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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
The reference in question is PCT/US2021/030302.
The information disclosure statement filed 4 October 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed.
Furthermore, some of these foreign reference listings are incomplete (i.e. lack all of the required information).
Drawings
It appears that Figures 1-3, 4A, and 15 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 9 lacks reference characters.
Reference character “300” should include an arrowhead at the end of its leader line throughout the drawings.
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: P1CIR , P2CIR, and P3CIR.
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. 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 Objections
Claims1-9, 11, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4 of claim 1, the term “comprising” should be replaced with the term - -comprises, for grammatical clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (11,331,950) in view of Arima et al (2021/0260922).
Per claim 1, Hwang et al shows a tension-based non-pneumatic tire 1 including an annular beam 10 including reinforcement elements 12-13, an annular support 30 including a plurality of spokes radially inward of the annular beam 10, and a tread 20 radially outward of the annular beam 10, all mountable on a wheel rim. The tread 20 includes an axially central point located at the midpoint thereof, a second point on the surface located a lateral distance from the central point, and a third point located at an axial extent of the tread 20, such that the second point is located axially between the central and third points (see annotated Figure 3 of Hwang et al below).
PNG
media_image1.png
538
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The surface of the tread 20 has a circumference around the axis at the central point (denoted as P1CIR above), and a circumference around the axis at the third point (denoted as P3CIR above). The circumference at the third point is less than the circumference at the central point. The tread 20 has a radial thickness at the central point, and a radial thickness at the third point, with the thickness at the central point being greater than at the third point. The outer surface of the tread 20 is “flat” (i.e. cylindrical or planar) between the central point and the second point, while the outer surface is convex from the second point to the third point. The annular beam 10 has an annular width, and the “flat” surface of the tread 20 has a lateral length that is at least 50% the width of the annular beam 10.
Per claims 4-6, the surface of the tread 20 forms a contact patch (i.e. the “flat” surface) having a width, and includes a terminal end (in this case, the second point) at a farthest lateral extent thereof. A first line extends laterally from the contact patch, and a second line extends from the farthest lateral extent thereof to the axial extent of the tread (at the terminal end of the tread 20, in this case, the third point). An angle between the first and second lines when the tire is loaded to 100% of a maximum rated load is greater than 17, 21, or 25 degrees (as shown in Figure 3).
Per claim 16, the lateral length of the “flat” surface of the tread 20 is greater than 75% of the width of the annular beam 10.
Regarding claim 1, Hwang et al does not disclose the circumference around the third point being at least 50mm less than the circumference around the central point. Arima et al teaches the use of a tire having an axially central point of the tread (intersecting center line CL in Figure 1), a second point 36E, and a third point P at an axial extent of the tread surface. The distance B represents the difference in height between a circumference at the central point and a circumference at the third point P. This distance B is at least 50 mm [ Namely, Arima et al discloses that the tire has a 225 40R18 size (see paragraph [0015]). The nominal diameter of a tire of this size is 25” or 635mm. Arima et al discloses an equation of the ratio of the distance B with respect to the radius A of the tire to be at most 17.9% (see paragraph [0039]). Using the known diameter of the tire, B/A=TWH(%), thus B/(635/2)= 17.9%, thus B/317.5= 0.179, thus B= (317.5/0.179), thus B = 56.8325mm]. 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 tread of the tire of Hwang et al with the height difference between circumferences of the central and third points, dependent upon the desired size of the contact surface of the tire, and the desired rolling resistance of the tire.
Regarding claim 1, Hwang et al as modified by Arima et al does not disclose the distance between the central and second points of the tread surface. 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 tire of Hwang et al as modified by Arima et al with a distance between the central and second points suitable to provide the desired contact surface between the tire and the ground, based upon the type of terrain over which the tire will predominantly move, to provide optimum traction and rolling resistance.
Regarding claims 2-3, Hwang et al as modified by Arima et al does not disclose the distance between the circumference at the central point and the circumference at the third point being at least 75 or 100mm. 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 tread of the tire of Hwang et al as modified by Arima et al with such a height, dependent upon the desired size of the contact surface of the tire, and the desired rolling resistance of the tire.
Regarding claims 7-9, Hwang et al as modified by Arima et al does not disclose a height between the second and third points being equal to or greater than 12, 16, or 20 mm. However, given the fact that this length is dependent upon the width of the contact patch of the tire with respect to the overall width of the tire tread, 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 tire of Hwang et al as modified by Arima et al with the desired contact surface between the tire and the ground, based upon the type of terrain over which the tire will predominantly move, to provide optimum traction and rolling resistance.
Regarding claim 11, Hwang et al does not disclose the dimensions of the radial thickness of the tread at the third point and the central point. 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 provide the tread with suitable dimensions at the central and third points, dependent upon the desired amount of traction required to move over terrain with the least amount of power used by the vehicle’s drivetrain.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references show tires having specific tread geometry.
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