DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
2. 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 following limitations must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
· The combination of claims 1 and 10 are not supported by the drawings. Figs. 15-22 do not appear to show that the knee portion being concavely curved relative to the lower ring and the transition being convexly curved relative to the lower ring. Further, the claim 10 is only supported by Figs. 13 and 14, but the drawings do not appear to show the limitation “wherein the lower ring is provided with a plurality of scallops” as recited in claim 1.
· The limitation “wherein each of the first curved surface and the second curved surface are convex relative to an inner surface of the lower ring” as recited in claims 1, 12, and 21 is not supported by the drawings. Fig. 15 appears to show that the first curved surface and the second curved surface are concave relative to an inner surface of the lower ring. Note that the Examiner reads the inner surface of the lower ring as annotated in the below applicant’s Fig. 15.
PNG
media_image1.png
493
617
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 15
· The limitation “the boot having a third radius of curvature” as recited in claim 20 is not supported by drawings.
3. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show lines 13-15 in para [0092] as described in the specification. The drawing, Fig. 18, appears to show that the radius of curvature of the floor portion is different from the radius of curvature of scallop. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
4. 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:
· Reference character “2030” in para [0087], line 3.
· Reference character “2023” in para [0089], line 2.
· Reference characters “3024” and “3020” in para [0092], line 15.
5. 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:
· Reference character “1050” in Fig. 11
· Reference character “4205” in Fig. 20
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.
Specification
6. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
· “At 1040” should be amended to read “At 1050” in para [0070].
· “the boot 6548” should be amended to read “the boot 3215” in para [0092], line 6.
· “end cap 5002” should be amended to read “end cap 5000” in para [0095], line 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
7. Claims 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
· Claim 14: “a plurality of ends caps” should be amended to read “a plurality of end caps” in lines 3 and 4.
· Claim 15: “one of the plurality of ends caps” should be amended to read “one of the plurality of end caps” in line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
9. Claims 1, 4-10, 12, 20-22 are 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.
· The limitation “wherein each of the first curved surface and the second curved surface are convex relative to an inner surface of the lower ring” as recited in claims 1 and 21 is not described by the specification.
· The limitation “wherein the forming a plurality of boots includes providing the second curved surface as a second convex surface relative to the inner surface of the lower ring” as recited in claim 12 is not described by the specification.
· The combination of the features recited in claims 1 and 10 is not described in the specification.
· The limitation “the boot having a third radius of curvature” as recited in claim 20 is not described by the specification.
10. 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.
11. Claims 1, 10, 12, and 20-22 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 1 and 21 are indefinite because the limitation “wherein each of the first curved surface and the second curved surface are convex relative to an inner surface of the lower ring” appears inconsistent with the disclosure, rendering it unclear whether the claimed curved surfaces are intended to be convex or concave relative to the inner surface of the lower ring. Therefore, the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
· Claim 10 is indefinite because the phrase “relative to the lower ring” fails to provide a defined datum or reference direction for determining whether the knee portion is concavely curved or the transition portion is convexly curved. Applicant is advised to amend the claim to recite an objective structural relationship, such as curvature defined with respect to an identifiable structural or directional reference of the lower ring.
· Claim 12 is indefinite because the limitation “wherein the forming a plurality of boots includes providing the second curved surface as a second convex surface relative to the inner surface of the lower ring” appears inconsistent with the disclosure, rendering it unclear whether the claimed curved surfaces are intended to be convex or concave relative to the inner surface of the lower ring. Therefore, the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
· Claim 20 is indefinite because the limitations “a lower ring having a first radius of curvature” and “the boot having a third radius of curvature” fail to identify any curved surface or profile of the lower ring and boot from which the first and third radius of curvature are derived. Since a radius of curvature must correspond to a particular curved surface or profile, it is unclear what structure defines the claimed first and third radius of curvature and how they are to be compared with the second radius of curvature. Accordingly, the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
· Claim 21 recites the limitation "the second curved surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
12. 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.
13. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
14. Claims 1, 4-6, 11-13, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kandel et al (US2021/0188003A1; hereinafter “Kandel”).
Regarding claim 1, Kandel discloses a non-pneumatic tire 100 (Fig. 1) comprising: a lower ring (500 “wheel”; Fig. 9) having a first diameter; an upper ring (200 “outer annular band”; Fig. 9) having a second diameter, the upper ring being substantially coaxial with the lower ring (Fig. 9); and a support structure (400 “spoke disks”; Fig. 9) connecting the lower ring 500 to the upper ring 200, the support structure 400 being made up of a plurality of spokes (Examiner reads the X-shaped spokes as shown in Figs. 6 and 9 as the plurality of spokes), the plurality of spokes being arranged into a first spoke group and a second spoke group that is axially spaced from the first spoke group (Refer to the first and second group in the below annotated Fig. 10), each one of the plurality of spokes comprising: a first end (Refer to the first end in the below annotated Fig. 11) connected to the lower ring 500; a second end (Refer to the second end in the below annotated Fig. 11) connected to the upper ring 200; and a boot (600 “anchors” OR a combination of 403 “inner annular ring” and 600; Fig. 11) at the first end (Refer to the below annotated Fig. 11), the boot having a floor portion (Refer to the floor portion in the below annotated Fig. 13), the floor portion being attached to the lower ring to connect the first end of the spoke to the lower ring (Refer to the below annotated Figs. 11 and 13); wherein the lower ring is provided with a plurality of scallops (Refer to the scallop in the below annotated Figs. 11 and 13), each one of the plurality of scallops having a first curved surface, and wherein the floor portion of the boot is provided as a second curved surface (Refer to the first and second curved surfaces in the below annotated Fig. 13); and wherein each of the first curved surface and the second curved surface are convex (Examiner interprets the claimed “convex” in a manner consistent with Applicant’s disclosure) relative to an inner surface of the lower ring (Refer to the below annotated Figs. 11 and 13).
PNG
media_image2.png
512
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 10 of Kandel
PNG
media_image3.png
600
745
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 11 of Kandel
PNG
media_image4.png
508
639
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 13 of Kandel
Regarding claim 4, Kandel discloses the first curved surface has a first radius of curvature and the second curved surface has a second radius of curvature (Refer to the R2 and R3 in the above annotated Fig. 13; The first and second curved surfaces are depicted as complementary mating surfaces having a common radius of curvature; “Each anchor snugly fits into each slot 700 for mating reception” per para [0030]), and wherein at least one of the first radius of curvature and the second radius of curvature is constant (The scallop and floor portion of the boot are depicted in the above annotated Figs. 11 and 13 as a circular arc and therefore has a constant radius of curvature. Accordingly, the limitation is met).
Regarding claim 5, Kandel discloses the first curved surface has a first radius of curvature and the second curved surface has a second radius of curvature (Refer to the R2 and R3 in the below annotated Fig. 13; The first and second curved surfaces are depicted as complementary mating surfaces having a common radius of curvature; “Each anchor snugly fits into each slot 700 for mating reception” per para [0030]), and wherein at least one of the first radius of curvature is equal to the second radius of curvature (Refer to the below annotated Fig. 13).
PNG
media_image4.png
508
639
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 13 of Kandel
Regarding claim 6, Kandel discloses the first curved surface has a first radius of curvature, the second curved surface has a second radius of curvature (Refer to the R2 and R3 in the above annotated Fig. 13), and an external surface of the lower ring has a third radius of curvature (Refer to the external surface of the lower ring and R1 in the below annotated Fig. 11), and wherein each of the first radius of curvature and the second radius of curvature are different from the third radius of curvature (Comparing the annotated Figs. 11 and 13, the R1 is different from the R2 and R3. Accordingly, the limitation is met).
PNG
media_image5.png
627
621
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 11 of Kandel
Regarding claim 11, Kandel discloses a method of manufacturing a non-pneumatic tire comprising the steps of: providing a lower ring having a first diameter and an upper ring having a second diameter that is greater than the first diameter; forming a plurality of scallops on the lower ring, each one of the plurality of scallops having a first curved surface; forming a plurality of spokes, each spoke extending between a first end and a second end forming a plurality of boots, each one of the plurality of boots having a second curved surface; attaching one of the plurality of boots to a respective one of the plurality of spokes at the first end; arranging the plurality of spokes into a first spoke group and a second spoke group that is axially spaced from the first spoke group; and connecting the lower ring to the upper ring with the first spoke group and the second spoke group, the step of connecting the lower ring to the upper ring including attaching the second curved surface of the boot to the first curved surface of one of the plurality of scallops to connect the first end of the spoke to the lower ring, and connecting the second end of the spoke to the upper ring (The limitations are disclosed as discussed above with respect to claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, Kandel discloses the method of manufacturing a non-pneumatic tire of claim 11, wherein the forming a plurality of scallops includes providing the first curved surface as a first convex surface relative to an inner surface of the lower ring, and wherein the forming a plurality of boots includes providing the second curved surface as a second convex surface relative to the inner surface of the lower ring (The limitations are disclosed as discussed above with respect to claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 13, Kandel discloses the method of manufacturing a non-pneumatic tire of claim 11, wherein the forming a plurality of scallops includes providing the first curved surface with a first radius of curvature, and wherein the forming a plurality of boots includes providing the second curved surface with a second radius of curvature, wherein the first radius of curvature and the second radius of curvature are different from a third radius of curvature of an external surface of the lower ring (The limitations are disclosed as discussed above with respect to claim 6).
Regarding claim 20, Kandel discloses a non-pneumatic tire 100 (Fig. 1) comprising: a lower ring 500 (Fig. 9) having a first radius of curvature (Examiner interprets the first radius of curvature as indicated by R1 in the below annotated Fig. 9 from the center point to the external surface of the lower ring 500), the lower ring 500 being provided with a plurality of scallops (Refer to the scallop in the below annotated Fig. 13), each scallop having first curved surface (Refer to the first curved surface in the below annotated Fig. 13) with a second radius of curvature (Refer to “R2” in the below annotated Fig. 13); an upper ring 200 (Fig. 9) substantially coaxial with the lower ring 500; and a support structure 400 connecting the lower ring 500 to the upper ring 200 (Fig. 9), the support structure 400 being made up of a plurality of spokes (Para [0030]), each spoke extending between a first end (Refer to the first end in the below annotated Fig. 11) and a second end (Refer to the second end in the below annotated Fig. 11), the first end being provided with a boot (600 “anchors” OR a combination of 403 “inner annular ring” and 600; Fig. 11; Para [0030]), the boot 600 having a third radius of curvature (Based on the claim language “the boot having a third radius of curvature”, Examiner interprets the third radius of curvature as indicated by R3 in the below annotated Fig. 13 from the center point to the inner surface of the boot 600. The claim language does not impose any limitation as to the specific location, in contrast to claim 1, which specifically recites a floor portion of the boot), wherein each of the first radius of curvature and the second radius of curvature are different from the third radius of curvature (By comparing the first radius of curvature R1 in the below annotated Fig. 9 and the second R2 and third radius R3 of curvature in the below annotated Fig. 13, the R3 is different from the R1 and R2. Accordingly, the limitation is met).
PNG
media_image6.png
670
612
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 9 of Kandel
PNG
media_image3.png
600
745
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 11 of Kandel
PNG
media_image7.png
472
556
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 13 of Kandel
Regarding claim 21, Kandel discloses each of the first curved surface and the second curved surface (As best understood, the second curved surface is interpreted as referring to the inner surface of the boot 600 as indicated by “second curved surface” in the above Fig. 13) are convex (Examiner interprets the claimed “convex” in a manner consistent with Applicant’s disclosure) relative to an inner surface of the lower ring (Refer to the inner surface of the lower ring in the below annotated Fig. 11).
PNG
media_image8.png
592
476
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 11 of Kandel
Regarding claim 22, Kandel discloses at least one of the first radius of curvature and the second radius of curvature is a constant radius (The scallop and boot 600 are depicted in the above annotated Fig. 11 as a circular arc and therefore has a constant radius of curvature. Accordingly, the limitation is met).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Claims 1, 4-7, 10-13, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyer et al (US2011/0126948A1; hereinafter “Boyer”).
Regarding claim 1, Boyer discloses a non-pneumatic tire (Para [0001]; Figs. 4-9; 20 “wheel” with 27 “tread around 19 “rim” as shown in Fig. 6) comprising: a lower ring (17 “hub”; Fig. 7) having a first diameter; an upper ring (19 “rim”; Fig. 7) having a second diameter, the upper ring 19 being substantially coaxial with the lower ring 17 (Fig. 7); and a support structure (10 “suspension”; Fig. 4) connecting the lower ring 17 to the upper ring 19, the support structure 10 being made up of a plurality of spokes (12 “springs”; Fig. 4), each one of the plurality of spokes 12 comprising: a first end (radially inner end of spoke 12) connected to the lower ring 17; a second end (radially outer end of spoke 12) connected to the upper ring 19; and a boot (15 “sleeve”; Fig. 8) at the first end, the boot 15 having a floor portion (Refer to the floor portion in the below annotated Fig. 8),
PNG
media_image9.png
698
617
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 8 of Boyer
the floor portion being attached to the lower ring 17 to connect the first end of the spoke 12 to the lower ring (Fig. 8); wherein the lower ring 17 is provided with a plurality of scallops (Refer to the scallops in the below annotated Fig. 7),
PNG
media_image10.png
686
616
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 7 of Boyer
each one of the plurality of scallops having a first curved surface (Fig. 7), and wherein the floor portion of the boot is provided as a second curved surface (Fig. 8); and wherein each of the first curved surface and the second curved surface are convex (Examiner interprets the claimed “convex” in a manner consistent with Applicant’s disclosure) relative to an inner surface of the lower ring (Refer to the first and second curved surfaces and inner surface of the lower ring in the below annotated Fig. 8; Note that the inner surface of the lower ring could also be the outer surface of the axle since the axle is mounted and connected to the hub; Para [0085]; Refer to the Fig. 23 as showing the inner face of the hub 17),
PNG
media_image11.png
696
620
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 8 of Boyer
but fails to disclose the plurality of spokes being arranged into a first spoke group and a second spoke group that is axially spaced from the first spoke group.
Boyer, however, teaches the plurality of spokes being arranged into a first spoke group and a second spoke group (Refer to the first and second spoke group in the below annotated Fig. 24) that is axially spaced from the first spoke group (Figs. 24 and 25).
PNG
media_image12.png
643
733
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 24 of Boyer
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 spoke structure of the wheel from embodiment of Fig. 8 of Boyer by including the second spoke group as taught from the embodiment of Fig. 24, with the motivation to improve lateral stability and structural rigidity of the wheel, thereby reducing undesired relative rotational movement between the hub and the rim, while maintaining the same overall function, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Boyer further discloses the first curved surface has a first radius of curvature and the second curved surface has a second radius of curvature (As shown in the below annotated Fig. 8, the first and second curved surfaces are depicted as complementary mating surfaces having a common radius of curvature. Further, the first and second radius of curvature implicitly disclosed, as it is inherently defined by the indicated center of curvature), and wherein at least one of the first radius of curvature and the second radius of curvature is constant (Fig. 8; The scallop and floor portion of the boot 15 are depicted as a circular arc and therefore has a constant radius of curvature. Accordingly, the limitation is met).
PNG
media_image13.png
598
540
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 8 of Boyer
Regarding claim 5, Boyer further discloses the first curved surface has a first radius of curvature and the second curved surface has a second radius of curvature (As shown in the above annotated Fig. 8, the first and second curved surfaces are depicted as complementary mating surfaces having a common radius of curvature. Further, the first and second radius of curvature implicitly disclosed, as it is inherently defined by the indicated center of curvature), and wherein at least one of the first radius of curvature is equal to the second radius of curvature (Refer to the above annotated Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6, Boyer further discloses the first curved surface has a first radius of curvature, the second curved surface has a second radius of curvature (Refer to the first and second radius of curvature as discussed above with respect to claims 4 and 5), and an external surface (Refer to the external surface of the lower ring in the below annotated Fig. 8) of the lower ring 17 has a third radius of curvature (Refer to “R3” in the below annotated Fig. 8), and wherein each of the first radius of curvature and the second radius of curvature are different from the third radius of curvature (By comparing the first, second, and third radius of curvature as discussed above, the third radius of curvature is different from the first and second radius of curvature. Accordingly, the limitation is met).
PNG
media_image14.png
575
527
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 8 of Boyer
Regarding claim 7, Boyer further discloses the lower ring 17 has a first width, the spoke 12 has a second width, and the boot 15 has a third width, and wherein the third width is equal to at least one of the first width and the second width (The embodiment in Fig. 23 discloses that the third width is equal to both first and second width. Accordingly, the limitation is met)
Regarding claim 10, Boyer further discloses each one of the plurality of spokes comprises: a knee portion (Refer to the knee portion in the below annotated Fig. 5) located between the first end and the second end, the knee portion being concavely curved (As best understood, the knee portion defines a curve region that is concave relative to the lower ring) relative to the lower ring (Refer to the below annotated Fig. 5); and a transition portion (Refer to the transition portion in the below annotated Fig. 5) located between the first end and the knee portion, the transition portion being convexly curved (As best understood, the transition portion defines a curved region that is convex relative to the lower ring) relative to the lower ring (Refer to the below annotated Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image15.png
638
854
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 5 of Boyer
Regarding claim 11, Boyer discloses a method of manufacturing a non-pneumatic tire comprising the steps of: providing a lower ring having a first diameter and an upper ring having a second diameter that is greater than the first diameter; forming a plurality of scallops on the lower ring, each one of the plurality of scallops having a first curved surface; forming a plurality of spokes, each spoke extending between a first end and a second end forming a plurality of boots, each one of the plurality of boots having a second curved surface; attaching one of the plurality of boots to a respective one of the plurality of spokes at the first end; arranging the plurality of spokes into a first spoke group and a second spoke group that is axially spaced from the first spoke group; and connecting the lower ring to the upper ring with the first spoke group and the second spoke group, the step of connecting the lower ring to the upper ring including attaching the second curved surface of the boot to the first curved surface of one of the plurality of scallops to connect the first end of the spoke to the lower ring, and connecting the second end of the spoke to the upper ring (The limitations are disclosed as discussed above with respect to claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, Boyer discloses the method of manufacturing a non-pneumatic tire of claim 11, wherein the forming a plurality of scallops includes providing the first curved surface as a first convex surface relative to an inner surface of the lower ring, and wherein the forming a plurality of boots includes providing the second curved surface as a second convex surface relative to the inner surface of the lower ring (The limitations are disclosed as discussed above with respect to claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 13, Boyer discloses the method of manufacturing a non-pneumatic tire of claim 11, wherein the forming a plurality of scallops includes providing the first curved surface with a first radius of curvature, and wherein the forming a plurality of boots includes providing the second curved surface with a second radius of curvature, wherein the first radius of curvature and the second radius of curvature are different from a third radius of curvature of an external surface of the lower ring (The limitations are disclosed as discussed above with respect to claim 6).
Regarding claim 20, Boyer discloses a non-pneumatic tire (Para [0001]; Figs. 4-9; 20 “wheel” with 27 “tread around 19 “rim” as shown in Fig. 6) comprising: a lower ring 17 having a first radius (Refer to the “R1” in the below annotated Fig. 8) of curvature, the lower ring 17 being provided with a plurality of scallops (Refer to the scallops in the below annotated Fig. 8), each scallop having first curved surface with a second radius of curvature (Refer to the center of curvature of scallop in the below annotated Fig. 8; The second radius of curvature is inherently defined by the center of curvature indicated by the dot); an upper ring 19 substantially coaxial with the lower ring 17 (Fig. 8); and a support structure 10 connecting the lower ring 17 to the upper ring 19, the support structure 10 being made up of a plurality of spokes 12, each spoke 12 extending between a first end (radially inner end of spoke 12) and a second end (radially outer end of spoke 12), the first end being provided with a boot 15, the boot having a third radius of curvature (Based on the claim language “the boot having a third radius of curvature”, Examiner interprets the third radius of curvature from the center point indicated by dot in the below annotated Fig. 8 to the inner surface of the boot directly attaching to the spoke. The claim language does not impose any limitation as to the specific location, in contrast to claim 1, which specifically recites a floor portion of the boot; The third radius of curvature is inherently defined by the center of curvature of boot indicated by the dot in the below Fig. 8), wherein each of the first radius of curvature and the second radius of curvature are different from the third radius of curvature (By comparing the first radius of curvature R1 in the below annotated Fig. 8 and the second and third radius of curvature as discussed above, the third radius of curvature is different from the R1 and the second radius of curvature. Accordingly, the limitation is met).
PNG
media_image16.png
596
655
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 8 of Boyer
Regarding claim 21, Boyer discloses each of the first curved surface and the second curved surface (As best understood, the Examiner interprets the second curved surface as the inner surface of the boot as annotated in the above Fig. 8) are convex (Examiner interprets the claimed “convex” in a manner consistent with Applicant’s disclosure) relative to an inner surface of the lower ring (Refer to the inner surface in the above annotated Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 22, Boyer discloses at least one of the first radius of curvature and the second radius of curvature is a constant radius (The scallop and boot are depicted in Fig. 8 as a circular arc and therefore has a constant radius of curvature. Accordingly, the limitation is met).
19. Claims 8, 9, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyer in view of Knospe et al (US2021/0001668A1; hereinafter “Knospe”) as applied to claims 1, 4-7, 10-13, and 20-22 above.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Boyer fails to disclose each one of the plurality of spokes further comprises an end cap, the end cap being attached to an edge of the boot; wherein the boot has a first profile and the end cap has a second profile, and wherein the second profile is substantially the same as the first profile.
Knospe, however, teaches a web member 1330 including an end plate 1340 attached to an end region (i.e., the edge of the boot) of the web 1330, wherein the end plate 1340 is configured with a profile corresponding to the profile of the web end region (Figs. 15A-D; “the pins are arranged as a substantially equilateral triangle within the end plate 1340.” per para [0087]; Examiner reads the end plate 1340 as the claimed end cap. As shown in Figs. 15A-D and described in para [0087], the triple pin joint is arranged in a substantially equilateral triangular configuration within the end plate 1340. The corresponding end region of the web is configured to interface with the end plate and exhibits a corresponding triangular profile. Accordingly, the profile of the end plate is substantially the same as the profile of the adjacent web end region, thereby meeting the claimed limitation)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the edge of the boot of Boyer by including an end cap, as taught by Knospe, as an alternative known attachment arrangement for improving retention of the boot at the spoke end region.
Regarding claim 14, Boyer discloses the method of manufacturing a non-pneumatic tire of claim 11, further comprising the steps of: forming a plurality of ends caps; and attaching one of the plurality of ends caps to an edge a respective one of the plurality of boots (Refer to the limitations as discussed above with respect to claim 8).
Regarding claim 15, Boyer discloses the method of manufacturing a non-pneumatic tire of claim 14, wherein the forming a plurality of end caps includes forming each one of the plurality of ends caps with a first profile, and wherein the forming a plurality of boots includes forming each one of the plurality of boots with a second profile, wherein the first profile is substantially the same as the second profile (Refer to the limitations as discussed above with respect to claim 9).
20. Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyer in view of Kujawski et al (US2021/0237511A1; hereinafter “Kujawski”) as applied to claims 1, 4-7, 10-13, and 20-22 above.
Regarding claims 16, 17, 18, and 19, Boyer fails to disclose the boot includes a fastener, the fastener attaching the floor portion to the lower ring; wherein the boot includes a first part and a second part, the first and second parts being discrete components; wherein the first end of the spoke is sandwiched between the first and second parts of the boot; wherein the boot includes a fastener, the fastener and the first and second parts of the boot attaching to the boot to the first end of the spoke.
Kujawski, however, teaches the above limitations as recited in claims 16-19 as shown in the below annotated Fig. 6 (Note that Examiner interprets that claim 19 does not require the fastener to directly attached to the first end of the spoke. Rather, the limitation broadly recites that the fastener and the first and second parts of the boot attach the boot to the first end of the spoke. Accordingly, the limitation is met).
PNG
media_image17.png
542
557
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 6 of Kujawski
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the boot structure of Boyer by substituting its one piece boot for a boot assembly including first and second discrete parts and fasteners, as taught by Kujawski, as an alternative attachment arrangement for securing the spoke to the boot and the boot to the lower ring. Such modification would have provided a robust attachment structure while allowing easier removal, replacement, and maintenance of individual components.
Double Patenting
21. 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.
22. Claims 1, 4-6, 10, and 11-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7, and 8 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.
23. Claims 1+10 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1+5 and 11 of copending Application No. 18/867,648 (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 copending 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.
24. Claims 1 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 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 copending 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
25. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references disclose non-pneumatic tires having spokes between inner and outer rings.
26. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEKWON (TAE) CHOI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5805. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joe) Morano, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/TAEKWON CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights