DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 19, line 6 uses the term “alternatively”. It is unclear what the exact alternatives are. The Examiner believes that applicant is attempting to claim the “alternative” between the second clamping wall being integral versus detachable. However, claim 19 could be construed as the entire former language being one alternative (including the connecting part with a connecting hole to connect to the wheel axle) versus the latter language (the first clamping wall is detachably connected and the second clamping wall is integrally formed). The Examiner suggests that applicant replace “alternatively” with “or”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 18 and 19 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. Claim 18 claims “wherein the toy car tire comprises a wheel hub”. However, the preamble of claim 1 is “a toy car tire”. As such, claiming an additional “wheel hub” (i.e. commonly referred to as a “rim”) is outside the scope of claim 1 because a ”hub” is part of a “wheel”, not a “tire”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eaton (US Pub. No. 2010/0231030 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Eaton discloses a toy car tire, comprising: a tire main body (Fig. 2, proximate item 26), wherein the tire main body comprises an inner cavity and a first opening (Fig. 2; noting this is obvious, noting item 26 on the inside being the opening), the inner cavity is surrounded and formed by a side wall of the tire main body (Fig.2; noting this is obvious), and the first opening is in communication with the inner cavity (Fig. 2); and a filler core (Fig. 2, item 29), wherein the filler core is inserted into the inner cavity through the first opening, and the filler core is configured for filling the inner cavity (Fig. 2, item 29 and par. [0026] noting this is obvious; or alternatively, this is functional language that is possible given the structure). The Examiner specifically gives the above rejection under a 103 because it would have been obvious to a POSA that the inner foam insert could be inserted into the hole of the tire in order to fill the tire cavity as taught and suggested by par. [0026] because doing so would be common sense and the easiest way to insert the foam into the tire. Alternatively, the ability to insert the filler foam core into the inner tire would be functionally possible given the hole in the tire, and the compressibility of the inner foam core.
Regarding claim 3, Eaton discloses that the tire main body is an elastic tire main body (par. [0025]; noting a resilient rubber is inherently elastic), and the filler core is an elastic filler core (par. [0026]; noting “closed-cell urethane foam” is inherently elastic).
Regarding claim 4, Eaton discloses that the filler core is a sponge filler core (par. [0026]; noting the Examiner interpreting “sponge” to be an open-celled foam although the specification does not really give any direction on the exact meaning of the term “sponge”, the generic term “foam” in par. [0026] encompasses both “open cell” or “closed cell”; so the genus makes obvious the species are only two species are possible (i.e. only two predictable results); also and in the alternative, the Examiner takes official notice that open-cell foam is well-known in the art and would be readily apparent to a POSA).
Regarding claim 7, Eaton discloses that the tire main body is equipped with a first front side wall, a first rear side wall, and a first circumferential side wall connected to the first front side wall and the first rear side wall (Fig. 2, item 24; noting this is obvious); the filler core is equipped with a second front side wall, a second rear side wall, and a second circumferential side wall connected to the second front side wall and the second rear side wall (Fig. 2, item 29; noting this is obvious); the second circumferential side wall is arranged towards the first circumferential side wall, the second front side wall is arranged towards the first front side wall, and the second rear side wall is arranged towards the first rear side wall (Fig. 2; noting this is obvious and functionally possible when assembled, see par. [0026]).
Regarding claim 18, Eaton discloses that the toy car tire further comprises a wheel hub, the tire main body is also provided with a sleeve opening (Fig. 2; noting the opening of the tire on either side wall), and the wheel hub is inserted into the sleeve opening (Fig. 1; noting this is obvious and functionally possible given the structure); the wheel hub comprises a protruding first clamping wall, a protruding second clamping wall (Fig. 3, noting item 40 on either side of the rim main body), and a first connecting wall connected to the first clamping wall and the second clamping wall (Fig. 3, item 30; noting the circumference wall is attached to both); the first connecting wall is inserted into the sleeve opening (Figs. 1 and 2; noting this is obvious and functionally possible given the structure), and the first clamping wall and the second clamping wall clamp the tire main body (Figs. 1-3; again noting this is obvious and functionally possible given the structure).
Regarding claim 19, Eaton discloses that the wheel hub further comprises a connecting part (Fig. 3, item 60), the connecting part is connected to the second clamping wall (Fig. 9C; noting it is connected to the second clamping wall via the main rim body), the connecting part is provided with a connecting hole (Fig. 3, item 60; noting this is obvious), the connecting hole is configured for connecting with a wheel axle of a toy car (par. [0038]), the first clamping wall is detachably connected to one end of the first connecting wall, and the second clamping wall is detachably connected to an opposite end of the first connecting wall (Fig. 3; items 40; noting it is obvious that they are detachably connected via bolts, item 70); alternatively, the first clamping wall is detachably connected to one end of the first connecting wall, and the second clamping wall is integrally formed with an opposite end of the first connecting wall (noting this is not needed as it states “alternatively”).
Regarding claim 20, Eaton discloses a toy car, comprising the toy car tire according to claim 1 (Fig. 1).
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eaton (US Pub. No. 2010/0231030 A1) in view of Summers (US Pub. No. 2007/0006951 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 8, it is noted that Eaton does not specifically disclose that the tire main body is provided with drainage and ventilation holes, and the drainage and ventilation holes are in communication with the inner cavity. However, Summers discloses a tire wherein the tire main body is provided with drainage and ventilation holes (Fig 2, item 19; noting the holes can functionally serve as both drainage and ventilation holes), and the drainage and ventilation holes are in communication with the inner cavity (Fig. 2, item 19; noting this is obvious). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Eaton to use provide the tire with drainage and ventilation holes, and the drainage and ventilation holes are in communication with the inner cavity as taught and suggested by Summers because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a tire and a tire with holes) according to known methods (using the holes in the former tire) to yield predictable results (using holes in the tire, the holes allowing for air to cool the tire during use – see Summers: abstract).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eaton (US Pub. No. 2010/0231030 A1) in view of Dobson (US Pat. No. 3,915,774).
Regarding claim 5, it is noted that Eaton does not specifically disclose that the filler core is a silicone filler core. However, Eaton clearly discloses the use of foam material as the insert filler (par. [0026]). In addition, Dobson discloses the use of a silicone foam material filler used inside a tire (col. 1, lines 6-14; disclosing “silicone polymer”). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Eaton to use silicone polymer foam filler as taught by Dobson because doing so would be a simple substitution of one element (silicone polymer foam filler used inside a tire) for another (foam filler used inside a tire) to obtain predictable results (the continued ability to use foam filler inside a tire, the foam filler being a silicone polymer foam).
Claims 6, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eaton (US Pub. No. 2010/0231030 A1) in view of Manesh et al. (herein “Manesh”; US Pub. No. 2012/0241062 A1).
Regarding claim 6, it is noted that Eaton does not specifically disclose that the filler core is a honeycomb shaped filler core. However, Manesh discloses a the filler core is a honeycomb shaped filler core (par. [0055]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Eaton to use a honeycomb filler as taught and suggested by Manesh because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a tire with a filler and a tire with filler using a honeycomb shape) according to known methods (using the honeycomb filler in the former tire) to yield predictable results (the continued ability to use a filler in the tire, the filler being a honeycomb shape that allows for the filler to distribute the load to other portions when a portion of the filler is compromised – see Manesh: par. [0012]).
Regarding claim 9, it is noted that Eaton does not specifically disclose a plurality of hollow holes are defined in the filler core, and the plurality of hollow holes are spaced apart from each other. However, Manesh discloses a plurality of hollow holes are defined in the filler core, and the plurality of hollow holes are spaced apart from each other (Figs. 3-6 and par. [0055]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Eaton to use a plurality of hollow holes defined in the filler core, and the plurality of hollow holes are spaced apart from each other as taught and suggested by Manesh because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a tire with a filler and a tire with filler using holes that are spaced apart) according to known methods (using the filler with spaced apart holes in the former tire) to yield predictable results (the continued ability to use a filler in the tire, the filler having spaced apart holes allowing for the filler to distribute the load to other portions when a portion of the filler is compromised – see Manesh: par. [0012]).
Regarding claim 10, the combined Eaton and Manesh disclose that the hollow hole penetrates from the second front side wall to the second rear side wall; and the plurality of hollow holes are arranged transversely and longitudinally along the second front side wall and the second rear side wall (Manesh: Figs. 3-6; noting this is obvious).
Regarding claim 11, the combined Eaton and Manesh disclose that the filler core comprises a first hollow area and a second hollow area, the first hollow area and the second hollow area are arranged in sequence from a center of the filler core to an edge of the filler core, the plurality of hollow holes comprise a plurality of first hollow hole units and second hollow hole units, the plurality of first hollow hole units are arranged along a circumference of the first hollow area, and the plurality of second hollow hole units are arranged along a circumference of the second hollow area, and a shape of the first hollow hole unit is different from a shape of the second hollow hole unit (Manesh: Fig. 1, below; noting those identified holes around the entire circumference).
PNG
media_image1.png
481
731
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, the combined Eaton and Manesh disclose that the filler core comprises a third hollow area, the third hollow area is positioned between the first hollow area and the second hollow area, the plurality of hollow holes also comprise a plurality of third hollow hole units, the plurality of third hollow hole units are arranged along a circumference of the third hollow area, and a shape of the third hollow hole unit is different from the shape of the first hollow hole unit and the shape of the second hollow hole unit (Manesh: Fig. 1, above, noting those identified holes around the entire circumference).
Regarding claim 13, the combined Eaton and Manesh disclose that the plurality of hollow holes also comprise a plurality of fourth hollow hole units, the plurality of fourth hollow hole units are arranged along the circumference of the first hollow area, the fourth hollow hole unit and the first hollow hole unit are spaced apart from each other, and a shape of the fourth hollow hole unit is different from the shape of the first hollow hole unit (Manesh: Fig. 1, above, noting those identified holes around the entire circumference).
Regarding claim 14, the combined Eaton and Manesh disclose that the plurality of hollow holes also comprise a plurality of fifth hollow hole units, the plurality of fifth hollow hole units are arranged along the circumference of the second hollow area, the fifth hollow hole unit and the second hollow hole unit are spaced apart from each other, and a shape of the fifth hollow hole unit is different from the shape of the second hollow hole unit (Manesh: Fig. 1, above, noting those identified holes around the entire circumference).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eaton (US Pub. No. 2010/0231030 A1) in view of Yoshida (US Pat. No. D876,331 S)
Regarding claim 15, Eaton discloses that the tire main body is provided with a plurality of protruding anti-slip patterns and the plurality of protruding anti-slip patterns are arranged around the tire main body; the anti-slip patterns comprise a plurality of protruding first anti-slip patterns, a plurality of protruding second anti-slip patterns, a plurality of protruding third anti-slip patterns, and a plurality of protruding fourth anti-slip patterns (Fig. 1; noting this is obvious; noting it is obvious that these treads or portions of these treads can be divided up into four slip patterns). It is noted that Eaton does not specifically disclose that a shape of the first anti-slip pattern is identical with a shape of the second anti-slip pattern, a shape of the third anti-slip pattern is identical with a shape of the fourth anti-slip pattern, and the shape of the first anti-slip pattern is different from the shape of the third anti-slip pattern; the first anti-slip pattern and the second anti-slip pattern are respectively positioned at a front edge and a rear edge of the first circumferential side wall, the third anti-slip pattern and the fourth anti-slip pattern are positioned between the first anti-slip pattern and the second anti-slip pattern, and the third anti-slip pattern and the fourth anti-slip pattern are arranged side by side in a middle portion of the first circumferential side wall; and the plurality of first anti-slip patterns, the plurality of second anti-slip patterns, the plurality of third anti-slip patterns, and the plurality of fourth anti-slip patterns are arranged around the first circumferential side wall. However, Yoshida discloses a tire tread with a shape of the first anti-slip pattern is identical with a shape of the second anti-slip pattern (Fig. 2 below), a shape of the third anti-slip pattern is identical with a shape of the fourth anti-slip pattern (Fig. 2 below), and the shape of the first anti-slip pattern is different from the shape of the third anti-slip pattern (Fig. 2 below); the first anti-slip pattern and the second anti-slip pattern are respectively positioned at a front edge and a rear edge of the first circumferential side wall (Fig. 2 below), the third anti-slip pattern and the fourth anti-slip pattern are positioned between the first anti-slip pattern and the second anti-slip pattern (Fig. 2 below), and the third anti-slip pattern and the fourth anti-slip pattern are arranged side by side in a middle portion of the first circumferential side wall (Fig. 2 below); and the plurality of first anti-slip patterns, the plurality of second anti-slip patterns, the plurality of third anti-slip patterns, and the plurality of fourth anti-slip patterns are arranged around the first circumferential side wall (Fig. 2 below). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Eaton to use the above claimed structure as taught by Yoshida because doing so would be a simple substitution of one element (a tread pattern on a tire with a sub-pattern) for another (a tread pattern on a tire) to yield predictable results (the continued ability to use a tread pattern on a tire, the tread having an identified sub-pattern).
PNG
media_image2.png
539
788
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, the combined Eaton and Yoshida disclose that the first anti-slip pattern comprises a first anti-slip pattern unit and a second anti-slip pattern unit, the second anti-slip pattern comprises a third anti-slip pattern unit and a fourth anti-slip pattern unit (Yoshida: Fig. 2, above), a shape of the first anti-slip pattern unit is different from a shape of the second anti-slip pattern unit, a shape of the third anti-slip pattern unit is different from a shape of the fourth anti-slip pattern unit, the shape of the first anti-slip pattern unit is identical with the shape of the third anti-slip pattern unit, the shape of the second anti-slip pattern unit is identical with the shape of the fourth anti-slip pattern unit, the first anti-slip pattern unit and the second anti-slip pattern unit are spaced apart from each other (Yoshida: Fig. 2, above; noting the space or cavity in between), and the third anti-slip pattern unit and the four anti-slip pattern unit are spaced apart from each other (Yoshida: Fig. 2, above; noting the space or cavity in between). In the alternative, the Examiner notes that the actual shape of the “pattern unit” does not appears to be critical to the invention. As per applicant’s spec, par. [0060], the difference in shape between the first anti-slip pattern and the third anti-slip pattern create the “grip force”. Thus, regarding the actual “pattern unit” shapes, it has been held that changes in shape are a matter of choice absent persuasive evidence that a person of skill in the art would find the shape significant. In re Daily, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Thus, a POSA would not find the individual shapes of the pattern units significant as there is no criticality to these exact pattern unit shapes.
Regarding claim 17, the combined Eaton and Yoshida disclose that the third anti-slip pattern comprises a fifth anti-slip pattern unit, a sixth anti-slip pattern unit, and a seventh anti-slip pattern unit (Yoshida: Fig. 2 above); the fourth anti-slip pattern comprises an eighth anti-slip pattern unit, a ninth anti-slip pattern unit, and a tenth anti-slip pattern unit; shapes of the fifth anti-slip pattern unit, the sixth anti-slip pattern unit, and the seventh anti-slip pattern unit are different from each other (Yoshida: Fig. 2 above); shapes of the eighth anti-slip pattern unit, the ninth anti-slip pattern unit, and the tenth anti-slip pattern unit are different from each other; the shape of the fifth anti-slip pattern unit is identical with the shape of the eighth anti-slip pattern unit; the shape of the sixth anti-slip pattern unit is identical with the shape of the ninth anti-slip pattern unit; the shape of the seventh anti-slip pattern unit is identical with the shape of the tenth anti-slip pattern unit; the fifth anti-slip pattern unit, the sixth anti-slip pattern unit, and the seventh anti-slip pattern unit are spaced apart from each other; the sixth anti-slip pattern unit is positioned between the fifth anti-slip pattern unit and the seventh anti-slip pattern unit; the eighth anti-slip pattern unit, the ninth anti-slip pattern unit, and the tenth anti-slip pattern unit are spaced apart from each other; the ninth anti-slip pattern unit is positioned between the eighth anti-slip pattern unit and the tenth anti-slip pattern unit; the fifth anti-slip pattern unit is connected to the first anti-slip pattern unit through a first connecting rib; the eighth anti-slip pattern unit is connected to the third anti-slip pattern unit through a second connecting rib; the seventh anti-slip pattern unit is connected to the second anti-slip pattern unit through a third connecting rib; the tenth anti-slip pattern unit is connected to the fourth anti-slip pattern unit through a fourth connecting rib (Yoshida: Fig. 2 above). In the alternative, the Examiner notes that the actual shape of the “pattern units” does not appears to be critical to the invention. As per applicant’s spec, par. [0060], the difference in shape between the first anti-slip pattern and the third anti-slip pattern create the “grip force”. Thus, regarding the actual pattern unit shapes, it has been held that changes in shape are a matter of choice absent persuasive evidence that a person of skill in the art would find the shape significant. In re Daily, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Thus, a POSA would not find the individual shapes of the pattern units significant as there is no criticality to these exact “pattern unit” shapes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW BRIAN STANCZAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7831. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-10 and 1-3:30 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Weiss can be reached on (571)270-1775. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW B STANCZAK/
Examiner, Art Unit 3711
7/13/26
Prosecution Insights