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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 06/22/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Regarding claim 1, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a cord count per 50 mm in a range from 35 or more to 45 or less,” and the claim also recites “the cord count per 50 mm is from 37 or more to 45 or less” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 1, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “the sidewall portions each made of a side rubber having tan δ at 60°C in a range from 0.04 or more to 0.10 or less,” and the claim also recites “the sidewall portions are each made of a side rubber having tan δ at 60°C in a range from 0.04 or more to 0.06 or less” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monzen et al. (JP 60234001, see machine translation) (of record), Harikae (JP 2011131680, see machine translation) (of record), Itoi (US 20010010246) (of record), Hiruma et al. (JP 5345506, see machine translation) (of record), Ebiko (US 20130240107) (of record), Kakigi et al. (JP 09300924, see machine translation) (of record), Daisho (US 20110094639) (of record), Tanaka et al. (US 20070029022) (of record), Wada (US 20020043320) (of record), Tanno (JP 2005007962, see machine translation) (of record), and any one of Morikawa et al. (JP 59040903, see machine translation) (of record) and/or Kabe et al. (JP 59002908, see machine translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Monzen discloses a pneumatic tire comprising: a belt layer (Fig. 1: 2) disposed inward of a tread portion (Fig. 1: 7) in a tire radial direction; a pair of sidewall portions (Fig. 1) disposed on both sides of a tire equatorial plane in a tire lateral direction; a pair of bead portions (Fig. 1: 4) disposed inward of the pair of the sidewall portions in the tire lateral direction (Fig. 1), the pair of bead portions (Fig. 1: 4) comprising bead cores (Fig. 1: 5) formed into annular shapes; bead fillers (Fig. 1: 6) disposed outward of the bead cores (Fig. 1: 5) in the tire radial direction; one carcass (Fig. 1: 1) disposed across the pair of bead portions (Fig. 1: 4), the one carcass having a folded up portion (Fig. 1: 1a), the folded up portion being folded back outward of the respective bead core (Fig. 1: 5) in the tire lateral direction from inward in the tire lateral direction; an innerliner (Fig. 1: see inner component lining carcass 1 on radially inner side that opens into the tire cavity) disposed on an inner side of the carcass (Fig. 1: 1); the folded up portion of the carcass having an end portion (Fig. 1: 1a) disposed in a region inward of the belt layer (Fig. 1: 2) in the tire radial direction and inward of the belt layer (Fig.1 : 2) in the tire lateral direction (Fig. 1: see overlap width L) (Page 4 lines 2-4).
Monzen further illustrates that the bead fillers having outer end portions in the tire radial direction having a distance from bead heel portions of the bead portions in approximately 32% of a tire cross-sectional height (See annotated Fig. 1 below). While Monzen does not state whether the figure is drawn to scale, one of ordinary skill in the art would have nonetheless found it obvious that the distance of the outer end potions of the bead fillers in the tire radial direction from bead heel portions of the bead portions would reasonably be approximately 32% of the tire cross-sectional height. Therefore, this value falls within the claimed range of from 20% or more to 40% or less. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the distance of the outer end potions of the bead fillers in the tire radial direction from bead heel portions of the bead portions.
PNG
media_image1.png
711
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Monzen does not expressly recite a reinforcing layer disposed between the folded up portion of the carcass and the respective bead filler, wherein the reinforcing layer has an outer end portion in the tire radial direction located further outward in the tire radial direction than the outer end portion of the respective bead filler in the tire radial direction and further inward in the tire radial direction than a position of a tire maximum width position in the tire radial direction, and wherein the reinforcing layer has an inner end portion in the tire radial direction located further outward than the respective bead core in the tire radial direction. Monzen also does not expressly recite the wire diameter or cord count of a reinforcing cord in a reinforcing layer.
Harikae teaches a pneumatic tire comprising a reinforcing layer (Fig. 1: 7) disposed between a folded up portion of a carcass (Fig. 1: 4) and a respective bead filler (Fig. 1: 6), wherein the reinforcing layer (Fig. 1: 7) has an outer end portion in the tire radial direction located further outward in the tire radial direction than the outer end portion of the respective bead filler (Fig. 1: 6) in the tire radial direction and further inward in the tire radial direction than a position of a tire maximum width position in the tire radial direction (See annotated Fig. 1 below), and wherein the reinforcing layer (Fig. 1: 7) has an inner end portion in the tire radial direction located further outward than the respective bead core (Fig. 1: 5) in the tire radial direction, wherein the reinforcing cord layer (Fig. 1: 7) is made of a steel (Page 2 line 30), and wherein the reinforcing cord has a wire diameter in a range from 0.17 mm or more to 0.30 mm or less (Page 2 lines 30-31), which overlaps with the claimed range of from 0.21 mm or more to 0.27 mm or less. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the wire diameter of the reinforcing cord. If the diameter is less than 0.17 mm the steering stability becomes insufficient due to insufficient rigidity, and conversely if it exceeds 0.30 mm the fatigue resistance of the monofilament deteriorates (Page 2 lines 41-42). Harikae further teaches that the reinforcing layer has a steel reinforcing cord inclined at an angle in the range of from 100 to 800 with respect to with respect to the circumferential direction (Page 2 lines 15-16), which overlaps with the claimed range of 150 to 250. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the angle of inclination of the reinforcing cord in the reinforcing layer. The inclination angle of the steel cord of the reinforcing layer can be appropriately set according to the required steering stability, and the steering stability can be improved by increasing the inclination angle (Page 2 lines 16-18). Furthermore, Harikae teaches that the reinforcing layer is provided to improve rolling resistance without deteriorating steering stability and durability (Page 1: Technical-Field). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Monzen in order to provide a reinforcing cord layer wherein the wire diameter of the reinforcing cord is in the aforementioned range, as well as an inclination angle of the reinforcing cords is in the aforementioned range, so as to provide sufficient steering stability, durability, and fatigue resistance, as taught by Harikae.
PNG
media_image2.png
528
579
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Itoi teaches a pneumatic tire comprising a reinforcing layer (Fig. 4: 10) disposed between a folded up portion of a carcass (Fig. 4: 6t) and a bead filler (Fig. 4: 9), wherein the reinforcing cord layer includes a steel cord ([0015], [0051]). Itoi further teaches that the reinforcing cord in the reinforcing layer has an end count (i.e., cord count) in a range of from 15 to 60 cords per 5 cm (i.e., 15 cords per 50 mm to 60 cords per 50 mm) ([0016], [0052]), which overlaps with the claimed ranges of from 35 or more to 45 or less and from 37 or more to 45 or less. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for cord count of the reinforcing cord in the reinforcing layer. The cord count is set by the kind of cord in conjunction with the desired improvement in performances, such as improvements of the steering stability, ride comfort and R/N performance ([0050]-[0052]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify the reinforcing layer of modified Monzen in order to provide a reinforcing cord in the reinforcing layer with the aforementioned features so as to improve the steering stability, ride comfort and R/N performance, as taught by Itoi.
However, modified Monzen does not expressly recite whether the side rubber may have a minimum value Dm of a thickness in a range of 1.0 mm ≤ Dm ≤ 2.5 mm, wherein the minimum value Dm of the thickness of the side rubber is radially outward of the tire maximum width position and is measured between the carcass folded up portion and a convexly arcing outer surface of one of the sidewall portions.
Hiruma teaches a tire comprising sidewall portions having a side rubber with a minimum value Dm of thickness (Fig. 1: see portion 7a of side rubber above W and not including 7B) in a range of 1.0 mm ≤ Dm ≤ 2.5 mm ([0008]-[0009]), wherein if it is smaller than 1.0 mm the cut resistance will decrease, and if it is larger than 2.5 mm the fuel efficiency will deteriorate ([0012]). Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the minimum value Dm. Furthermore, Hiruma teaches that the minimum value Dm of the thickness of the side rubber is radially outward of the tire maximum width position (Fig. 1: W) ([0009]), and is measured between the carcass (Fig. 1: 5) and a convexly arcing outer surface of one of the sidewall portions (Fig. 1: 7a). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Monzen in order to provide the minimum value Dm of thickness in the aforementioned range so as to improve cut resistance and fuel efficiency, as taught by Hiruma. Moreover, because Monzen discloses that the carcass structure includes both the main body portion and the folded up portion extending through the entire sidewall portion to the belt region, and Hiruma teaches that the minimum value Dm is measured between the carcass and a convexly arcing outer surface of one of the sidewall portions, modified Monzen in view of Hiruma discloses that the minimum value Dm is measured between the carcass folded up portion and a convexly arcing outer surface of one of the sidewall portions.
However, modified Monzen does not expressly recite the particular features of the sidewall portions, such as whether the sidewall portions are made of a side rubber having tan δ at 60°C in a range from 0.04 or more to 0.10 or less, or 0.04 or more to 0.06 or less.
Ebiko teaches a tire comprising sidewall portions made of a side rubber having tan δ at 60°C in a range from 0.02 to 0.10 ([0012], [0039]), which overlaps with both of claimed range of from 0.04 or more to 0.10 or less, and from 0.04 or more to 0.06 or less. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the tan δ at 60°C of the side rubber. In this way, it is possible to suppress heat build-up in the side wall portion, and improve the rolling resistance ([0012]. [0039]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Monzen in order to provide the side rubber of the side wall portions with tan δ at 60°C in the aforementioned range so as to suppress heat build-up in the side wall portion, and improve the rolling resistance, as taught by Ebiko.
However, modified Monzen does not expressly recite that each of the bead fillers has a cross-sectional area in a meridian cross-section of the pneumatic tire in a range from 110 mm2 or more to 160 mm2 or less.
Kakigi teaches a tire that has a reduction in weight and size of the bead filler ([0001], [0004]), wherein a cross-sectional area in a meridian cross-section of the pneumatic tire of the bead filler is 140 mm2 ([0025]), which falls within the claimed range of 110 mm2 or more to 160 mm2 or less. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the cross-sectional area in a meridian cross-section of the pneumatic tire of the bead fillers. Kakigi further teaches using a lighter bead filler reduced in size to reduce weight ([0005], [0007]). Moreover, Kakigi teaches that the bead filler preferably has a ratio of a cross-sectional area to a radial height in a range of 0.2 to 3.5 mm (Page 2 lines 47-49). If the ratio exceeds this range, the weight of the filler will increase and will not be reduced or the rigidity in the circumferential direction will be insufficient due to insufficient bead filler height, and the extremely low frequency range road noise will be deteriorated (Page 2 lines 49-51). If the ratio is below the range, the lateral rigidity becomes insufficient and the steering stability is significantly reduced (Page 2 lines 51-52). In other words, the cross-sectional area affects the weight, rigidity in the circumferential direction, and lateral rigidity becomes of the bead filler, as well as the extremely low frequency range road noise and the steering stability of the tire, and is therefore considered to be a result effective variable that will affect the aforementioned characteristics of the bead filler and tire. Case law holds that it is obvious to vary result-effective variables. See MPEP 2144.05. Furthermore, it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for the cross-sectional area of the bead filler. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). In the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the cross-sectional area of the bead filler in order to reduce the weight, provide sufficient lateral and circumferential rigidity, and allow for sufficient extremely low frequency range road noise and the steering stability for the bead filler and tire. Accordingly, Kakigi teaches one particular example for the cross-sectional area of the bead filler that falls within the claimed range, and also suggests that the cross-sectional area of the bead filler is a result effective variable that may be optimized. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Monzen in order to provide the bead fillers each having a cross-sectional area in a meridian cross-section of the pneumatic tire of, for example, 140 mm2, for the advantages discussed above as taught by Kakigi. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize, or alternatively find obvious, that a bead filler having a reduced weight would also contribute to a tire having a reduced weight, wherein a tire having reduced weight is generally known to be advantageous in the tire art.
Additionally, as discussed above, Kakigi teaches that it is preferable that a height (Fig. 1: hF) of the bead filler (Fig. 1: 6) from a bead heel is 25% to 80% of a tire cross-section height (Page 2 line 53; Page 3 lines 1-5), which also overlaps with the claimed range of 20% or more to 40% of less. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the distance of the bead filler outer end portions to the bead heel portions with respect to the tire cross-sectional height. If the height of the bead filler is smaller than 25% of the tire cross-sectional height, sufficient circumferential rigidity cannot be secured, and extremely low frequency road noise will be deteriorated, and when it is larger than 80% it causes tire failure (Page 3 lines 3-5). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Monzen in order to provide the bead fillers having outer end portions in the tire radial direction having a distance from bead heel portions of the bead portions in a range of 25% to 80% of a tire cross-sectional height so as to secure sufficient circumferential rigidity, avoid deteriorating extremely low frequency road noise, and avoid tire failure as taught by Kakigi.
However, modified Monzen does not expressly recite that the tread portion comprises a cap rubber forming a tread surface and a base rubber, wherein the base rubber is located inward of the cap rubber in the tire radial direction, wherein base rubber has JIS hardness at 20°C in a range from 76 or more to 81 or less and tan δ at 60°C in a range from 0.14 or more to 0.22 or less.
Daisho teaches a pneumatic tire comprising a tread portion that includes a cap rubber (Fig. 1: 1A, 1B) forming a tread surface and a base rubber (Fig. 1: 1C), wherein the base rubber is located inward of the cap rubber in the tire radial direction. Daisho further teaches that the base rubber may have a JIS hardness at 20°C in a range from 73 to 83 ([0012], [0029]), which overlaps with the claimed range of from 76 or more to 81 or less. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the JIS hardness at 20°C of the tread base rubber. Daisho further teaches that the base rubber may have a tan δ at 60°C in a range of 0.25 or less ([0012], [0029]), which overlaps with the claimed range of from 0.14 or more to 0.22 or less. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the tan δ at 60°C of the tread base rubber. By increasing the hardness at 20°C of the rubber composition forming the under tread rubber layer and suppressing heat generation through lowering the tan δ at 60°C of the rubber composition forming the under tread rubber layer, high-speed durability and steering stability during high-speed travelling can be further enhanced ([0014], [0033]). Moreover, the under tread rubber layer can be added as a base to the cap tread rubber layers without negatively affecting riding comfort ([0014], [0033]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Monzen in order to provide that the tread portion comprises a cap rubber forming a tread surface and a base rubber, wherein the base rubber is located inward of the cap rubber in the tire radial direction, and wherein base rubber has JIS hardness at 20°C in the aforementioned range and tan δ at 60°C in the aforementioned range so as to enhance high-speed durability and steering stability during high-speed travelling without negatively affecting riding comfort, as taught by Daisho.
Additionally, Daisho also teaches that it is preferable that a height (Fig. 1: FH) of the bead filler (Fig. 1: 6) from a bead heel is 30% or less of a tire cross-section height ([0019]), which also overlaps with the claimed range of 20% or more to 40% of less. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the distance of the bead filler outer end portions to the bead heel portions with respect to the tire cross-sectional height. By thus shortening the bead filler that repeatedly deforms during tire rolling and lowering the tan δ at 60°C of the rubber composition forming the bead filler, heat generated in the tire due to continued traveling on a circuit can be suppressed and variations in steering stability performance can be suppressed ([0019]). As a result, initial steering stability can be maintained over extended periods of time during continued driving ([0019]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Monzen in order to provide the bead fillers having outer end portions in the tire radial direction having a distance from bead heel portions of the bead portions in a range of 30% or less of a tire cross-sectional height so as to suppress heat generated in the tire due to continued traveling on a circuit and variations in steering stability performance, as well as maintain initial steering stability over extended periods of time during continued driving, as taught by Daisho.
However, modified Monzen does not expressly recite that between the side rubber or a rim cushion rubber and the folded up portion of the carcass, a side reinforcing layer is disposed, and the side reinforcing layer is made of a rubber having JIS hardness at 20°C in a range from 70 or more to 85 or less and tan δ at 60°C in a range from 0.06 or more to 0.12 or less, and the side reinforcing layer is formed at a thickness in a range from 0.5 mm or more to 2.0 mm or less, and the side reinforcing layer is disposed at a position comprising the tire maximum width position.
Tanaka teaches a pneumatic tire comprising a side reinforcing layer (Figs. 1, 3, 4: 8) that is disposed between a side rubber (Figs. 1, 3: 2; Fig. 4: 9) and the folded up portion of a carcass (Figs. 1, 3, 4: 4) that goes up into the belt portion (Figs. 1, 3, 4: 6), wherein it is preferable that the side reinforcing layer is made of a rubber having JIS hardness at 23°C a range from 70 to 95 ([0034]), which overlaps with the claimed range of from 70 or more to 85 or less, and tan δ at 60°C in a range from 0.01 to 0.25, which overlaps with the claimed range of from 0.06 or more to 0.12 or less. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the JIS hardness and the tan δ of the side reinforcing layer. Tanaka further teaches that it is technically difficult to make the loss tan δ at 60°C for the side reinforcing layer less than 0.01, and on the other hand, rolling resistance increases is the tan δ at 60°C exceeds 0.25 ([0035]). Additionally, road noise at a frequency around 40 Hz is deteriorated if the JIS hardness is less than 70, and on the other hand, if the JIS hardness exceeds 95, rolling resistance is deteriorated while road noise at a frequency around 100 Hz is deteriorated ([0036]). Although Tanaka teaches measuring the JIS hardness at 23°C rather than 20°C, case law holds that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the JIS hardness at 23°C taught by Tanaka to behave in substantially the same way as a JIS hardness at 20°C. Tanaka further teaches that the side reinforcing layer is formed at a thickness (Fig. 1: T) in a range from 0.5 mm or more to 2.0 mm or less ([0010], [0028]), and that the side reinforcing layer (Figs. 1, 3, 4: 8) is disposed at a position comprising the tire maximum width position (Figs. 1, 3, 4: see how layer 8 exceeds along almost the entire sidewall 2 and thus will necessarily be disposed at a position comprising the tire maximum width position). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Monzen in order to provide a side reinforcing layer between the side rubber and the folded up portion of the carcass with the features as taught by Tanaka so as to have the appropriate rolling resistance and road noise in a manner that is not technically difficult.
However, modified Monzen does not expressly recite that, in the reinforcing layer, the outer end portion of the reinforcing layer has a distance from the outer end portion of the respective bead filler in a range from 5 mm or more to 15 mm or less.
Wada teaches a tire (Fig. 1: 1) comprising a reinforcing layer (Figs. 1-2: 10) disposed between the folded up portion (Figs. 1-2: 6b) of the carcass (Figs. 1-2: 6) and the respective bead filler (Figs. 1-2: 8) ([0035]), wherein the reinforcing layer (Figs. 1-2: 10) has an outer end portion in the tire radial direction (Fig. 2: FU) located further outward in the tire radial direction than the outer end portion of the respective bead filler (Fig. 2: 8, BU) in the tire radial direction and further inward in the tire radial direction than a position of a tire maximum width position (Figs. 1-2: M) in the tire radial direction ([0032]), and wherein the reinforcing layer (Figs. 1-2: 10) has an inner end portion in the tire radial direction (Fig. 2: FD) located further outward than the respective bead core (Fig. 2: 5) in the tire radial direction ([0033]). Wada further teaches that, in the reinforcing layer (Figs. 1-2: 10), the outer end portion of the reinforcing layer (Fig. 2: FU) has a distance (Fig. 2: α) from the outer end portion of the respective bead filler (Fig. 2: BU) in a range of not less than 10 mm ([0036]), which overlaps with the claimed range of from 5 mm or more to 15 mm or less. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a distance from the outer end portion of the respective bead filler for the outer end portion of the reinforcing layer. A tire with such a reinforcement cord layer obtains good steering stability and improved noise performance while effectively decreasing the tire weight ([0053]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Monzen in order to provide a distance from the outer end portion of the respective bead filler for the outer end portion of the reinforcing layer in the aforementioned range so as to obtain good steering stability and improve noise performance while effectively decreasing the tire weight, as taught by Wada.
However, modified Monzen does not expressly recite the specific properties of the reinforcing layer rubber, such as the JIS hardness and/or the tan δ.
Tanno teaches a pneumatic tire comprising a sheet-like filler (i.e., reinforcing layer rubber) (Figs. 1-9: 8), wherein the rubber composition constituting the filler is a loss tangent measured at 60°C (tan δ) is 0.01 to 0.25 ([0010]), overlapping with the claimed range 0.14 to 0.22, and the JIS-A hardness measured at 23°C is 70 to 95 ([0010]), overlapping with the claimed range of 85 to 95. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the JIS hardness and the tan δ of the reinforcing layer rubber. In this manner, steering stability is improved without deteriorating the durability and rolling resistance ([0010]). Although Tanno teaches a reinforcing layer rubber disposed in the bead portion at a different location than modified Monzen, Tanno teaches a bead portion reinforcing layer rubber having properties that improve steering stability without deteriorating the durability and rolling resistance, which one of ordinary skill would readily recognize, or alternatively find obvious, would also be advantageous for the reinforcing layer rubber of modified Monzen. This is made evident by Harikae, which was relied upon to modify Monzen in order to include a reinforcing rubber layer in the bead portion, and also teaches that the reinforcing layer is provided to improve rolling resistance without deteriorating steering stability and durability (Page 1: Technical-Field), as discussed above in claim 1. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Monzen in order to provide reinforcing layer rubber with a JIS hardness and a tan δ in the aforementioned ranges so as to further improve steering stability without deteriorating the durability and rolling resistance, as taught by Tanno.
The examiner also notes that although Tanno teaches the hardness measured at 23°C, and the claim recites 20°C, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that both temperatures are more or less room temperature and thereby the hardness will be more or less the same as well. Moreover, case law holds that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect a hardness measured at 23°C to behave in substantially the same way as a hardness measured at 20°C.
Monzen further discloses that the tire has an aspect ratio of 50% to 70% (i.e., 50 to 70) (Page 4 lines 33-34), which overlaps with the claimed range of 55 or more. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the tire aspect ratio.
Furthermore, Monzen discloses that the aforementioned aspect ratio is adopted from a conventional tire as it has good grip on the road surface (Page 2 lines 20-23), and Monzen discloses several conventional tire examples, such as Morikawa which discloses a tire size of 185/70HR13 (Page 3 line 113), and Kabe which discloses a tire size of 175/70HR13 (Page 3 line 117). Accordingly, a tire size of 185/70HR13 has an aspect ratio of 70, which falls within the claimed range of 55 or more, and a tire cross-sectional height of 129.5 mm (i.e., 185 x 0.70), which falls within the claimed range of from 110 mm or more to 170 mm or less. A tire size of 175/70HR13 has an aspect ratio of 70, which falls within the claimed range of 55 or more, and a tire cross-sectional height of 122.5 mm (i.e., 175 x 0.70), which falls within the claimed range of from 110 mm or more to 170 mm or less. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the tire aspect ratio and the tire cross-sectional height.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “[i]t would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate a configuration that satisfies all the requirements of the amended claim 1.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as discussed in the detailed rejection above: Harikae teaches modifying Monzen in order to provide a reinforcing layer with particular reinforcing cord properties so as to improve rolling resistance without deteriorating steering stability and durability; Itoi teaches modifying Monzen in order to provide a reinforcing cord in the reinforcing layer with the disclosed features so as to improve the steering stability, ride comfort and R/N performance; Hiruma teaches modifying Monzen in order to the minimum value Dm of thickness in the disclosed range so as to improve cut resistance and fuel efficiency; Ebiko teaches modifying Monzen in order to provide a side rubber in the side wall with particular properties so as to suppress heat build-up in the sidewall, and improve rolling resistance; Kakigi teaches modifying Monzen in order to the bead fillers each having a particular cross-sectional area in a meridian cross-section of the pneumatic tire for improved weight, rigidity in the circumferential direction, lateral rigidity of the bead filler, as well as the extremely low frequency range road noise and the steering stability of the tire; Daisho teaches modifying Monzen in order to provide that the tread portion comprises a cap rubber forming a tread surface and a base rubber, wherein the base rubber is located inward of the cap rubber in the tire radial direction, and wherein base rubber has JIS hardness at 20°C in the disclosed range and tan δ at 60°C in the disclosed range so as to enhance high-speed durability and steering stability during high-speed travelling without negatively affecting riding comfort; Tanaka teaches modifying Monzen in order to provide a side reinforcing layer between the side rubber and the folded up portion of the carcass with the disclosed features so as to have the appropriate rolling resistance and road noise in a manner that is not technically difficult; Wada teaches modifying Monzen in order to provide a distance from the outer end portion of the respective bead filler for the outer end portion of the reinforcing layer in the disclosed range so as to obtain good steering stability and improve noise performance while effectively decreasing the tire weight; Tanno teaches modifying Monzen in order to provide reinforcing layer rubber with a JIS hardness and a tan δ in the disclosed ranges so as to further improve steering stability without deteriorating the durability and rolling resistance; and Morikawa and Kabe are merely relied upon as they are expressly recited examples in Monzen for particular tire sizes that may be used. In other words, each reference discloses features that are generally known in the tire art for particular advantages, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the generic tire disclosed by Monzen with features that are generally known in the tire art for the advantages disclosed by each reference.
Moreover, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Furthermore, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Additionally, the examiner notes reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In this case, each reference relied upon discloses a particular advantage for modifying Monzen and no reference teaches away from the combination of references.
The examiner further notes that Kakigi teaches using a particular Young’s modulus rubber for the bead filler in combination with the specific dimensions of the bead filler (Page 2 lines 7-18, 42-52). However, even if Kakigi teaches that the bead filler must have a rubber with a particular Young’s modulus along with the exemplified cross-sectional area, the claim limitations do not require any particular composition or properties for the bead filler that would contradict the composition disclosed by Kakigi.
The examiner further notes that in the previous 02/07/2025 Final Rejection, Shimizu and Kanou were optionally relied upon for their teachings of sidewall portion side rubber dimensions and tan δ at 60°C, respectively. As these were additional, optional references to support the teachings of Hiruma and Ebiko, respectively, the examiner has omitted them for the rejection above for the sake of conciseness, but notes that their teachings would still be applicable to modify the prior art of record, as discussed in the previous Final Rejection, and may be relied upon again for the same teachings.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEDEF PAQUETTE whose telephone number is (571) 272-5031. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST - 4:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KATELYN SMITH can be reached on (571) 270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. The fax phone number for the examiner is (571) 273-5031.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
