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, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 27, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai (US 4,360,049, of record) and further in view of Ebiko (US 2013/0240107, of record), Yokomakura (US 2017/0028785, of record), and Forney (EP 317487, of record) and optionally in view of Ichihara (EP 2,463,119, newly cited).
As best depicted in Figure 1, Imai is directed to a tire construction comprising a tread 2, a carcass 5 having a main portion and a turned up portion, a pair of sidewall portions (no reference character provided), a pair of bead cores (no reference character provided), and a pair of bead fillers 5. Imai, however, is silent with respect to the radially extent of the bead filler and the carcass turnup.
The claimed quantitative relationship, however, is consistent with the common arrangement of bead filler components. For example, Ebiko is directed to a tire construction including a bead filler having a low height in order to provide reduced tire weight without the occurrence of appearance flaws (Paragraphs 22 and 23). Looking at Table 1, Working Examples 1-5 and 8-19 have a ratio of approximately 11%. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use ratios less than 0.18 in the tire of Imai, there being no conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed invention.
Also, in every working example of Ebiko (with the exception of Working Example 10), a carcass turnup end is located at a height less than 0.3 times a tire section height (ratio is approximately 0.28 in Working Examples 1-9 and 12-19 and approximately 0.2 in Working Example 11). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to form the carcass turnup of Imai in accordance to the claimed invention as such is consistent with tires having low bead filler heights.
Also, regarding claim 1, Imai is directed to a tires designed for trucks or buses and teaches a relationship between the crown radius CR (claimed curvature) and the tire section width SW (Column 1, Lines 5-10 and Column 2, Lines 45+). It is emphasized that (a) Imai fails to cap or limit an upper end of the crown radius (Column 2, Lines 25-35 specifically describe benefits associated with a crown radius having a minimum value) and (b) Imai is broadly directed to tires designed for buses and trucks without limitation in regards to the section width. In the Example Tires of Table 5, a tire section width is 272 mm and such results in a crown radius OF AT LEAST approximately 422 mm. A crown radius equal to or greater than 422 mm fully encompasses the broad range of the claimed invention between 1,200 mm and 1,700 mm. While exemplary tires of Imai include crown radii between 300 mm and 690 mm, a fair reading suggests that these tires are exemplary- there is absolutely nothing in Imai that limits an upper end of the crown radius value (Imai teaches a specific combination of a tread rubber composition and a quantitative relationship between the crown radius and section width to achieve desired wear properties).
Additionally, as noted above, Imai is not limited to a single a tire section width. Larger tire section widths, for example, would correspond with a larger minimum value for the crown radius. Yokomakura, for example, is similarly directed to a tire designed for trucks and buses and teaches a tire section width of at least 365 mm, with an exemplary tire section width of approximately 445 mm (Paragraphs 22 and 32). Using the exemplary section width of Yokomakura in the tire of Imai, a crown radius of at least 645 mm would be required. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use any number tire section widths and as a result, any number of crown radii, including those required by the claimed invention, absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results. Again, Imai is not limited to a single tire section width and the disclosed relationship in Imai clearly suggests increased crown radii as a function of larger tire section widths. Ichihara is optionally applied to specifically evidence the known use of radii of curvatures in excess of 700 mm (fully encompasses the claimed range between 1,200 mm and 1.700 mm), with a specific statement that radii of curvature of at least 1,500 mm can provide superior rolling resistance (Paragraph 55).
Lastly, regarding claim 1, the exemplary tire construction of Imai has a ratio between tread width and tire section width of 0.68 (Column 3, Lines 40-45). It is well taken, though, that a reference is not limited to a single ratio between respective widths- ratios are conventionally disclosed in terms of a range of values. A fair reading of Imai suggests that a ratio of 0.68 is exemplary. Forney has been further applied evidence the common range of values for similar truck tire constructions (Page 7, Lines 5-15). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to form the tire of Imai with a conventional ratio between the tread width and the tire section width.
With respect to claim 3, Ebiko provides evidence that the claimed thickness values are consistent with those required by the claimed range (Paragraph 9).
5. Claims 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai, Ebiko ‘107, Yokomakura, Forney, and Ichihara as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of JP 6269306 (of record).
As detailed above, Imai is directed to a tire construction comprising a tread, a pair of sidewall portions, a carcass layer, a bead core, and a bead filler. Additionally, a thickness at the shoulder portion appears to be less than a thickness at the tire centerline due to, at a minimum, the presence of an additional belt ply in respective shoulder regions. While an exact ratio between respective thickness values is not provided, the claimed ratio of at least 1 is consistent with common tire constructions, as shown for example by JP ‘306. More particularly, JP ‘306 suggests a ratio Dcc/De between 1.03 and 1.20 (Paragraph 10). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use such a ratio in the tire of Imai as it is consistent with conventional tire design and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed ratio.
Lastly, regarding claims 4 and 8, a ratio between 2% and 10% is extremely broad and is consistent with the general relationship between thickness values at the shoulder portion and overall tire section heights. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed ratio.
6. Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai, Ebiko, Yokomakura, Forney, and Ichihara as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Turvey (US 2008/0196812, of record).
As detailed above, Imai is directed to a tire construction comprising a bead core. Imai, however, fails to describe a bead core having the claimed geometry.
In any event, the inventive concept of Imai is completely independent of the exact geometry of the bead core. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use any number of common bead core geometries. Turvey provides one example of a known bead core geometry that satisfies the claimed invention and provides, among other things, a reduction in entrapped air and an improvement in processing (Paragraphs 28 and 29 and Figures 4 and 5). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use a bead core satisfying the claimed geometry in the tire of Imai, in view of Turvey, for the benefits detailed above.
7. Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai, Ebiko, Yokomakura, Forney, JP ‘306, and Ichihara as applied in claim 8 above and further in view of Turvey.
As detailed above, Imai is directed to a tire construction comprising a bead core. Imai, however, fails to describe a bead core having the claimed geometry.
In any event, the inventive concept of Imai is completely independent of the exact geometry of the bead core. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use any number of common bead core geometries. Turvey provides one example of a known bead core geometry that satisfies the claimed invention and provides, among other things, a reduction in entrapped air and an improvement in processing (Paragraphs 28 and 29 and Figures 4 and 5). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use a bead core satisfying the claimed geometry in the tire of Imai, in view of Turvey, for the benefits detailed above.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 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.
In terms of Imai, Applicant contends that Imai does clearly disclose ranges of the tread radius with maximum values. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The general statement that when CR is large, shoulder stepdown wear is small but railway wear is large does not specifically limit the upper end of CR. The term “large” might be associated with CR values that are 2,000 mm, or 3,000 mm or even larger. Ichihara has additionally been provided to specifically teach the use of radius values of at least 700 mm, with a specific statement that radius values of at least 1,500 mm correspond with superior rolling resistance properties.
Conclusion
9. 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 September 8, 2025