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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal terms (see section 3 below). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “comprising”, “means”, and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term - -a- - should be inserted prior to the term “face” in line 4, for grammatical clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rimai et al (2022/0324253) in view of Nishida et al (9,616,703).
Per claim 1, Rimai et al shows a non-pneumatic tire 200 having radially inner 210 and radially outer 220 annular portions, with a plurality of spokes 230 extending therebetween. Each of the spokes 230 extends over at least 70% of the maximum axial width of the tire 200 (see paragraph [0020]). Two circumferentially neighboring spokes 230 are interconnected by a winding of cord 250a-b in multiple loops therethrough along the lateral width of the spokes 230.
Per claim 4, the spokes 230 laterally extend along the entire radial height thereof over at least 40% the maximum axial width of the tire 200.
Per claim 6, the cord 250a-b windings interdigitate between multiple spokes.
Per claim 7, Figure 3, the cords 250-a-b have a shape bent in the same orientation in the circumferential direction and substantially equal winding pitches.
Per claim 8, the spokes 230, and inner 210 and outer 220 annular portions comprise elastomer compositions. The elastomer compositions of the spokes 230 are reinforced by the winding cords 250a-b.
Per claim 9, the inner annular portion 210 includes an annular connecting portion integrally formed with the radially inner ends of the spokes 230 and includes radially inner portions of the winding.
Per claim 10, a circumferential tread band 140 is disposed on the radially outer surface of the outer annular portion 230, and further may include a shear band (column 2, lines 2-4).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Rimai et al does not show the inner annular portion 210 including circumferentially extending cords therein. However, it is well-known in the art to provide circumferentially extending cords in either or both of the inner and outer annular portions of a non-pneumatic tire, for the purpose of reinforcing said regions of the tire, thus preventing undue wear thereon during use, and dependent upon the desired load handling characteristics thereof. Therefore, from this knowledge, one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, would have found it obvious to add circumferentially extending cords to the inner annular portion of the tire of Rimai et al, for the beneficial reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 1, Rimai et al does not show the spokes 230 having alternating angles with the axial direction along the circumferential direction of the tire 200. Nishida et al teaches the use of a non-pneumatic tire 1 having a plurality of circumferentially neighboring spokes 21-22 radially extending from an inner annular portion 12 and an outer annular portion 13, with the spokes 21-22 extending at alternating angles with the axial direction along the circumferential direction of the tire 1 (see Figure 2). 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 Rimai et al in the manner taught by Nishida et al (i.e. at angles with respect to one another), dependent upon the desired load handling characteristics of the tire, and aesthetics.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 5, while Rimai et al as modified by Nishida et al (specifically Nishida et al) shows the spokes 21-22 extending at opposite angles with respect to one another, that angle is not disclosed as being 0.1-10 degrees or -0.2 to -2 degrees. 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 Rimai et al as modified by Nishida et al with any angle respective to each other to allow the spokes to support the desired loads without failing during use.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Rimai et al does not show the inner annular portion including a plurality of axially extending recesses and protrusions on the radially inner surface thereof that interact with respective recesses and protrusions on a wheel. Nishida et al teaches the non-pneumatic tire 1 having the radially inner surface of the inner annular portion 12 including a plurality of protrusions 12a (with recesses therebetween in the circumferential direction) that mate with respective recesses 18h (and protrusions therebetween in the circumferential direction) of sections 25-26 of a wheel within a substantially cylindrical or biconical hollow space within the inner annular portion 12. 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 inner annular portion of the tire of Rimai et al in the manner taught by Nishida et al, for the purpose of preventing circumferential movement between the tire and wheel during use.
Regarding claim 12, Rimai et al as modified by Nishida et al does not disclose the dimensions of the recesses and protrusions. 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 protrusions and recesses of Rimai et al as modified by Nishida et al with dimensions suitable to provide a positive locking between the wheel and tire, thus preventing rotational movement therebetween during use, which would adversely affect traction.
Claim(s) 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rimai et al in view of Nishida et al as applied to claims 1-13 above, and further in view of Hwang et al (11,059,326).
Regarding claims 14-16, Rimai et al as modified by Nishida et al does not show the wheel including opposing flanges. Hwang et al teaches the use of a wheel 100 includes two opposing 210 and 220 flanges for preventing axial movement of the tire on the wheel 100. One of the flanges 220 is removably mountable to the wheel 100. Furthermore, the wheel 100 includes the two laterally opposing flanges 221 and 220 and a radially inner hub portion for receiving one or more bolts to secure the wheel 100 to a vehicle. 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 provide the wheel of Rimai et al as modified by Nishida et al with flanges, for the purpose of increasing the axial retention of the tire on the wheel, thus preventing the tire from shifting axially on the wheel during use.
Regarding claims 17-18, Rimai et al as modified by Nishida et al and Hwang et al (specifically Nishida et al) do not show the protrusions and recesses having an axially tapered shape. 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 protrusions and recesses of Nishida et al with axially tapered shapes, as a substitute equivalent configuration, known to positively lock interconnected components, thus reducing the risk of axial and/or circumferential movement therebetween, which would prevent loss of traction and/or undue wear of the tire and wheel.
Regarding claim 19, Nishida et al teaches a wheel 11 having a pair of axially adjacent drum portions 25-26 connectable together, and on which a tire 1 is mounted.
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 wheel of Rimai et al as modified by Hwang et al as two adjacent drum portions, as a substitute equivalent configuration, to reduce manufacturing costs by reducing the number of individually different elements of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the “cited references do not teah [sic] spokes extending over 70% of the maximum axial width of the tire and that have alternating angles between circumferentially neighboring spokes (not axially neighboring spokes as shown in Nishida)”. However, Rimai et al clearly discloses that the spokes extend the full (i.e. 100%) lateral (i.e. axial) width of the tire.
It appears that the Applicant is arguing that the spokes of Nishida et al only “neighbor” in the axial direction of the tire, and not circumferentially as claimed. However, this is not the case, given the fact that the spokes of Nishida et al overlap in the circumferential direction, and the common definition of the term “neighbor” is ‘to adjoin immediately or lie relatively near to’ (Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary) [emphasis added]. The spokes of Nishida meet the highlighted portion of the definition of the term “neighbor”, which meets the limitation of the claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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