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 § 103
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) 16, 18-22, 26-30, 32, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3029542 (of record) and further in view of Farrissey (US 3,985,934, of record) and Heinrich (EP 553755, of record). It is initially noted that US 2017/0327978 (Cornille) will be relied upon as it represents an English equivalent of FR ‘542.
Cornille is directed to a tire construction including a textile cord 50, wherein said cord includes N=2-6 strands and M=2-6 pre-strands (Paragraph 49). More particularly, said strands are twisted together with a final twist T3 in a first direction, said pre-strands are twisted together with an intermediate twist T2 in a second direction, and said pre-strands consist of a yarn that has been twisted with an initial twist T1 in said second direction (Paragraphs 27-31). In such an instance, though, Cornille is silent with respect to the use of aromatic copolyimide.
It is noted, though, that Cornille broadly states that the inventive cord is a high modulus textile cord and includes exemplary materials, such as cellulose, polyvinyl alcohol, aramid (aromatic polyamide), aromatic polyester, PBO, and HDPE (Paragraphs 44-46). A fair reading of Cornille suggests the use of additional materials- this is particularly the case since Cornille states that “textile” or “textile material” is any material made of a substance other than metal, whether it be a natural substance or a synthetic substance, that can be converted into a thread, fibre, or film by any suitable conversion method (Paragraph 44). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use aromatic copolyimide fibers to form the cord of Cornille as they are a known “textile material” used to form fibers, as shown for example by Farrissey (Column 1, Lines 30-61). Farrissey specifically states that such fibers demonstrate high temperature resistance and physical properties comparable to that of polyester and nylon. It is emphasized that polyester and nylon are well recognized as two of the most commonly used materials in tire cords, suggesting that one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use aromatic copolyimide fibers to form the tire cord of Cornille. Additionally, Heinrich is cited to evidence the use of extremely similar fiber materials (aromatic polyamide or aramid) in a wide variety of applications where high temperature stability (thermal properties) is desired, including tire cords, insulation, and filters. This disclosure is relevant since Farrissey lists a wide variety of exemplary applications for aromatic copolyimide fibers, including insulation and filters (Column 8, Lines 43+). Thus, cord materials having properties (e.g. thermal properties) suitable for insulation and filters similarly have applicability in tire applications.
Lastly, regarding claim 16, Cornille teaches exemplary embodiments in which the yarns have a count of 47, 94, 140, 55, or 330 tex (Paragraph 83). A fair reading of Cornille does not suggest the exclusive use of these exemplary counts. It is particularly noted that Cornille suggests a range of twist coefficients K1 between 2 and 80 and such a variable is directly related to the yarn count (Paragraphs 51 and 52). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of yarn counts that are on the same general order as the exemplary yarns detailed above, including those required by the claimed invention, absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results (experimental data is completely devoid of any examples including aromatic copolyimide).
Regarding claim 18, Cornille teaches the claimed coefficient (Paragraph 52).
With respect to claim 19, Cornille teaches the claimed coefficient (Paragraph 53).
As to claim 20, Cornille teaches the claimed coefficient (Paragraph 54).
Regarding claims 21, 22, and 33, Cornille teaches twist values in accordance to the claimed invention (Paragraphs 55 and 56).
With respect to claims 26 and 27, Cornille is directed to a cord-containing tire construction.
As to claim 28, the tire of Cornille includes a hooping ply 106 formed with the disclosed cord (Paragraph 68).
Regarding claims 29 and 30, Figure 7 depicts the claimed tire construction.
With respect to claim 32, given the extreme similarities between the inventive cord and that disclosed by Cornille, it reasons that the claimed toughness is encompassed by Cornille. It is further noted that the only example in Table 1 (both inventive and non-inventive) that demonstrates an apparent toughness outside the claimed invention is cord E2 and such a cord only includes 2 strands. All of the additional cord constructions, both inventive and non-inventive, demonstrate an apparent toughness greater than 130 daN/mm2 as a result of including three or four strands. As detailed above, the cord of Cornille can include three strands and such is seen to correspond with toughness values in accordance to the claimed invention. It is emphasized that even non-inventive cords E3 and E4 have an apparent toughness greater than 130 daN/mm2 as a result of being formed with three strands. Also, exemplary diameters in Table 1 are 1.03 mm and 1.04 mm. A fair reading of Cornille does not suggest the exclusive use of such diameters and additional diameters on the same general order of those detailed above would have been well within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed diameters. It is emphasized that Cornille teaches a wide variety of variables (e.g. twist factor and twist values) that have a wide range of values as is common in the tire industry. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of diameters that are similar to the exemplary diameters of Cornille.
5. Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3029542, Farrissey, and Heinrich as applied in claim 16 above and further in view of Bourrain (US 4,121,901, of record).
Cornille (Paragraph 69) teaches a tire cord in which a usual adhesive, such as RFL, provides adhesion between said cord and a topping rubber layer (corresponds with claimed second thermo-crosslinked compound). The general inclusion of such an RFL compound is seen to result in an “adherized assembly” as required by the claims. While Cornille broadly refers to an RFL treatment (single layer), it is equally well known to include a sizing composition (claimed intermediate layer- first thermo-crosslinked compound) prior to the application of common RFL materials (claimed outer layer) in order to optimize adhesion between all materials (Column 3, Lines 20-37 and Column 4, Lines 14-256).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed October 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Cornille, as a whole, is drawn to an aramid textile cord that must include aramid and one skilled in the art would not have found it obvious to use aromatic copolyimide fibers to form the cord of Cornille. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cornille (Paragraph 47) includes the following language:
According to one particularly preferred embodiment, the high modulus yarns of the textile cord of the invention are aramid yarns.
More particularly, Cornille states that examples of high modulus yarns include high modulus cellulose fibres, fibres made of polyvinyl alcohol, aramid fibres, aromatic polyester fibres, fibres made of polybenzazole, and high density polyethylene (Paragraph 46). Thus, Cornille is clearly not limited to a textile cord formed with aramid fibers. In fact, the title and claims in Cornille broadly refer to a textile cord without any mention of aramid fibres and Cornille teaches that the term “textile” encompasses any material made of a substance other than metal, whether it be a natural substance or a synthetic substance that can be converted into a thread, fibre, or film by any suitable conversion method (Paragraph 44). The totality of these teachings suggest a cord that is formed with any number of well known and conventional textile materials and such would include aromatic copolyimide (recognized by the prior art references of record as providing high temperature resistance and physical properties comparable to that of polyester and nylon).
7. 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.
8. 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 October 30, 2025