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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first end of the first reinforcement terminates at the rim” as set forth in claim 4 in combination with the first reinforcement with a “first end terminating below the axially extending member” as required by claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Also, the “second end of the second reinforcement terminates at the rim” as set forth in claim 4 in combination with the second reinforcement with a “second end terminating below the axially extending member” as set forth in claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, the specification fails to describe the first reinforcement having a first end that terminates both “below the axially extending member” as required by claim 4 and “at the rim” as required by claim 3. Further, the specification fails to describe the second reinforcement having a second end that terminates both “below the axially extending member” as required by claim 4 and “at the rim” as required by claim 3. While paragraphs [0053-0054] provide support for respective ends of the first and second reinforcements terminating below the axially extending member, there is no support in the specification, nor the drawings, for these same respective ends also terminating at the rim. Nor does there support for any end of the reinforcements terminating at the rim.
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 4 and 10 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.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “wherein the first end of the first reinforcement terminates at the rim and the second end of the second reinforcement terminates at the rim” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the first end of the first reinforcement can terminate both “at the rim” as required by claim 4 and “below the axially extending member” as required by claim 3. Further, it is unclear how the second end of the second reinforcement can terminate both “at the rim” as required by claim 4 and “below the axially extending member” as required by claim 3.
Regarding claim 10, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the polymeric material”.
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.
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.
8. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 11-16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Riper et al. (US 2021/0061010 A1; hereinafter “Van Riper”).
Regarding claim 1, Van Riper discloses a non-pneumatic tire and rim assembly, the assembly comprising: a non-pneumatic tire 100 including: a ring 410; a circumferential tread 200 disposed about the ring (Fig. 2); a plurality of spokes 420 extending radially downward from the ring (Fig. 2), wherein each spoke terminates at a lower end defined by an axially extending member 510 (Figs. 2 and 10C), wherein each spoke includes a reinforcement 426 at least partially wrapping around the axially extending member (Fig. 8B; paragraph [0038]), wherein the reinforcement is selected from a plurality of cords of reinforcement material (paragraph [0038]); a rim 500 including a plurality of mounts 512, each mount being configured to receive the axially extending member of a corresponding spoke (Figs. 2 and 3; paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 2, Van Riper further discloses the reinforcement is a serpentine reinforcement disposed continuously about a central axis of the non-pneumatic tire, such
that the serpentine reinforcement follows a winding path along an inner portion of the ring
and about the axially extending member of each spoke (Figs. 8A, 12, 13A, 14 and 15A; paragraphs [0037-0038], [0044] and [0047]).
Regarding claim 5, Van Riper further discloses each axially extending member is a rod 510 (Figs. 2 and 3; paragraph [0039]) and each mount includes a first aperture (axially outboard hole 512) and a second aperture (axially inboard hole 512), and wherein each rod is received in a corresponding mount such that a first end of the rod extends through the first
aperture and a second end of the rod extends through the second aperture (best shown in Fig. 2; paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 7, Van Riper further discloses each rod is a threaded rod 512 (Figs. 2 and 3; paragraph [0039]), and wherein each rod is mounted to the corresponding mount by a first nut (axially outboard nut 508) fastened to the first end and a second nut (axially inboard nut 508) fastened to the second end (Figs. 2 and 3; paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 9, Van Riper further discloses the reinforcement 426 is embedded in (i.e., “formed in” per paragraph [0038]) a polymeric material 430 (“rubber or elastomer” per paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 11, Van Riper discloses a method of making a non-pneumatic tire 100, the method comprising: providing a ring 410; providing a plurality of elongated members 510; arranging the elongated members inside the ring (Figs. 2 and 14; paragraph [0046]), such that each elongated member extends in an axial direction relative to the ring (Figs. 2 and 3); providing a ribbon of reinforcement material 430 (paragraph [0044]); and wrapping the ribbon of reinforcement material along a circuitous path along an inner surface of the ring and around each of the elongated members (Fig. 14; paragraphs [0045-0046]).
Regarding claim 12, Van Riper further discloses the ribbon of reinforcement material
includes reinforcement material 426 embedded in a green elastomeric material (paragraphs [0038] and [0044]).
Regarding claim 13, Van Riper further discloses curing the non-pneumatic tire (paragraphs [0045-0046]).
Regarding claim 14, Van Riper further discloses the wrapping of the ribbon of
reinforcement along a circuitous path includes extending a portion of the ribbon along a
radial path between one of the elongated members and an inner surface of the ring (paragraphs [0044-0046]; Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 15, Van Riper further discloses the wrapping of the ribbon of
reinforcement along a circuitous path includes extending a portion of the ribbon along a
curved path between one of the elongated members and an inner surface of the ring (paragraphs [0044-0046]; Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 16, Van Riper further discloses a non-pneumatic tire 100 comprising:
a ring 410; a circumferential tread 200 disposed about the ring (Fig. 2); a plurality of support structures 420 extending downwards from the ring, wherein an end of each support structure includes an axially extending member 510 (Figs. 2 and 10C), and wherein each support structure includes a reinforcement layer 426 extending along a length of the support structure and wrapping around the axially extending member (Fig. 8B; paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 19, Van Riper further discloses the plurality of support structures is a
plurality of spokes 420 (Figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 20, Van Riper further discloses the plurality of support structures form
a web 420 (Fig. 8A).
9. Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 11-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Costlow et al. (US 2020/0047555 A1; hereinafter “Costlow”).
Regarding claim 1, Costlow discloses a non-pneumatic tire and rim assembly, the assembly comprising: a non-pneumatic tire 100 including: a ring (outer hoop 110 with the exception of the outermost rubber ply 120; paragraph [0032]); a circumferential tread (radially outermost rubber ply 120 of 110 that contacts the road; paragraphs [0028] and [0032]) disposed about the ring (Fig. 1A); a plurality of spokes 130s extending radially downward from the ring (Fig. 1B), wherein each spoke terminates at a lower end defined by an axially extending member 170 (Fig. 1B; paragraph [0046]), wherein each spoke includes a reinforcement (“reinforcing material” per paragraph [0040] or “reinforcement plies” per paragraph [0041]) at least partially wrapping around the axially extending member (Fig. 1B), wherein the reinforcement is selected from the group consisting of: a plurality of cords of reinforcement material (paragraph [0040]) and a sheet of reinforcement material (“plies” per paragraph [0041]); a rim 140 including a plurality of mounts (160, 180), each mount being configured to receive the axially extending member of a corresponding spoke (Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 2, Costlow further discloses the reinforcement is a serpentine reinforcement disposed continuously about a central axis of the non-pneumatic tire, such
that the serpentine reinforcement follows a winding path along an inner portion of the ring
and about the axially extending member of each spoke (Figs. 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B; paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 8, Costlow further discloses each axially extending member is a bar 170
having a rectangular cuboid shape (Fig. 1B; paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 9, Costlow further discloses the reinforcement is embedded in a polymeric material (paragraphs [0040-0042]).
Regarding claim 11, Costlow discloses a method (claims 23-30; Figs. 3-8) of making a non-pneumatic tire 360, the method comprising: providing a ring 340; providing a plurality of elongated members 320; arranging the elongated members inside the ring (Fig. 7), such that each elongated member extends in an axial direction relative to the ring (Figs. 4 and 6); providing a ribbon of reinforcement material 330 (paragraph [0053]); and wrapping the ribbon of reinforcement material along a circuitous path along an inner surface of the ring and around each of the elongated members (Figs. 5A-6; paragraphs [0053-0054]).
Regarding claim 12, Costlow further discloses the ribbon of reinforcement material
includes reinforcement material (“reinforcing material” per paragraph [0056]) embedded in a green elastomeric material (paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 13, Costlow further discloses curing the non-pneumatic tire (paragraphs [0057-0058]).
Regarding claim 14, Costlow further discloses the wrapping of the ribbon of
reinforcement along a circuitous path includes extending a portion of the ribbon along a
radial path between one of the elongated members and an inner surface of the ring (Figs. 5A-6; paragraphs [0053-0054]).
Regarding claim 15, Costlow further discloses the wrapping of the ribbon of
reinforcement along a circuitous path includes extending a portion of the ribbon along a
curved path between one of the elongated members and an inner surface of the ring (Figs. 5A-6; paragraphs [0053-0054]).
Regarding claim 16, Costlow further discloses a non-pneumatic tire 100, 400 comprising:
a ring (outer hoop 110, 410 with the exception of the outermost rubber ply 120; paragraphs [0032] and [0059]); a circumferential tread (radially outermost rubber ply 120 of 110 or 410 that contacts the road; paragraphs [0028], [0032] and [0059]) disposed about the ring (Figs. 1A and 9); a plurality of support structures 130s, 430 extending downwards from the ring (Figs. 1B and 9), wherein an end of each support structure includes an axially extending member 170 (Fig. 1B; paragraphs [0046], [0059] and [0062]), and wherein each support structure includes a reinforcement layer (“reinforcing material” per paragraph [0040] or “reinforcement plies” per paragraph [0041]) extending along a length of the support structure and wrapping around the axially extending member (Fig. 1B; paragraphs [0059] and [0062]).
Regarding claim 17, Costlow further discloses each support structure includes a bead
filler 440 disposed above the axially extending member (evident from Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 19, Costlow further discloses the plurality of support structures is a
plurality of spokes 430s (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 20, Costlow further discloses the plurality of support structures form
a web 430 (Fig. 9).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
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. 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.
13. Claims 3 and 4, as best understood in light of the section 112 issues noted above, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Riper.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, although Van Riper further discloses the reinforcement includes a first reinforcement (a first reinforcement cord 426) with a first end and a second reinforcement (a second reinforcement cord 426) with a second end, Van Riper fails to expressly disclose the first end terminating below the axially extending member and at the rim, and the second end terminating below the axially extending member and at the rim.
Van Riper, however, expressly teaches its reinforcement cords can be oriented at angle in the range of -60 degrees to +60 degrees with respect to the longitudinal direction of the flexible strip 430 forming the spoke 420 to provide a desired reinforcement profile (paragraph [0038]; note Fig. 10B shows ends of the various reinforcement cords 426 terminating at different locations along the length of the flexible strip 430 forming the spoke 420 for a given angle).
From this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of routine optimization, to have oriented the first and second reinforcements such that the respective first and second ends terminate below the axially extending member based upon the intended use of the tire and the radial and width dimensions of the spoke to achieve a desired reinforcement profile for the spokes. Furthermore, such ends terminating below the axially extending member are considered to also terminate “at” the rim in the same manner that Applicant’s respective reinforcement ends also terminate both below the axially extending member and at the rim.
14. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costlow in view of Martin et al. (US 2017/0057287 A1; hereinafter “Martin”).
Regarding claim 10, Costlow fails to expressly disclose the polymeric material is coated with a protective material.
Martin, however, teaches a non-pneumatic tire in which the spoke members 72 “may be at least partially coated with a protective material” (paragraph [0045]).
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 polymeric reinforced spokes of Costlow by coating them with a protective material, such as taught by Martin, with a reasonable expectation of success in improving the durability of the spokes.
15. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costlow in view of Schaedler et al. (US 2016/0214435 A1; hereinafter “Schaedler”).
Regarding claim 18, although Costlow, as noted above, discloses the support structure including the reinforcement layer and further teaches the axially extending member 170 being adjustable in the radial direction to apply tension to the support structure (paragraph [0046]), Costlow fails to expressly disclose the support structure with the reinforcement layer being adhered to the axially extending member.
Schaedler, however, teaches a non-pneumatic tire in which the support structure 36 is adhered (i.e., via molding per paragraphs [0028] and [0035]) to axially extending members 88 (Fig. 3).
From this teaching, 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 non-pneumatic tire of Costlow by adhering the reinforcement layer of each support structure to the axially extending member with the motivation of reducing the number of parts of the assembly while also preventing relative movement between the support structure and the axially extending member so that a desired tension can be applied to the support structure for the intended use of the tire.
Allowable Subject Matter
16. Claim 6 is 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
17. 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