CTNF 18/867,648 CTNF 77548 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 06-49-07 The information disclosure statement filed 21 February 2025 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. Therefore, the lined through foreign reference has not been considered. Drawings 06-22-02 AIA The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters " 40 " and " 200 " have both been used to designate the same element in Figure 3 . 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. 06-22-07 AIA The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 40 . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The first page of the specification fails to provide a statement of the 371 status of the application along with priority to the provisional application . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 10 and 17-20 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. Claims 10 and 17 are indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “arranged and configured”. This phrase is generally narrative (see section 8 below) and fails to describe any actual physical structure of the invention. 07-34-07 AIA The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. 07-34-03 AIA The term “ high ” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ high ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. No quantitative or qualitative limitations have been set forth in the claims to clearly define this term . 07-34-03 AIA The term “ flat ” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ flat ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. No quantitative or qualitative limitations have been set forth in the claims to clearly define this term . Namely, the term “flat” can be construed to be describing the shaped of an element (i.e. linear or planar), or the surface finish of an element . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7, 10-12, 14, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Abe (10,118,444) . Per claim 1, Abe shows a non-pneumatic tire 1 including a lower ring 12 with a first diameter, and an upper ring 13 with a second diameter being coaxial with the lower ring 12. A support member 31-32 connects the lower ring 12 to the upper ring 13, and is formed of a plurality of spokes 21-22. The spokes are arranged in a first spoke group 31 and a second spoke group 32 axially spaced from the first spoke group 31. Each spoke includes a first end 21b/22b connected to the lower ring 12, a second end 21e/22e connected to the upper ring 13, and a knee portion located between the first and second ends. The knee portion is concavely curved relative to the lower ring 12. Per claim 2, the spokes 21 of the first group 31 are concavely curved relative to a first circumferential direction of the tire 1, and the spokes 22 of the second set of spokes 32 are convexly curved relative to the first circumferential direction of the tire 1 (see Figure 2). Per claim 4, each spoke 21-22 includes a curved connecting portion that connects the knee to the second end 21e/22e. Per claim 5, each spoke 21-22 includes a convexly curved transition portion between the first end 21b/22b and the knee. Per claim 7, each spoke includes a foot portion (essentially the outer periphery of the first end 21b/22b) extending from the curved transition portion and attached to the lower ring 12. The foot portion having a first radius of curvature that is substantially equal to that of the lower ring 12. Per claim 10, when the tire 1 impacts an obstruction or obstacle, at least three adjacent spokes 21-22 may contact one another during deformation. Per claims 11-12 and 14, the tire 1 of Abe is formed by the method of providing the lower 12 and upper 13 rings, forming the plurality of spokes 21-22 therebetween, and connecting the spokes 21-22 to the lower 12 and upper 13 rings. Per claims 17-20, there is a first condition in which the tire 1 of Abe rolls on a “flat” (i.e. planar or linear) surface, with the plurality of spokes 21-22 not contacting adjacent ones, and a second condition, different from the first condition, in which adjacent spokes 21-22 of the tire 1 contact one another . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8-9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe . Regarding claim 8, Abe does shows an angle between a base plane intersecting the transition portion and second end 21e/22e of the spokes 21-22 and a plane extending tangent to the lower ring 12 at the transition portion; however, Abe does not disclose the value of said angle. 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 tire of Abe with an angle as defined above with a suitable value to allow the tire to support a desired load without failing during use. Regarding claim 9, Abe does not disclose any dimensions of the various portions of the spokes. 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 tire of Abe with spokes having dimensions suitable for supporting the loads imparted on the tire during use, dependent upon the vehicle on which the tires are to be mounted. Regarding claim 16, Abe discloses that the spokes may be formed by injection molding, but does not specifically mention “high pressure resin transfer molding”. However, it is well known in the art that “high pressure resin transfer molding” is merely a type of injection molding under a vacuum. Therefore, 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 Abe from “high pressure resin transfer molding” for the purpose of preventing contaminants from being incorporated into the material forming the tire . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-9 and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calta (1,069,525) in view of Merrill (469,708) . Per claim 1, Figure 5 of Calta shows a non-pneumatic tire including a lower ring 4m with a first diameter, and an upper ring 7m with a second diameter being coaxial with the lower ring 4m. A support member (generally 5) connects the lower ring 4m to the upper ring 7m, and is formed of a plurality of spokes. The spokes are arranged in a first spoke group 5s and a second spoke group 5t axially spaced from the first spoke group 5s. Each spoke includes a first end connected to the lower ring 4m, a second end 5u connected to the upper ring 7m. Per claim 2, the spokes of the first group 5s are concavely curved relative to a first circumferential direction of the tire, and the spokes of the second group 5t are convexly curved relative to the first circumferential direction of the tire. Per claim 3, the spokes include a flexure member 5w attached thereto, and connects the second end 5u of the spokes to the upper ring 7m. Per claim 6, each spoke includes a foot portion that extends from a transition portion, and is attached to the lower ring 4m. The foot portion is substantially linear. Per claim 7, each spoke includes a foot portion extending from a curved transition portion and attached to the lower ring 4m. The foot portion having a first radius of curvature that is substantially equal to that of the lower ring 4m. Per claims 11-14, the tire of Calta is formed by the method of providing the lower 4m and upper 7m rings, forming the plurality of spokes (generally 5) therebetween, and connecting the spokes to the lower 4m and upper 7m rings. Per claim 16, the spokes of Calta may be formed by hot stamping, cold forming, extruding, rolling, or bending. Regarding claim 1, Calta does not show each spoke including a knee portion located between the first and second ends. Figure 1 of Merrell teaches the use of a non-pneumatic tire having spokes D including a knee portion located between first and second ends thereof. The knee portion is concavely curved relative to a lower ring B. Regarding claim 4, Merrell teaches each spoke D includes a curved connecting portion that connects the knee portion to the second end thereof. Regarding claim 5, Merrell teaches each spoke D includes a convexly curved transition portion between the first end thereof and the knee portion. Therefore, from these teachings, 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 Calta with a shape as taught by Merrell, as a substitute equivalent configuration, dependent upon the desired amount of resiliency of the spokes, and/or for aesthetics. Regarding claim 8, Calta (as modified by Merrill) does shows an angle between a base plane intersecting the transition portion and second end 21e/22e of the spokes 21-22 and a plane extending tangent to the lower ring 12 at the transition portion; however, does not disclose the value of said angle. 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 tire of Calta as modified by Merrill with an angle as defined above with a suitable value to allow the tire to support a desired load without failing during use. Regarding claim 9, Calta as modified by Merrill does not disclose any dimensions of the various portions of the spokes. 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 tire of Calta as modified by Merrill with spokes having dimensions suitable for supporting the loads imparted on the tire during use, dependent upon the vehicle on which the tires are to be mounted . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-10 and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,508,842 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claim(s) is/are fully encompassed by the patented claims. Therefore, it is obvious that the Applicant is claiming the same invention in different and/or broader terms . 08-35 Claim s 1 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1+6 and 11, respectively , of copending Application No. 18/867,707 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claim(s) is/are fully encompassed by the patented claims. Therefore, it is obvious that the Applicant is claiming the same invention in different and/or broader terms . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 08-35 Claim s 1+5 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1+10 and 11, respectively , of copending Application No. 18/867,685 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claim(s) is/are fully encompassed by the patented claims. Therefore, it is obvious that the Applicant is claiming the same invention in different and/or broader terms . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references show resilient (i.e. non-pneumatic) tires having spokes between inner and outer rings . 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 Application/Control Number: 18/867,648 Page 2 Art Unit: 3615 Application/Control Number: 18/867,648 Page 3 Art Unit: 3615 Application/Control Number: 18/867,648 Page 4 Art Unit: 3615 Application/Control Number: 18/867,648 Page 5 Art Unit: 3615 Application/Control Number: 18/867,648 Page 6 Art Unit: 3615 Application/Control Number: 18/867,648 Page 7 Art Unit: 3615 Application/Control Number: 18/867,648 Page 8 Art Unit: 3615 Application/Control Number: 18/867,648 Page 9 Art Unit: 3615 Application/Control Number: 18/867,648 Page 10 Art Unit: 3615 Application/Control Number: 18/867,648 Page 11 Art Unit: 3615 Application/Control Number: 18/867,648 Page 12 Art Unit: 3615
Prosecution Insights