent lateral area” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “an adjacent lateral area” refers to “at least one lateral area” previously set forth in claim 35 or if it refers to a distinct lateral area as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 43, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “its lateral edges”.
Regarding claim 44, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 45, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “its surface”.
Regarding claim 47, the limitation “a linear and rectilinear arrangement” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the projections can have both “a linear and rectilinear arrangement” and “a linear or rectilinear arrangement” (emphasis added) as required by claim 46.
Regarding claim 48, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the total or partial conformation” and “its constituent fabric”.
Regarding claim 49, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the metal yarns”.
Regarding claim 50, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the metal yarns”.
Regarding claim 51, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “its surface”.
Regarding claim 52, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “its conformation”. Further, each occurrence of the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 53, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the amount or properties of the warp yarns”.
Regarding claim 54, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the number or properties of the weft yarns”, “its surface”, “the differentiated weft yarns” and “the direction of the arrangement of the weft yarns”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 35-45 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Figini (EP 1745948 A1).
Regarding claim 35, Figini discloses a sleeve 1 for covering vehicle wheels (i.e., tyres 2), the sleeve comprising: a fabric band 3 having an annular arrangement and therefore with a circumferential path as a result of the annular geometry (Fig. 1), the band having such proportions and being enabled to cover and surround an external region at 2 of a wheel of a vehicle (Fig. 1), wherein the fabric band has a central area 11, 12 along its circumferential path and at least one lateral area 4, 5 adjacent to the central area following the same circumferential path (Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the at least one adjacent lateral area 4, 5 of the band has a surface density value lower than the surface density value of the central area at 11 in the same band (evident from paragraph [0046] that outer 4 and inner 5 side portions have a lower density than portions 11, 12 of belt 3; further it is evident from the embodiment of Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0084-0085] that the outer 4 and inner 5 side portions have a lower surface density than the circumferential portion 11 of the belt 3); wherein the band further has a textile or fabric continuity in the mutual contact between its central area and the at least one adjacent lateral area, the band being formed in one piece or textile body (paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 36, Figini further discloses the band is enabled to totally or partially cover at least the tread 2 and at least one flank 2A, 2B of the wheel of a vehicle (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 37, Figini further discloses the central area of the band corresponds to at least the tread of the wheel and the at least one lateral area corresponds to at least one flank of the same wheel (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 38, Figini further discloses the central area of the band corresponds to the tread and also partially over at least one flank of the wheel (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 39, Figini further discloses there are at least two adjacent lateral areas 4, 5, resulting in at least one adjacent lateral area on both sides of the central area of the band, following the circumferential path of the annular geometry of the band (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 40, Figini further discloses when the central area of the band corresponds to at least the tread of the wheel and the at least one lateral area corresponds to at least one flank of the same wheel; the central area of the band corresponds at least to the tread of the wheel and at least one adjacent lateral area corresponds to each of the flanks of the wheel (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 41, Figini further discloses the band has an adjacent lateral area 4, 5 arranged on each side of the central area following the circumferential path of the annular geometry of the band (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 42, Figini further discloses the lateral areas of the band have a symmetry in relation to the central area of the same band (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 43, Figini further discloses the band incorporates an elastic means 6A, 6B on at least one of its lateral edges following the circumferential path of the annular geometry of the band (Fig. 2; paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 44, Figini further discloses the sleeve is made totally or partially of polymeric material or the like (paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 45, Figini further discloses the central area of the band has projections at 10 on its surface (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 53, Figini discloses a method of manufacturing a sleeve 1 for covering vehicle wheels (i.e., tyres 2), comprising: an arrangement and supply of warp yarns (threads 10 and warp yarns from “weaving operation” per paragraph [0084]) from and along a warp (implicit from the “weaving operation” of paragraph [0084]) and another arrangement and supply of weft yarns (weft yarns from “weaving operation” per paragraph [0084]) from and along a creel (implicit from the “weaving operation” of paragraph [0084]), the warp and the creel being mutually positioned and enabled to result in a fabric band 3, wherein the amount or properties of the warp yarns supplied is heterogeneous along the same warp (note the embodiment of Fig. 5), resulting in the fabric band having a different surface density along its surface depending on the heterogeneity in the amount or properties of the warp yarns supplied along the same warp (evident from Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0084-0085]).
Claims 53 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ruschulte (US 2012/0018065 A1).
Regarding claim 53, Ruschulte discloses a method of manufacturing a sleeve (“snow chain” formed from “textile web material” shown in the embodiments of Figs. 1a, 2a, 2c, 3 and 4) for covering vehicle wheels (i.e., tire R), comprising: an arrangement and supply of warp yarns K from and along a warp (implicit structure of the “weaving machine” per paragraph [0009]) and another arrangement and supply of weft yarns FF from and along a creel (implicit structure of the “weaving machine” per paragraph [0009]), the warp and the creel being mutually positioned and enabled to result in a fabric band (“textile web material” of “snow chain” shown in the embodiments of Figs. 1a, 2a, 2c, 3 and 4), wherein the amount or properties of the warp yarns supplied is heterogeneous along the same warp, resulting in the fabric band having a different surface density along its surface depending on the heterogeneity in the amount or properties of the warp yarns supplied along the same warp (evident from at least the embodiments shown in Figs. 2a and 2c where the spacing of the warp yarns vary across the different width portions).
Regarding claim 54, Ruschulte further discloses the number or properties of the weft yarns supplied is heterogeneous along the creel (evident from at least Figs. 2a and 2c), resulting in the fabric band having projections (unlabeled projections that engage road surface ST as shown in Figs. 2a, 2c and 4) on its surface that are in turn resulting from the differentiated weft yarns supplied from the creel (evident from at least Figs. 2a and 2c), the projections being in turn oriented in the direction of the arrangement of the weft yarns supplied from the creel (evident from at least Figs. 2a and 2c).
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.
Claims 46 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figini in view of Masi et al. (WO 2006/129147 A1; hereinafter “Masi”).
Figini fails to disclose the projections having the claimed linear and/or rectilinear arrangement.
Masi, however, teaches a sleeve 2 for covering vehicle tires in which the sleeve comprises projections 5 having a linear and/or rectilinear arrangement (Fig. 7), and with an orientation that is parallel to the axial axis of the annular arrangement of the band (evident from at least Figs. 1 and 7).
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 sleeve of Figini so that the projections have the claimed linear and/or rectilinear arrangement, such as taught by Masi, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing the sleeve with a desired tractive profile.
Claims 48-50 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figini in view of De Waegheneire (US 2004/0147193 A1).
Regarding claims 48-50, although Figini further discloses that “other types of structurally and/or functionally equivalent materials” can be used for the yarns of the textile band (paragraph [0039]), Figini fails to expressly disclose the textile band incorporates metallic yarns in the total or partial conformation of its constituent fabric, and wherein the metal yarns are totally or partially made of titanium or stainless steel.
De Waegheneire, however, teaches the use of a textile band 10 which incorporates metallic yarns in the total or partial conformation of its constituent fabric, and wherein the metal yarns are totally or partially made of titanium or stainless steel to be very resistant to high temperatures (paragraph [0018]).
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 sleeve of Figini so that the textile band incorporates metallic yarns made of titanium or stainless steel in the total or partial conformation of its constituent fabric, such as taught by De Waegheneire, as well-known alternative yarn materials that would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing predictable material properties, such as good heat and corrosion resistance.
Regarding claim 52, although Figini further discloses the band incorporates in its conformation at least yarns of a polymeric nature or the like (paragraph [0038] and further discloses that “other types of structurally and/or functionally equivalent materials” can be used for the yarns of the band (paragraph [0039]), Figini fails to expressly disclose the band also simultaneously incorporates yarns of a metallic nature or the like.
De Waegheneire, however, teaches the use of a band 10 which incorporates metallic yarns to be very resistant to high temperatures (paragraph [0018]).
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 sleeve of Figini so that the band also incorporates metallic yarns or the like, such as taught by De Waegheneire, as a well-known alternative yarn material that would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing predictable material properties, such as improving heat and corrosion resistance of the band.
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figini in view of De Waegheneire, as applied to claims 35 and 48 above, and further in view of Masi.
Although modifying Figini in view of De Waegheneire to incorporate metallic yarns would implicitly result in the projections of the band being metallic in nature, Figini, as modified by De Waegheneire, fails to disclose the projections have a linear or rectilinear arrangement, or the projections have a linear and rectilinear arrangement, and with an orientation that is parallel to the axial axis of the annular arrangement of the band.
Masi, however, teaches a sleeve 2 for covering vehicle tires in which the sleeve comprises projections 5 having a linear and/or rectilinear arrangement (Fig. 7), and with an orientation that is parallel to the axial axis of the annular arrangement of the band (evident from at least Figs. 1 and 7).
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 sleeve of Figini, as modified by De Waegheneire, so that the projections have the claimed linear and/or rectilinear arrangement, such as taught by Masi, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing the sleeve with a desired tractive profile.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art shows other examples of sleeves for covering vehicle tires in which the surface density of at least one lateral area of the band is less than the surface density of the central area of the band.
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