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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 10-12 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.
Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to require a plurality of “base sub-portions”- this language is not contained in the original specification and as such, it is seen to constitute new matter. It appears that the projection portion defines or forms a plurality of closed-loop shapes so it is unclear exactly what the aforementioned language refers to. Again, the projection portion extends from or is positioned on the base portion and forms a plurality of closed-loop shapes, wherein said closed-loop shapes include specific angles. Essentially, it is unclear how the term “base sub-portions” differs from the plurality of closed-loop shapes. Applicant is asked to clarify the scope of the invention without the introduction of new matter.
Dependent claims 3 and 11 includes the language “at least one concave side” and “at least one convex side”- the original specification fails to include such language and as such, the claim language is seen to constitute new matter.
Claims 1-12 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.
Amended claim 1 requires a plurality of closed-loop shapes and a plurality of base sub portions. It appears that these characterizations or descriptions are redundant to some extent. As such, the claims as currently drafted fail to provide a clear and concise understanding of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 3 (and claims 7, 10, and 11), it appears that the claims are combining separate and distinct embodiments. Figure 3 corresponds with a first embodiment in which the closed-loop shapes are defined by first and second obtuse angles β and first and second reentrant angles α. This description is present in independent claim 1; however, Figure 7 does not include analogous closed-loop shapes but rather includes a modified square including first and second sides having indents that extend from respective sides to a center of the closed-loop shape and third and fourth sides having protrusions that extend from respective sides away from a center of the closed-loop shape. These assemblies appear to be mutually exclusive and thus, it is unclear how any claim defining the assembly of Figure 7 can further define the tire structure or assembly outlined by independent claim 1 (Figure 3). Applicant is asked to clarify the scope of the claimed invention without the introduction of new matter.
Regarding claim 12, the language “wall formed by the projection portion” fails to provide a clear and concise understanding of the claimed invention. It appears that the projection portion includes a plurality of segments that form a plurality of closed-loop shapes. It is unclear how a wall is formed by the projection portion (the projection portion is a wall in effect). Applicant is asked to clarify the scope of the claimed invention without the introduction of new matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 10-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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 can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 August 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights