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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels. Figures 9, 10, 14A, 15, 16A, 16B, 26, 27, 28, 29A, 29B include boxes that do not include labels with descriptive text. The applicant is required to provide labels with descriptive text for all boxes in the above stated figures. 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.
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,296,621(‘621). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
-- Claim 21 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 1 of ‘621, including:
1) a wheel configured to connect the wheel assembly to an axle of the vehicle is equivalent to the wheel configured to connect to the wheel assembly to an axle of the vehicle, as recited in claim 1 of ‘621;
2) a non-pneumatic tire disposed around the wheel is equivalent to the non-pneumatic tire disposed around the wheel as recited in claim 1 of ‘621;
3) a sensor mounted to the vehicle is equivalent to the sensor mounted to the wheel, as recited in claim 1 of ‘621;
4) wherein the sensor is configured to wirelessly transmit information regarding the wheel assembly to a processing apparatus, the processing apparatus being configured to obtain information indicative of a duty cycle of at least one of the wheel assembly and the vehicle based on the information regarding the wheel assembly is equivalent to the sensor being configured to wirelessly transmit information regarding the wheel assembly to a processing apparatus external to the wheel assembly, the processing apparatus being configured to obtain information indicative of a duty cycle of at least one of the wheel assembly and the vehicle based on the information regarding the wheel assembly, as recited in claim 1 of ‘621.
-- Claim 22 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 2 of ‘621, including:
1) the information indicative of the duty cycle of at least one of the wheel assembly and the vehicle comprises information indicative of variation in time of a speed of at least one of the wheel assembly and the vehicle is equivalent to the information indicative of the duty cycle of at least one of the wheel assembly and the vehicle comprises information indicative of variation in time of speed of at least one of the wheel assembly and the vehicle, as recited in claim 2 of ‘621.
-- Claim 23 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 3 of ‘621, including
1) the information indicative of the duty cycle of at least one of the wheel assembly and the vehicle comprises information indicative of a distance travelled by at least one of the wheel assembly and the vehicle is equivalent to the information indicative of the duty cycle of at least one of the wheel assembly and the vehicle comprises information indicative of a distance travelled by at least one of the wheel assembly and the vehicle, as recited in claim 3 of ‘621.
-- Claim 24 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 4 of ‘621, including:
1) the processing apparatus is configured to obtain information indicative of a degree of wear of the non-pneumatic tire based on the information regarding the wheel assembly is equivalent to the processing apparatus being configured to obtain information indicative of a degree of wear of the non-pneumatic tire based on the information regarding the wheel assembly.
-- Claim 25 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 5 of ‘621, including:
1) the processing apparatus is configured to obtain information indicative of loading on the wheel assembly based on the information regarding the wheel assembly is equivalent to the processing apparatus being configured to obtain information indicative of loading on the wheel assembly based on the information regarding the wheel assembly, as recited in claim 5 of ‘621
-- Claim 26 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 6 of ‘621, including:
1) the processing apparatus is configured to obtain information indicative of a condition of an underlying surface on which the vehicle travels based on the information regarding the wheel assembly is equivalent to the processing apparatus being configured to obtain information indicative of a condition of an underlying surface on which the vehicle travels based on the information regarding the wheel assembly, as recited in claim 6 of ‘621.
-- Claim 27 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 7 of ‘621, including:
1) the sensor comprises an accelerometer is equivalent to the sensor comprising an accelerometer, as recited in claim 7 of ‘621.
-- Claim 28 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 8 of ‘621, including:
1) the sensor comprises a sensing device disposed between the wheel and the non-pneumatic tire and configured to sense a load between the wheel and the non-pneumatic tire is equivalent to the sensor comprising a sensing device disposed between the wheel and the non-pneumatic tire and configured to sense a load between the wheel and the non-pneumatic tire, as recited in claim 8 of ‘621.
-- Claim 29 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 9 of ‘621, including:
1) the processing apparatus is configured to cause transmission of a control signal for controlling the vehicle based on the information regarding the wheel assembly is equivalent to the processing apparatus being configured to cause transmission of a control signal for controlling the vehicle based on the information regarding the wheel assembly, as recited in claim 9 of ‘621.
-- With regards to claim 30,
1) the processing apparatus is external to the wheel assembly
-- Claim 31 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 11 of ‘621, including:
1) the information regarding the wheel assembly is first information regarding the wheel assembly, the wheel assembly comprising a tag configured to transmit second information regarding the wheel assembly to the processing apparatus, the second information regarding the wheel assembly comprising information regarding the non-pneumatic tire, and the tag being spaced apart from the sensor is equivalent to the wheel assembly comprising a tag spaced apart from the sensor and configured to transmit second information regarding the non-pneumatic tire, as recited in claim 11 of ‘621.
-- Claim 32 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 12 of ‘621, including:
1) the tag is mounted to the non-pneumatic tire is equivalent to the tag being mounted to the non-pneumatic tire, as recited in claim 12 of 621.
-- Claim 33 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 14 or ‘621, including:
1) the tag is embedded beneath an elastomeric portion of the non-pneumatic tire adjacent to a lateral surface of the non-pneumatic tire is equivalent to the tag being embedded beneath an elastomeric portion of the non-pneumatic tire adjacent to a lateral surface of the non-pneumatic tire, as recited in claim 14 of ‘621.
-- Claims 34 and 40 recite essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 11 of ‘621, except for:
1) the sensor implements a first wireless communication technology, and the tag implements a second wireless communication technology different from the first wireless communication technology.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter, to implement first and second wireless communication technology, wherein the first and second technology is different, since the sensors transmit first and second information pertaining to the wheel assembly, and therefore, first and second wireless communication technology would have helped ensure continuity of communication in the system, by including different technologies to transmit the information.
-- Claim 35 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 10 of ‘621, including:
1) A vehicle comprising the wheel assembly of claim 21 is equivalent to a vehicle comprising the wheel assembly of claim 1, as recited in claim 10 of ‘621.
-- Claim 36 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 11 of ‘621, including:
1) a wheel configured to connect the wheel assembly to an axle of the vehicle is equivalent to the wheel configured to connect the wheel assembly to an axle of the vehicle, as recited in claim 11 of ‘621;
2) a non-pneumatic tire disposed around the wheel is equivalent to the non-pneumatic tire disposed around the wheel, as recited in claim 11 of ‘621;
3) a sensor mounted to the vehicle is equivalent to the sensor mounted to the wheel, as recited in claim 11 of ‘621;
4) the sensor is configured to wirelessly transmit first information regarding the wheel assembly to a processing apparatus external to the wheel assembly, the wheel assembly further comprising a tag spaced apart from the sensor and configured to transmit second information regarding the non-pneumatic tire the first information of the sensor and the second information of the tag provide information regarding the wheel and non-pneumatic tire to indicate at least one of: how the vehicle is used, and the state of the wheel, wherein the first and second information are different is equivalent to that same subject matter as recited in claim 11 of ‘621.
-- Claim 37 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 12 of ‘621, including:
1) the tag is mounted to the non-pneumatic tire is equivalent to the tag is mounted to the non-pneumatic tire, as recited in claim 37 of ‘621.
-- Claim 38 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 13 of ‘621, including:
1) the tag is mounted inside the non- pneumatic tire is equivalent to the tag being mounted inside the non-pneumatic tire, as recited in claim 38 of ‘621.
-- Claim 39 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 14 of ‘621, including:
1) the tag is embedded beneath an elastomeric portion of the non-pneumatic tire adjacent to a lateral surface of the non-pneumatic tire is equivalent to the tag being embedded beneath an elastomeric portion of the non-pneumatic tire adjacent to a lateral surface of the non-pneumatic tire.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARYL C POPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2959. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DARYL C POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights