DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (Claims 1-7 and 9) in the reply filed on 09/11/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of implied phraseology (i.e., “The invention relates to”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bookstaver et al. (EP 0057917) (of record), [any of EuropaWire PR Editors (New BASF foam made of expanded thermoplastic polyurethane revolutionizes Adidas running shoes, September 2013) (“EuropaWire”) (of record), BASF (Infinergy: The first expanded TPU – As elastic as rubber but lighter, June 2013) (of record), Han et al. (CN 104290539, see machine translation), and/or Cardinali (WO 2007015279)], and [any of Garavaglia (US 20070079916) (of record) and/or Britz (US 4909972)].
Regarding claims 1-2 and 9, Bookstaver discloses a vehicle wheel assembly (Figs. 1, 4), comprising: a wheel rim (Fig. 1: 17) having two opposed circular rim flanges (Fig. 4: 25, 27) (Page 4 lines 9-11, 24-28); an outer tire (Figs. 1, 4: 15) having two beads (Fig. 4: 29, 31) secured at the circular rim flanges (Fig. 4: 25, 27) (Page 4 lines 29-30); a non-pneumatic inner tire (Figs. 2-4: 11) comprising polyurethane foam (Page 4 lines 5-12; Page 5 lines 7-13), wherein the inner tire (Fig. 4: 11) is enclosed by the outer tire (Fig. 4: 15) and the wheel rim (Fig. 4: see rim 17 of fig. 1 comprising flanges 25, 27); wherein the inner tire (Fig. 4: 11) in the assembly is in a compressed state S1 (Fig. 4), which state is compressed as compared to a relaxed state S2 (Figs. 3-4: see how the cross-sectional dimension of the inner tire 11 in the relaxed state has a cross-sectional dimension D larger than in the compressed state having a cross-sectional dimension d) when the inner tire is not enclosed by the outer tire (Fig. 3) (Page 4 lines 9-16), wherein the compression of the inner tire is such that a cross-sectional dimension (which correlates to a surface area SA since the dimension defines the size of inner tire in both states and the calculation of the surface area includes such a dimension) (Figs. 3-4: d, D) of the inner tire (Figs. 3-4: 11), wherein the dimension (i.e. surface area) is perpendicular to a plane of the tire (Figs. 3-4: 11, 15), is smaller in the compressed state S1 (Figs. 3-4: d) than in the relaxed state S2 (Figs. 3-4: D) (Page 4 lines 12-16).
Bookstaver further discloses that the inner tire (Figs. 2-4: 11) has an overall exterior diameter that is slightly greater than that of the outer tire (Figs. 1, 4: 15) and, in its uncompressed (i.e. relaxed) condition, it is 10% larger in cross section than the corresponding cross section of the tube cavity formed in the outer tire (Fig. 4: 15) (Page 4 lines 34-35; Page 5 lines 1-4). In other words, the cross section (i.e. SA) in compressed state S1 is approximately 0.90 times the cross section (i.e. SA) in the relaxed state S2 (i.e. S1 x 0.10 = Z; S2 = S1 + Z = S1 + (S1 x 0.10) = S1 x 1.1; S1 = S2/1.1 = S2 x 0.90), which falls within the claimed ranges of 0.95 times or less and 0.90 times or less. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Moreover, case law holds that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect a cross-sectional surface area SA in the compressed state S1 of 0.85 times the cross-sectional surface area SA in the relaxed state S2 to behave in substantially the same way as a cross-sectional surface area SA in the compressed state S1 of approximately 0.90 times the cross-sectional surface area SA in the relaxed state S2. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the ratio of the surface area of the inner tire in state S1 as compared to state S2.
Although Bookstaver discloses the non-pneumatic inner tire (Figs. 2-4: 11) comprises polyurethane foam, Bookstaver is silent as to whether the polyurethane foam may be expanded thermoplastic polyurethane (E-TPU).
It is generally known in the tire art that expanded thermoplastic polyurethane (E-TPU) may be used in tires. For instance, EuropaWire teaches a foam made of expanded thermoplastic polyurethane (“E-TPU”) (Page 1, [0004]) wherein the foam may be used as a material for unpuncturable tires (Page 2, [0002]). In particular, the E-TPU is very lightweight and elastic, and thus these special properties make the foam a material with a wide range of applications (Page 2, [0002]). One particular example wherein the foam could be used is to make flat-less bicycle tires (Page 2, [0002]). Bookstaver also discloses that the tire may be a bicycle tire (Page 4 lines 24-26). Additionally or alternatively, BASF also teaches that the expanded thermoplastic polyurethane (“E-TPU”) can be used anywhere where a combination of low weight, excellent mechanical properties, and good long-term durability is required, such as for bicycle tires (Page 4). Additionally or alternatively, Han teaches a tire that may be used in bicycles ([0017]), wherein E-TPU is used in the core of a casing-eclosed tire ([0013], [0022]-[0031]). In this manner, the tire only needs to be partially inflated or not inflated, and has the characteristic of being resistant to explosions, not afraid of punctures, maintenance-free, and having long service life ([0011], [0017]). Additionally or alternatively, Cardinali teaches a tire insert made of elastomeric material with high thermal-mechanical properties suitable to fill the inner tube of tires for bicycles, motorcycles, and light vehicles (Page 1 lines 1-5), wherein the use of expanded thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) is certainly the best solution from a thermal and mechanical view point (Page 2 lines 19-22). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the polyurethane foam inner tire of Bookstaver such that the inner tire comprises expanded thermoplastic polyurethane (“E-TPU”) for the various advantages discussed above as taught by EuropaWire, BASF, Han, and/or Cardinali.
While modified Bookstaver does not explicitly recite the value for the density of the inner tire, it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for said density. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the density of the inner tire.
Furthermore, Garavaglia teaches a self-supporting tire for wheels for bicycles, similar to Bookstaver, comprising an outer tire and an inner tire (Fig. 2), wherein the inner tire is composed of flexible polyurethane elastomer with a final density of the structure ranging from 0.2 to 0.5 kg·dm-3 (i.e., 200 to 500 kg·m-3) ([0048]-[0049]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 250-300 kg·m-3. Said material has ideal behavior: in fact, it optimally cushions impacts to which the tire is subjected during use, said impacts being absorbed and partly dissipated by adiabatic compression of the gas contained in the microcells and partly dissipated in the form of heat ([0051]). Additionally or alternatively, Britz teaches a solid foamed tire core for a bicycle (Abstract, Col. 5 lines 27-29, 37-38), similar to Bookstaver, comprising an outer tire and an inner tire (Fig. 1), wherein the inner tire is composed of expanded polyurethane material with a density that may be at least 100 kg·m-3, and preferably may be about 250 to 500 kg·m-3 (Col. 2 lines 26-28; Col. 5 lines 27-29), which overlaps with the claimed range of 250-300 kg·m-3. In this manner, a solid tire core is provided without the drawbacks of a traditional puncturable inflatable core (Col. 1 lines 5-19). Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the density of the inner tire when in the relaxed state S2 or for the density of the inner tire. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Bookstaver in order to provide the inner tire when in the relaxed state S2 with a density in the aforementioned ranges for the various advantages as discussed above as taught by Garavaglia and/or Britz.
Regarding claim 4, Bookstaver further discloses that the inner tire has a tongue with an axial dimension disposed between the flanges of the rim that is approximately 10% or less than the axial dimensions between the flanges so as to thus provide sufficient room to accommodate the tongue during mounting of the inner and outer tires on the rim (Page 5 lines 23-28). In other words, the axial distance between the rim flanges is a result effective variable that will affect the dimensions of the tongue of the inner tire and thereby affect the size of tire that may be mounted on the rim. Thus, while Bookstaver does not explicitly recite the value for a distance between the rim flanges, it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for said distance. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a distance between the rim flanges.
Regarding claim 5, Bookstaver further discloses that the inner tire (Fig. 4: 11) and the outer tire (Fig. 4: 15) are connected to each other (Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bookstaver et al. (EP 0057917) (of record), [any of EuropaWire PR Editors (New BASF foam made of expanded thermoplastic polyurethane revolutionizes Adidas running shoes, September 2013) (“EuropaWire”) (of record), BASF (Infinergy: The first expanded TPU – As elastic as rubber but lighter, June 2013) (of record), Han et al. (CN 104290539, see machine translation), and/or Cardinali (WO 2007015279)], and [any of Garavaglia (US 20070079916) (of record) and/or Britz (US 4909972)] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kondo et al. (US 2010/0084064) (of record).
Regarding claim 3, Bookstaver further discloses that the inner tire (Figs. 2-4: 11) has an overall exterior diameter that is slightly greater than that of the outer tire (Figs. 1, 4: 15) and, in its uncompressed condition, it is 10% larger in cross section than the corresponding cross section of the tube cavity formed in the outer tire (Fig. 4: 15) (Page 4 lines 34-35; Page 5 lines 1-4). In other words, the diameter as well as the cross section (i.e. SA) are result-effective variables that affect the amount of compression between the uncompressed and compressed states of the inner tire. Thus, while Bookstaver does not explicitly recite the value for a diameter DMS2 of the inner tire in the relaxed state S2, it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for said diameter. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the diameter DMS2 of the inner tire in the relaxed state S2.
Similarly, while Bookstaver does not explicitly recite the value for the surface area SAS2 of the inner tire in the relaxed state S2, it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for said surface area. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the surface area SAS2 of the inner tire in the relaxed state S2.
Furthermore, Kondo teaches a puncture free tire tube (i.e. inner tire) similar to that disclosed by Bookstaver, wherein the tire tube contains a main body that is fitted under compressive deformation into the tube housing space of the annular tire outer wall (i.e. outer tire), and a rim fitting part that is molded integrally with the main body and is fitted under compressive deformation into an annular space of the rim ([0014]). Kondo further teaches that the inner tire (Figs. 1-9: C1) has a circular cross section with an outer diameter of 30 mm which corresponds to the tire size ([0052]). In other words, Kondo teaches that the diameter of the inner tire is a result effective variable that will affect the desired tire size, and thus provides yet another motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the diameter and/or surface area of the inner tire. Moreover, Kondo teaches a tire that is generally known in the art as having a diameter of 30 mm, which falls within the claimed range of 30 to 40 mm. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the diameter of the inner tire in the relaxed state S2. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Bookstaver in order to form a tire size (via the diameter of the inner tire) generally known in the substantially similar art, such as the tire taught by Kondo.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bookstaver et al. (EP 0057917) (of record), [any of EuropaWire PR Editors (New BASF foam made of expanded thermoplastic polyurethane revolutionizes Adidas running shoes, September 2013) (“EuropaWire”) (of record), BASF (Infinergy: The first expanded TPU – As elastic as rubber but lighter, June 2013) (of record), Han et al. (CN 104290539, see machine translation), and/or Cardinali (WO 2007015279)], and [any of Garavaglia (US 20070079916) (of record) and/or Britz (US 4909972)] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Makino et al. (JP 2003154807, see machine translation) (of record).
Regarding claims 6-7, while Bookstaver does not explicitly recite the value for a thickness at at least part of lateral faces of the outer tire, it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for said thickness. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a thickness at at least part of lateral faces of the outer tire.
Furthermore, Makino teaches a foam tire similar to Bookstaver, wherein the thickness of the side parts (i.e. lateral faces) of the surface layer (i.e. outer tire) (Figs. 1-6: 4) is 2 to 8% with respect to the width of the tire and the thickness of the surface layer on the tread side is 5 to 15% of the height of the tire ([0005], [0010]-[0011]). In other words, the thickness of at least part of lateral faces of the outer tire is considered to be a result-effective variable and it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for said thickness. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a thickness of at least part of lateral faces of the outer tire.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEDEF PAQUETTE (née AYALP) whose telephone number is (571) 272-5031. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST - 4:00 PM EST.
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, KATELYN SMITH (née WHATLEY) can be reached on (571) 270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. The fax phone number for the examiner is (571) 273-5031.
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.
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749