DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 7/9/2026. In the amendment, claim 4 has been amended. Overall, claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “passage bearings” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 8, 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pub No. US 2016/0016443 A1 to Morgan (Morgan).
In Reference to Claim 8
A hub assembly (50) configured to provide rotational energy to a wheel assembly (58) coupled to a tire (60) (see Morgan Fig.1 and paragraph 16), wherein the hub assembly comprises:
a supply line (120) configured to receive a gas; and
a spindle passage (22) coupled to the supply line (120) and comprising passage bearings (38, 72, 70, 74) to allow the gas to pass from a first side (30) of the hub assembly (50) to a second side (32) of the hub assembly to an inlet line (122, 124) to inflate a chamber (96) of the wheel assembly (50) with the gas (see at least Morgan Fig.1 and paragraphs 12, 13, 17, 23, 30).
In Reference to Claim 10
The hub assembly of claim 8 (see rejection to claim 8 above), further comprising a compressor (112) that is configured to compress the gas and deliver the gas to the supply line (120) (see at least Morgan Fig.1 and paragraphs 28, “For example, the pressurized gas source 112 may be a tank and/or a pump like a compressor”).
In Reference to Claim 14
The hub assembly of claim 8 (see rejection to claim 8 above), wherein the chamber (96) comprises a release value (100) configured to remove the gas from the chamber (96) (see at least Morgan Fig. 1 and paragraph 25).
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, 3-7, 15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan in view of Pub No. US 2017/0043623 A1 to Bowman et. al. (Bowman).
In Reference to Claim 1
Morgan teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
A system comprising:
a wheel assembly (58) coupled to a tire (60), wherein the wheel assembly (58) comprises a first chamber and the wheel assembly (58) coupled to the tire (60) forms a second chamber (96); and
a hub assembly (50) configured to provide rotational energy to the wheel assembly (58), wherein the hub assembly comprises (1) a supply line (120) configured to receive a first gas and (2) a spindle passage (22) coupled to the supply line (120), the spindle passage (22) comprises passage bearings (38, 72, 70, 74) to allow the first gas to pass from a first side (30) of the hub assembly (50) to a second side (32) of the hub assembly (50) to an inlet line (122, 124) to inflate the first (second) chamber (96) with the first gas, the second chamber (96) comprises a volume (96) of a second gas, and the second chamber (96) is coupled to a pressure release value (100) configured to release the second gas from the second chamber (96) when the second chamber (96) satisfies a threshold pressure (see at least Morgan Fig.1 and paragraphs 12, 13, 17, 23, 30).
Morgan teaches to the wheel assembly (58) coupled to a tire (60) with a single chamber (58) however is silent (bolded and italic recitations above) as to having two chambers with the first chamber connected to the inlet line (122, 124) and the second chamber having a pressure release valve (100). However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a wheel assembly with having two chambers with the first chamber connected to the inlet line and the second chamber having a pressure release valve. For example, Bowman teaches to have a wheel assembly with having two chambers (508, 514) with the first chamber (508) connected to the inlet line (708) and the second chamber (514) having a pressure release valve (724). Bowman further teaches that having such structures provides controlling the pressure of the wheels based on required needs of the operator (see at least Bowman Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 3-4, 51-55, 69). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wheel assembly of Morgan with the wheel assembly having two chambers as taught by Bowman in order to control the pressure of the wheels based on required needs of the operator.
In Reference to Claim 3
The system of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), further comprising a compressor (112) that is configured to compress the first gas and deliver the first gas to the supply line (120) (see at least Morgan Fig.1 and paragraphs 28, “For example, the pressurized gas source 112 may be a tank and/or a pump like a compressor”).
In Reference to Claim 4
The system of claim 3 (see rejection to claim 3 above), wherein the compressor (112) is configured to be operated via a computer processor (Bowman #702) that is linked to a sensor (Bowman #712) that detects pressure and flow to the first chamber (Bowman #508) from the compressor (112) (Morgan do not explicitly teaches to have the sensors and steps to perform the compressor (112) however Bowman teaches to have such structures such as 712, 702 and others to operate the compressor (704) therefore it would have been obvious to include the sensors and controller with the process methods of Bowman to the system of Morgan in order to properly operate the multiple chambers when modifying the Bowman wheel assembly to Morgan) (see at least Morgan Fig.1 and paragraphs 12, 13, 17, 23, 30) (see at least Bowman Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 3-4, 51-55, 69).
In Reference to Claim 5
The system of claim 4 (see rejection to claim 4 above), wherein the computer processor (702) is configured to determine, using a detected pressure and a detected flow, that a volume within the first chamber (508) is below a threshold (see at least Bowman Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 61-67).
In Reference to Claim 6
The system of claim 5 (see rejection to claim 5 above), wherein the computer processor (702) is configured to turn the compressor (704) on based on determining that the volume is below the threshold (see at least Bowman Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 61-67).
In Reference to Claim 7
The system of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the tire has a pressure and a volume, the volume being a combination of a first volume for the first chamber (508) and a second volume for the second chamber (514) (see at least Bowman Figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 61-67).
In Reference to Claim 15
Morgan teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
One or more non-transitory computer storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, that when executed by at least one processor (control system), cause the at least one processor (control system) to perform operations (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraph 27) comprising:
determining that a chamber (96) of a wheel assembly (58) coupled to a tire (60) has a capacity to accept a gas; and
based at least in part on determining that the chamber (96) has the capacity to accept the gas, supplying the gas at a pressure to the chamber (96) via a hub assembly (50) comprising a supply line (120) configured to receive the gas and a spindle passage (22) coupled to the supply line (120), wherein the spindle passage (22) comprises passage bearings (38, 72, 70, 74) to allow the gas to pass from a first side (30) of the hub assembly (50) to a second side (32) of the hub assembly (50) to an inlet line (122, 124) to inflate the chamber (96) with the gas until the chamber (96) does not have the capacity (see at least Morgan Fig.1 and paragraphs 12, 13, 17, 23, 30).
Morgan teaches to monitor and control the inflation of the tires (60) however do not Morgan explicitly teaches to determining that a chamber (96) of a wheel assembly (58) coupled to a tire (60) has a capacity to accept a gas and based at least in part on determining that the chamber (96) has the capacity to accept the gas, supplying the gas at a pressure to the chamber (96). However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determining that a chamber of a wheel assembly coupled to a tire has a capacity to accept a gas (having low pressure or deflection) and based at least in part on determining that the chamber has the capacity to accept the gas (having low pressure or deflection), supplying the gas at a pressure to the chamber. For example, Bowman teaches to determining that a chamber (514, 508) of a wheel assembly coupled to a tire (204) has a capacity to accept a gas (having low pressure or deflection) and based at least in part on determining that the chamber (514, 508) has the capacity to accept the gas (having low pressure or deflection), supplying the gas at a pressure to the chamber (514, 508). Bowman further teaches that performing the such steps provides improvements on performances of the vehicle in different operating situations (see at least Bowman Figs. 1, 5, 7-9 and paragraphs 3-4, 51-52, 58-59, 64-65, 70). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Morgan to perform the steps of determining that a chamber of a wheel assembly coupled to a tire has a capacity to accept a gas (having low pressure or deflection) and based at least in part on determining that the chamber has the capacity to accept the gas (having low pressure or deflection), supplying the gas at a pressure to the chamber as taught by Bowman in order to provide improvements on performances of the vehicle in different operating situations.
In Reference to Claim 17
The one or more non-transitory computer storage media of claim 15 (see rejection to claim 15 above), wherein the chamber (96) is determined to have the capacity based at least in part an available volume of the chamber (96) (see at least Morgan Fig.1 and paragraphs 12, 13, 17, 23, 30).
In Reference to Claim 20
The one or more non-transitory computer storage media of claim 15 (see rejection to claim 15 above), further comprising: removing the gas from the chamber (96) by opening a release valve (100) connected to the chamber (96) (see at least Morgan Fig.1 and paragraphs 12, 13, 17, 23, 30).
Claim(s) 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan in view of Pub No. US 2021/0039454 A1 to Gonsowski et. al. (Gonsowski).
In Reference to Claim 9
Morgan teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The hub assembly of claim 8 (see rejection to claim 8 above), wherein the gas is captured from an exhaust emitted from an engine associated with a vehicle (see at least Morgan Fig.1 and paragraphs 12, 13, 17, 23, 30).
Morgan do not explicitly teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to the source of the air or gas is from an exhaust emitted from an engine associated with a vehicle. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the source of the air or gas for the tires are from an exhaust emitted from an engine associated with a vehicle. For example, Gonsowski teaches to have the source of the air or gas for the tires are from an exhaust emitted from an engine associated with a vehicle. Gonsowski further teaches that having such structure provides quick and efficient tire filing (see at least Gonsowski Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 19-23 and 44). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Morgan to captured from an exhaust emitted from an engine associated with a vehicle as taught by Gonsowski in order to provide quick and efficient tire filing.
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan in view of Bowman and further in view of Gonsowski.
In Reference to Claim 2
Morgan in view of Bowman teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The system of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the first gas is captured from an exhaust emitted from an engine associated with a vehicle (see at least Morgan Fig.1 and paragraphs 12, 13, 17, 23, 30).
Morgan do not explicitly teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to the source of the air or gas is from an exhaust emitted from an engine associated with a vehicle. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the source of the air or gas for the tires are from an exhaust emitted from an engine associated with a vehicle. For example, Gonsowski teaches to have the source of the air or gas for the tires are from an exhaust emitted from an engine associated with a vehicle. Gonsowski further teaches that having such structure provides quick and efficient tire filing (see at least Gonsowski Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 19-23 and 44). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Morgan to captured from an exhaust emitted from an engine associated with a vehicle as taught by Gonsowski in order to provide quick and efficient tire filing.
In Reference to Claim 16
Morgan in view of Bowman teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The one or more non-transitory computer storage media of claim 15 (see rejection to claim 15 above), wherein the gas is provided by a sequestration system that captures the gas from an engine exhaust system (see at least Morgan Fig.1 and paragraphs 12, 13, 17, 23, 30).
Morgan do not explicitly teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to having a sequestration system that captures the gas from an engine exhaust system. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a sequestration system that captures the gas from an engine exhaust system. For example, Gonsowski teaches to have a sequestration system that captures the gas from an engine exhaust system. Gonsowski further teaches that having such structure provides quick and efficient tire filing (see at least Gonsowski Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 19-23 and 44). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Morgan to have a sequestration system that captures the gas from an engine exhaust system as taught by Gonsowski in order to provide quick and efficient tire filing.
Claim(s) 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan in view of Pub No. US 2017/0246921 A1 to Hoeldrich et. al. (Hoeldrich).
In Reference to Claim 11
Morgan teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The hub assembly of claim 10 (see rejection to claim 10 above), wherein the compressor (112) is configured to be operated via one a computer processor (controller system) that is linked to a sensor that detects pressure and flow to the chamber from the compressor (112) (see at least Morgan Fig.1 and paragraphs 12, 13, 17, 23, 30).
Morgan is silent (bolded and italic recitations above) as to having a sensor that detects pressure and flow to the chamber from the compressor. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to having a sensor that detects pressure and flow to the chamber from the compressor. For example, Hoeldrich teaches to have a sensor (38, 39) that detects pressure and flow to the chamber from the compressor (4a). Hoeldrich further teaches that having such structures provides improvement to the tire system (see at least Hoeldrich Figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 5, 23-24, 33, 51-52, 86-95). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Morgan with the sensor that detects pressure and flow to the chamber from the compressor as taught by Hoeldrich in order to provide improvement to the tire system.
In Reference to Claim 12
The hub assembly of claim 11 (see rejection to claim 11 above), wherein the computer processor is configured to determine, using a detected pressure and a detected flow, that a volume within the chamber is below a threshold (Hoeldrich teaches to using a detected pressure and a detected flow, that a volume within the chamber is below a threshold) (see at least Morgan Fig.1 and paragraphs 12, 13, 17, 23, 30) (see at least Hoeldrich Figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 5, 23-24, 33, 51-52, 86-95)
In Reference to Claim 13
The hub assembly of claim 12 (see rejection to claim 12 above), wherein the computer processor is configured to turn the compressor on based on determining that the volume is below the threshold (see at least Morgan Fig.1 and paragraphs 12, 13, 17, 23, 30) (see at least Hoeldrich Figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 5, 23-24, 33, 51-52, 86-95)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan in view of Bowman and further in view of Gonsowski and further in view of Hoeldrich.
In Reference to Claim 18
Morgan in view of Bowman and further in view of Gonsowski teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The one or more non-transitory computer storage media of claim 16 (see rejection to claim 16 above), wherein the chamber (96) is further determined to have the capacity based in part on a measured flow and a measured pressure of the gas within the chamber (96) (see at least Morgan Fig.1 and paragraphs 12, 13, 17, 23, 30).
Morgan in view of Bowman and further in view of Gonsowski is silent (bolded and italic recitations above) as to determined to have the capacity based in part on a measured flow and a measured pressure of the gas within the chamber. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determined to have the capacity based in part on a measured flow and a measured pressure of the gas within the chamber. For example, Hoeldrich teaches to determined to have the capacity based in part on a measured flow and a measured pressure of the gas within the chamber. Hoeldrich further teaches that having such structures provides improvement to the tire system (see at least Hoeldrich Figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 5, 23-24, 33, 51-52, 86-95). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Morgan in view of Bowman and further in view of Gonsowski determined to have the capacity based in part on a measured flow and a measured pressure of the gas within the chamber as taught by Hoeldrich in order to provide improvement to the tire system.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan in view of Bowman and further in view of Gonsowski and further in view of Hoeldrich and further in view Pub No. 2020/0040790 A1 to Hudson et. al. (Hudson).
In Reference to Claim 19
Morgan in view of Bowman and further in view of Gonsowski and further in view of Hoeldrich teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The one or more non-transitory computer storage media of claim 18 (see rejection to claim 18 above), wherein the measured flow is determined by a flow valve (94, 180, 146, 148) located between a compressor (112) and the tire (60) (see at least Morgan Fig.1 and paragraphs 12, 13, 17, 23, 30).
Morgan in view of Bowman and further in view of Gonsowski is silent (bolded and italic recitations above) as to the flow is determined by a flow vale. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a flow valve that can measure flow. For example, Hudson teaches that the flow valve (214) can have flow sensor within (see at least Hudson Fig.2 and paragraphs 32, 48-49). The substitution of one known element (flow valve as shown in Hudson) for another (flow valve as shown in Morgan in view of Bowman and further in view of Gonsowski) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention since the substitution of the flow valve shown in the Hudson would have yielded predictable results, namely, determine the flow of the gas and operating the flow in the system of Morgan in view of Bowman and further in view of Gonsowski.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,344,046 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-18 and 20 of patent ‘046 teaches all the recitation of claims 1-20 of the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that “The Office relies upon Morgan's spindle 22 as corresponding to the claimed spindle passage and relies upon Morgan's wheel bearings 70 and 72 as corresponding to the claimed passage bearings. See Office Action at 3-5. However, Morgan's disclosure demonstrates that the cited wheel bearings are conventional wheel-support bearings and are not passage bearings as recited in the independent claims” however the examiner respectively disagree with the applicant since the applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims since claims do not further defines the specifics structures as to how “passage bearings” are configured to perform the function “to allow the first gas to pass from a first side of the hub assembly to a second side of the hub assembly” therefore in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims the passage bearing merely requires having a passage (where #38) which allow the gas to pass as taught by Morgan
and does not have to be within inside the bearings as implied by the applicant.
The applicant argues that “Morgan expressly explains that the spindle passage 38 provides a conduit through which pressurized gas flows. Specifically, Morgan states that "pressurized gas for inflating a tire may flow through the spindle passage 38" and that the spindle passage 38 may define a conduit receiving pressurized gas. See Morgan at ¶ [0013]. Further, Morgan discloses that pressurized gas is routed from the spindle passage 38 to the connection conduit 122 and ultimately to the tire inflation components. See Morgan at ¶¶ [0032]-[0034]. Thus, Morgan clearly identifies the spindle passage 38 as the structure through which the pressurized gas is conveyed. In contrast, Morgan separately describes the wheel bearings 70 and 72 as bearings mounted between the spindle 22 and the hub 50 for rotatably supporting the hub 50. See Morgan at ¶ [0017]. Morgan states that the external surface of the spindle 22 supports the wheel bearings 70 and 72 and that the wheel bearings 70 and 72 are located within a cavity 74 between the spindle 22 and hub 50. Id. The disclosed purpose of the bearings 70 and 72 in Morgan is therefore to support rotational movement of the hub 50 relative to the spindle 22. Morgan nowhere states that the bearings 70 and 72 are part of the spindle passage 38, define any portion of the spindle passage 38, receive gas flow, or permit gas to pass through them. Accordingly, Morgan's disclosure itself distinguishes between the spindle passage 38 that conveys pressurized gas and the wheel bearings 70 and 72 that rotatably support the hub 50” however the examiner respectively disagrees with the applicant as stated above and further the recitations defines the passage bearings by what it can do instead of the specific structure to perform the function and the bearings (38, 70, 72 and 74) would read on the claims.
The applicant argues that “Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 require more than the mere presence of both a spindle passage and bearings somewhere within a hub assembly. Rather, the independent claims require that the spindle passage comprises passage bearings, and further require that those passage bearings allow gas to pass from one side of the hub assembly to the other. Morgan contains no disclosure that the bearings 70 and 72 perform any gas-transfer function whatsoever. Nor does Morgan disclose bearings located within or forming part of the gas flow path extending through spindle passage 38. Thus, the Office's position impermissibly treats structurally and functionally distinct components as interchangeable. Morgan's wheel bearings 70 and 72 merely support rotation of hub 50. The independent claims, however, require passage bearings associated with the spindle passage and configured such that gas passes through the hub assembly by way of the claimed spindle-passage arrangement. Morgan does not disclose such a structure” however the examiner respectively disagrees with the applicant since as stated above the claims merely requires the spindle passage comprises passage bearings, and further require that those passage bearings allow gas to pass from one side of the hub assembly to the other, in broadest reasonable interpretation do not requires the bearings itself having passages on its own but would read on the bearing which is attached to the passages that allow gas to pass from one side of the hub assembly to the other, and also the specification nor the drawing shows the specific structural details of the bearings as to how this function is being performed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pub No. US 2019/0047334 A1 to Chidlow (Chidlow) teaches a tire system having multiple chambers.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRANDON DONGPA LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
/BRANDON D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662 August 13, 2026
