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 below list of limitations must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
· “a resilient chamber that provides a spacing between the outer peripheral surface of the sidewall portion and an inner peripheral surface of the tire portion” as recited in claim 1. The drawing, Fig. 3C, appears to show that the resilient chamber is located between the outer peripheral surface of the central hub aperture portion and the inner peripheral surface of the tire portion (Refer to the below annotated Fig. 3C).
PNG
media_image1.png
657
557
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 3C
· “wherein the radially-extending flanges have a straight linear profile” as recited in claim 5. The drawings appear to show that only a portion of the radially-extending flanges is straight. However, the drawings do not appear to show that the radially-extending flanges have an entirely straight linear profile.
· “wherein the radially-extending flanges have an inwardly curved profile” as recited in claim 6. The drawings appear to show that only a portion of the radially-extending flanges is inwardly curved. However, the drawings do not appear to show that the radially-extending flanges have an entirely inwardly curved profile. Note that the Examiner interprets the phrase “inwardly curved” as being curved toward the interior of the wheel.
· “wherein the radially-extending flanges have an inwardly slanted profile” as recited in claim 8. Note that the Examiner interprets the phrase “inwardly slanted” as being slanted toward the interior of the wheel.
· “wherein the radially-extending flanges have an outwardly slanted profile” as recited in claim 9. Note that the Examiner interprets the phrase “outwardly slanted” as being slanted toward the exterior of the wheel.
· “wherein the resilient chamber further comprises an access device” as recited in claim 11.
3. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because the same reference characters are used to identify corresponding elements in different embodiments of the invention. Specifically, the first embodiment (Figs. 3B and 3C), the second embodiment (Figs. 4A-4C), and the third embodiment (Fig. 5) use the same reference characters. Difference reference characters should be used to distinguish the different elements. For example, reference character 206c in the first embodiment may be changed to 206c´ or 206c˝ in the subsequent embodiments.
4. The drawings are objected to because:
· The curved line shown in the below annotated Fig. 3A should be removed because it appears to be an extraneous line.
PNG
media_image2.png
433
595
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 3A of applicant’s drawing
· The cross-sectional view of the radially-extending vertical flanges (206A and 206B) shown in Fig. 3B is not consistent with the radially-extending vertical flanges (206A and 206B) shown in Fig. 3C. Refer to the circles noted by dash lines in the below Fig. 3C.
PNG
media_image3.png
639
435
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 3C
· The cross-sectional view of the resilient chamber 220 shown in Figs. 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, and 5 should not include cross-hatching because the chamber is an empty space.
· Fig. 3B is not consistent with Fig. 3C with respect to the location where the central hub aperture portion and the sidewall portion are integrally formed. Refer to the circles noted by dash lines in the below Fig. 3B and 3C.
PNG
media_image4.png
593
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 3B
PNG
media_image5.png
628
435
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 3C
· Figs. 3B and 3C appear to be inconsistent with respect to the configuration of the resilient chamber 220. For example, Fig. 3B appears to depict two separate spaces within the resilient chamber 220, whereas Fig. 3C appears to depict a different configuration. Refer the circles noted by dash lines in the below annotated Fig. 3B. Further, the location of the resilient chamber 220 shown in Fig. 3B is not consistent with the location of the resilient chamber 220 shown in Fig. 3C.
PNG
media_image6.png
588
414
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 3B
· The vertical flanges (206A and 206B) in Fig. 4A is inconsistent with the vertical flanges shown in Figs. 4B and 4C. Refer to the circles noted by dash lines in the below Figs. 4A-4C.
PNG
media_image7.png
462
586
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 4A
PNG
media_image8.png
448
557
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 4B
PNG
media_image9.png
448
592
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 4C
· The deformable tire portion shown in Figs. 4A-4C does not appear to be consistently illustrated. In particular, Fig. 4C, which illustrates the fully deformed state, does not appear to accurately reflect the deformation relative to the undeformed state shown in Fig. 4A. Specifically, the bottom central portion of the deformable tire portion does not appear to be compressed inwardly to form a concave profile. Refer to the circle noted by dash lines in the below Fig. 4C.
PNG
media_image10.png
468
611
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 4C
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:
· “206D” in Fig. 5
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:
· “United States Provisional Patent Application No. 63/420,276, filed October 28th, 2022 entitled “Resilient Wheel With Low-Friction and Wear Resistant Sidewall and Track System Having same” should be replaced with --US2024/0092437A1-- on page 15, lines 13-15. The provisional application is not a published application. Therefore, the corresponding published patent application should be cited instead.
· In line 15 of para [0091], “to be inwardly curved” should be replaced with --to be outwardly curved” for clarity. Note that Examiner interprets the phrase “outwardly curved” as being curved toward the exterior of the wheel, as shown in Fig. 5. If this interpretation is not consistent with Applicant’s intended meaning, Applicant is advised to amend the specification and/or claims to clearly define the direction of the curvature.
· As noted in the drawing objection above, different embodiments should be identified using different reference characters. Any corresponding changes to the reference characters should also be reflected throughout the specification.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Interpretation
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation is “access device” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
It should be noted that the specification defines the “access device” as a self-contained valve stem configured to enable the increase, decrease, or adjustment of the volume of air/gas within the space.
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 1-20 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 “a resilient chamber that provides a spacing between the outer peripheral surface of the sidewall portion and an inner peripheral surface of the tire portion” as recited in claim 1 is not described by the specification.
· The limitation “wherein the radially-extending flanges have a straight linear profile” as recited in claim 5 is not described by the specification.
· The limitation “wherein the radially-extending flanges have an inwardly curved profile” as recited in claim 6 is not described by the specification.
· The limitation “wherein the radially-extending flanges have an inwardly slanted profile” as recited in claim 8 is not described by the specification.
· The limitation “wherein the radially-extending flanges have an outwardly slanted profile” as recited in claim 9 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. Claim 1-20 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.
· Claim 1 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the term “configured to” in lines 2 and 4. Namely, no physical structure is present in this claim to define this term.
· In claim 1, line 9, the phrase “an outer peripheral surface of the sidewall portion” renders the scope of the claim unclear because it is unclear which portion of the sidewall constitutes the claimed “outer peripheral surface”. For example, it is unclear whether the phrase refers only to the radially outermost portion of the sidewall or more broadly to the entire outwardly facing peripheral surface of the sidewall. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
· Claim 2 recites the limitation "the tire portion" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
· Claim 3 recites the limitation "the tire portion" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
· In claim 5, the phrase “a straight linear profile” is indefinite because it is unclear what “profile” refers to. For example, it is unclear whether the claimed “straight linear profile” refers to the over profile of each radially extending flange, a side profile, a cross-sectional profile, or merely a portion thereof. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
· In claim 6, the phrase “an inwardly curved profile” is indefinite because it is unclear with respect to what reference the profile is curved inwardly (e.g., a central axis, a central plane, the wheel interior, or another reference). Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
· In claim 7, the phrase “an outwardly curved profile” is indefinite because it is unclear with respect to what reference the profile is curved outwardly (e.g., a central axis, a central plane, the wheel interior, or another reference). Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
· In claim 8, the phrase “an inwardly slanted profile” is indefinite because it is unclear with respect to what reference the profile is slanted inwardly (e.g., a central axis, a central plane, the wheel interior, or another reference). Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
· In claim 9, the phrase “an outwardly slanted profile” is indefinite because it is unclear with respect to what reference the profile is slanted outwardly (e.g., a central axis, a central plane, the wheel interior, or another reference). Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
· Claim 11 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the term “configured to” in line 8. Namely, no physical structure is present in this claim to define this term.
· Claim 18 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the term “configured to” in line 12. Namely, no physical structure is present in this claim to define this term.
· Claim 19 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the term “configured to” in lines 15 and 16-17. Namely, no physical structure is present in this claim to define this term.
· Claim 20 recites the limitation "the track systems" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 19 recites only one track system.
· Claims 3 and 16 are indefinite because the claims include multiple recitations of the same element without clarity as to whether the recited elements refer to the same element previously set forth in the claims or to an additional element. Please note the following: Claim 3 “an inner peripheral surface” in line 15; Claim 16 “an inner surface” in line 4.
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, 7, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Haushalter (US2393161A).
Regarding claim 1, Haushalter discloses a central hub aperture portion (Refer to the central hub aperture portion in the below annotated Fig. 1) configured to receive and operatively connect to a corresponding axle (The central opening of the torque frame 16 constitutes a central hub aperture portion configured to receive a corresponding axle); a sidewall portion (Refer to the sidewall portion in the below annotated Fig. 1) configured to concentrically surround an outer peripheral surface of the central hub aperture portion (Refer to the outer peripheral surface in the below annotated Fig. 1), the sidewall portion comprising a pair of radially-extending flanges 12/13 (lines 19-30 of Col. 2 on page 1; Figs. 1 and 2A) that are laterally spaced apart from each other (Figs. 1 and 2A); a deformable tire portion (Refer to the deformable tire portion in the below annotated Fig. 2A) concentrically mounted on the sidewall portion, wherein an inner surface of the flanges 12/13 (Refer to the inner surface of the flanges in the below annotated Fig. 2A) and an outer peripheral surface of the sidewall portion (Refer to the outer peripheral surface in the below annotated Fig. 2A) define a resilient chamber that provides a spacing between the outer peripheral surface of the sidewall portion and an inner peripheral surface of the tire portion (Refer to the resilient chamber, outer peripheral surface, and inner peripheral surface in the below annotated Fig. 2A).
PNG
media_image11.png
468
789
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig.1 of Haushalter
PNG
media_image12.png
545
966
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 2A of Haushalter
Regarding claim 2, Haushalter discloses the resilient chamber controllably directs a deformation of the tire portion (In view of the outstanding 112(b) rejection above, the Examiner, as best understood, interprets the tire portion as the deformable tire portion) radially inward towards the spacing of the resilient chamber (lines 54-55 of Col. 2 on page 1; lines 1-14 of Col. 3 on page 2; Figs. 1 and 2A).
Regarding claim 3, Haushalter discloses at least one of the outer peripheral surface of the sidewall portion and an inner peripheral surface of the tire portion (In view of outstanding 112(b) rejection above, the Examiner, as best understood, interprets the tire portion as the deformable tire portion) defines at least one boundary of the chamber that has a concave shape (Refer to the circles noted by dash lines and arrows in the below annotated Fig. 2A).
PNG
media_image13.png
396
433
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 2A of Haushalter
Regarding claim 4, Haushalter discloses the deformable tire portion comprises a non-pneumatic tire made of a resilient material (“A wheel, indicated generally at 10, has a body 11 of resilient rubber or other rubber-like material secured as by a vulcanized bond” per lines 15-30 of Col. 2 on page 1).
Regarding claim 7, Haushalter discloses the radially-extending flanges have an outwardly curved profile (Refer to the circles noted by dash lines in the below annotated Fig. 6; Note that the Examiner interprets the phrase “outwardly curved profile” as being curved toward the exterior of the wheel).
PNG
media_image14.png
387
447
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 6 of Haushalter
Regarding claim 12, Haushalter discloses the deformable tire portion has a width (Refer to the width in the below annotated Fig. 2A), and a contact surface interfacing with an inner surface of an endless track (The recited interfacing with an inner surface of an endless track merely recites the environment in which the contact surface is used), in which the contact surface has a contact length (Refer to the Contact length U in the below annotated Fig. 2A), with the deformable tire portion in an undeformed state (Fig. 2A), the contact length is smaller than the width, and with the deformable tire portion in a deformed state, the contact length (Refer to the contact length D in the below annotated Fig. 2A) increases to be greater than the width (Haushalter discloses an undeformed tread having a convex ground-engaging profile and further teaches that the tread undergoes extensive radial deflection into the hollow chamber under load. Such deformation necessarily flattens the ground-engaging tread surface, thereby increasing the contact length relative to the undeformed state).
PNG
media_image15.png
557
477
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 2A of Haushalter
Regarding claim 13, Haushalter discloses the spacing varies from a first radial dimension when the deformable tire portion is in the undeformed state to a second radial dimension when the deformable tire portion is in the deformed state, in which the second radial dimension is smaller than the first radial dimension (As shown in Figs. 1 and 2, Haushalter discloses a hollow 19 defining a spacing beneath the deformable tread portion. Haushalter further discloses that the tread portion undergoes extensive radial deflection into the hollow chamber under load. Accordingly, the radial spacing between the tread portion and the underlying support structure necessarily degreases from a first radial dimension in the undeformed state to a smaller second radial dimension in the deformed state).
Regarding claim 14, Haushalter discloses the second radial dimension is null when the deformable tire portion is full compressed (Lines 1-13 of col. 1 on page 2; The Examiner interprets the annotated portions of the radial dimension of the spacing below as being null when the deformable tire portion is fully compressed. The claim does not require that the entire radial dimension of the spacing be null).
PNG
media_image16.png
465
473
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 2A of Haushalter
Regarding claim 15, Haushalter discloses the wheel has a width defining an undeformed lateral footprint when the deformable tire portion is in an undeformed state and a deformed lateral footprint when the deformable tire portion is in a deformed state, the deformed lateral footprint being equal to the undeformed lateral footprint (Haushalter discloses opposed side supporting members 12/13 that laterally confine the deformable tire portion while permitting radial deformation into the hollow chamber. Accordingly, deformation occurs primarily in the radial direction without substantial lateral expansion, thereby maintaining the lateral footprint (width) of the wheel during deformation).
Regarding claim 16, Haushalter discloses at least one of the hub peripheral surface, the inner surface of the radially-extending flanges, and an inner surface of the deformable tire portion has a concave profile (Refer to the inner surface of the deformable tire portion in the below annotated Fig. 6; The inner surface has a concave profile).
PNG
media_image17.png
415
437
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 6 of Haushalter
Regarding claim 17, Haushalter discloses the resilient material of the non-pneumatic tire provides different gradient levels of resiliency to accommodate various degrees of compressional states such that in an undeformed state, the tire portion provides a first level of radial resiliency while in a completely deformed state, the tire portion provides a second level radial resiliency that is greater than the first radial level of resiliency (Haushalter discloses that, during normal deflection, the resilient material resists the applied load primarily through shear stress, which the Examiner interprets as corresponding to the claimed first gradient level of resiliency. As the deformable tire portion is subjected to increased loading, gradually applied compressive stresses are introduced after the range of shear stresses is exceeded, thereby increasing the radial resistance of the deformable tire portion to further radial deformation. The Examiner interprets this increased resistance as corresponding to the claimed second gradient level of resiliency, which is greater than the first gradient level of resiliency).
Regarding claim 18, Haushalter discloses in response to deformable tire portion deforming, the radially-extending flanges 12/13 are configured to confine and prevent lateral deformation of the deformable tire portion (Fig. 2A; Lines 40-44 of Col. 2 on page 1).
Regarding claim 19, the wheel disclosed by Haushalter is capable of being incorporated into a track system in which the wheel engagedly supports an endless track belt. Accordingly, the limitation is met.
Regarding claim 20, the wheel disclosed by Haushalter is capable of being incorporated into a track system operatively connected to a motor of a vehicle. Accordingly, the limitation is met.
15. Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kimber (GB278424A).
Regarding claim 1, Kimber discloses a wheel (Fig. 1) for a vehicular track-based system (The wheel is capable of using for the vehicular track-based system; lines 6-15 on page 1), comprising: a central hub aperture portion (Refer to the central hub aperture portion in the below annotated Fig. 1) configured to receive and operatively connect to a corresponding axle (f “axle tube”); a sidewall portion (Refer to the sidewall portion in the below annotated Fig. 1) configured to concentrically surround an outer peripheral surface of the central hub aperture portion (Fig. 1), the sidewall portion comprising a pair of radially-extending flanges (Refer to the radially-extending flanges in the below annotated Fig. 1) that are laterally spaced apart from each other (Fig. 1); a deformable tire portion (Refer to the deformable tire portion in the below annotated Fig. 1; Although the illustrated embodiments as shown in Figs. 1 and 2 disclose a resilient rubber annulus positioned within the hub and surrounded by the iron rim and web, Kimber expressly discloses that, alternatively, “the rubber annulus in either of the constructions may be hollow, or formed with a bore or with cavities giving a cushion tyre effect” per line 67-74 on page 3. Accordingly, Kimber expressly discloses alternative wheel configurations including the deformable tire portion) concentrically mounted on the sidewall portion, wherein an inner surface (Refer to the inner surface of the flanges in the below annotated Fig. 1) of the flanges and an outer peripheral surface of the sidewall portion (In view of outstanding 112(b) rejection above, the Examiner, as best understood, interprets that the outer peripheral surface of the sidewall portion as annotated in the below Fig. 1) define a resilient chamber (Refer to the resilient chamber in the below annotated Fig. 1; Although the embodiments of Figs. 1 and 2 do not depict a hollow annulus, Kimber expressly discloses that “the rubber annulus in either of the constructions may be hollow, or formed with a bore or with cavities giving a cushion tyre effect” per line 67-74 on page 3, thereby teaching an alternative embodiment including the resilient chamber) that provides a spacing between the outer peripheral surface of the sidewall portion and an inner peripheral surface of the tire portion (Refer to the below annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image18.png
662
954
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 1 of Kimber
Regarding claim 2, Kimber discloses the resilient chamber controllably directs a deformation of the tire portion (In view of the outstanding 112(b) rejection above, the Examiner, as best understood, interprets the tire portion as annotated in the below Fig. 1) radially inward towards the spacing of the resilient chamber (As shown in Fig. 1, the wheel is structured such that the tire portion deforms radially inward toward the spacing when compressed under load).
PNG
media_image19.png
680
540
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 1of Kimber
Regarding claim 4, Kimber discloses the deformable tire portion comprises a non-pneumatic tire made of a resilient material (d “rubber annulus”; lines 80-81 of page 2).
Regarding claim 10, Kimber discloses the central hub aperture portion and sidewall portion are integrally formed (Kimber discloses, in the embodiment of Fig. 1, that one sidewall is integrally formed with the axle tube, while the opposite sidewall is not integrally formed, which is consistent with Applicant’s disclosure in Figs. 3B and 3C. Accordingly, the limitation is met).
Regarding claim 13, Kimber discloses the spacing varies from a first radial dimension when the deformable tire portion is in the undeformed state to a second radial dimension when the deformable tire portion is in the deformed state, in which the second radial dimension is smaller than the first radial dimension (Fig. 1; As the deformable tire portion deforms under compression, the radial spacing between the hub c and the axle tube f necessarily decreases. Accordingly, the spacing varies from a first radial dimension in the undeformed state to a smaller second radial dimension in the deformed state. Therefore, the limitation is met; Kimber further discloses that the rubber annulus may be hollow or formed with a bore or cavities, thereby providing space for deformation during compression; lines 67-74 of page 3).
Regarding claim 17, Kimber discloses the wheel of claim 4, wherein the resilient material of the non-pneumatic tire provides different gradient levels of resiliency to accommodate various degrees of compressional states such that in an undeformed state, the tire portion provides a first level of radial resiliency while in a completely deformed state, the tire portion provides a second level radial resiliency that is greater than the first radial level of resiliency (Based on Figs. 1 and 2, Kimber discloses a deformable tire portion formed of a resilient material positioned between opposed radially-extending flanges. As the deformable tire portion is progressively compressed toward the completely deformed state, further radial deformation becomes progressively more difficult due to the continued resistance of the resilient material and the confinement provided by the opposed flanges. Accordingly, the resilient material provides different levels of radial resiliency between the undeformed and completely deformed states, wherein the radial resiliency in the completely deformed state is greater than in the undeformed state. Therefore, the limitation is met; Kimber further discloses that the rubber annulus may be hollow or formed with a bore or cavities, or may incorporate a pneumatic tube or cushion, thereby providing alternative resilient constructions having different compression characteristics; lines 67-74 of page 3).
Regarding claim 18, Kimber discloses in response to deformable tire portion deforming, the radially-extending flanges are configured to confine and prevent lateral deformation of the deformable tire portion (Figs 1 and 2; Kimber discloses radially-extending flanges positioned on opposite lateral sides of the deformable tire portion. The flanges physically confine the deformable tire portion and prevent lateral deformation thereof during compression. Accordingly, the limitation is met).
Regarding claim 19, the wheel disclosed by Kimber is capable of being incorporated into a track system in which the wheel engagedly supports an endless track belt. Accordingly, the limitation is met.
Regarding claim 20, the wheel disclosed by Kimber is capable of being incorporated into a track system operatively connected to a motor of a vehicle. Accordingly, the limitation is met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haushalter in view of Meyer (US1342562A) as applied to claims 1-4, 7, and 12-20 above.
Haushalter fails to disclose the radially-extending flanges have a straight linear profile and inwardly slanted profile as recited in claims 5 and 8.
Meyer, however, teaches a radially-extending flanges 17/21 have a straight linear profile and inwardly slanted profile (Fig. 1; Note that the Examiner interprets the phrase “inwardly slanted profile” as being slanted toward the interior of the wheel).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the profile of the radially extending flanges of Haushalter by having a straight linear profile or inwardly slanted profile, as taught by Meyer, such the profiles of the flanges are among several known alternative configurations that may be selected depending on the desired wheel characteristics, such as stiffness, flexibility, or manufacturing considerations.
20. Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haushalter in view of Killen (US1209715A) as applied to claims 1-4, 7, and 12-20 above.
Haushalter fails to disclose the radially-extending flanges have an inwardly curved profile and outwardly slanted profile as recited in claims 6 and 9.
Killen, however, teaches a tread 1 supporting by the radially-extending flanges 15/17 that have an inwardly curved profile and outwardly slanted profile (Refer to the circles noted by dash lines in the below annotated figure).
PNG
media_image20.png
447
409
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated figure of Killen
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the profile of the radially extending flanges of Haushalter by having an inwardly curved profile and/or outwardly curved profile, as taught by Killen, such the profiles of the flanges are among several known alternative configurations that may be selected depending on the desired wheel characteristics, such as stiffness, flexibility, or manufacturing considerations.
21. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimber in view of Scott (US1073177A) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 13, and 17-20 above.
Regarding claim 11, Kimber fails to discloses the resilient chamber further comprises an access device configured to increase, decrease, or adjust a volume of fluid within the space defined by the chamber.
Scott, however, teaches an inflating valve tube 24 (Figs. 1 and 2) providing access to the resilient pneumatic tube 12, thereby enabling adjustment of the volume of fluid within the resilient chamber.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the deformable tire portion of Kimber by incorporating the valve stem and inflation valve taught by Scott, particularly in view of Kimber’s express teaching that the rubber annulus may be hollow or formed with a bore or cavities, and that the pneumatic principle may be utilized by surrounding a pneumatic tube or cushion with a solid or cushion tire or ring, in order to provide access to the resilient chamber for adjusting the volume of fluid therein, since the use of an inflating valve to control the amount of fluid within a pneumatic chamber was well known in the art.
Conclusion
22. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references disclose a resilient wheel having a cushion tire and a resilient chamber.
23. 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
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights