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) 1, 2, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isobe (US 2008/0156410, of record) and further in view of Domingo (CA 2976599, of record), Tokunaga (JP 6-191219, of record), and Tsukagoshi (EP 1024033, newly cited).
As best depicted in Figure 2, Isobe is directed to a heavy duty tire construction comprising a carcass 3, a pair of working belt layers 42, 43 formed with cords inclined between 10 and 45 degrees with respect to a tire circumferential direction, a first, continuous hooping layer 44 formed with circumferentially oriented cords and arranged between said working layers (radially outside radially innermost working layer 42), a second, discontinuous hooping layer formed with circumferentially oriented cords and defined by sections or portions 46 (in contact with and radially on an outside of carcass 3), and a radially outermost protective layer 45 formed with cords inclined at the same angle, but different direction, from a radially outermost working belt layer (Paragraph 62). Figure 2 also depicts all of the cord reinforced layers, including respective hooping layers, as being formed with mutually parallel reinforcing elements as is conventional in the tire industry (lines in respective tire components correspond with orientation of reinforcing elements and they are parallel within respective components). Isobe further teaches that width W1 is as low as 0.60 times a carcass width W and width W2 is between 0.10 and 0.20 times a carcass width W (Paragraphs 68 and 69). These disclosures are seen to satisfy the claimed invention given that the working belt layers have a width that is slightly smaller than a tire width W.
Also, regarding claim 1, Isobe broadly suggests the use of elastic steel cords without specifying a breaking force and a cord loading. In any event, elastic cords having breaking forces that exceed 800 daN are known to be used in hooping reinforcing layers in order to sufficiently withstand deformations associated with normal running, as shown for example by Domingo (Paragraphs 25 and 26). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use the elastic metal cords of Domingo as the elastic metal cords taught by Isobe for the benefits detailed above. Additionally, a minimum breaking force of 800 daN would simply require a cord loading of at least 0.125 cords per mm (corresponds with 6.25 cords per 50 mm). It is extremely well known and conventional to include cord loadings significantly greater than 6.25 cords per 50 mm in hooping reinforcing layers. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed quantitative relationship (comparative examples are devoid of a discontinuous, second hooping layer and thus, do not constitute the closest prior art of record).
Additionally, as to claim 1, it is extremely well known and conventional to include at least one protective belt layer, as shown for example by Tokunaga (Paragraph 6). It is emphasized that heavy duty tires, in particular, are commonly described as including at least one protective belt layer (additional number of layers provides added protection). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to include two protective belt layers give the general recognition in the tire industry. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed number of protective belt layers.
Lastly, regarding claim 1, Isobe is broadly directed to tire constructions having aspect ratios of 60% or smaller, specifically those designed for trucks and buses (Paragraph 2). While Isobe includes an exemplary tire construction that falls outside the claimed range (for the second hooping layers), a fair reading of Isobe does not restrict the tire design to the exemplary construction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of common tire constructions for the truck or bus tire having an aspect ratio of 60% or less, including those that satisfy the claimed range for the seconds hooping layers. Tsukagoshi, for example, is similarly designed for a truck or bus and has an aspect ratio of 60% or less (Paragraph 134). More particularly, such a tire has a maximum section width of 285 mm- given that a maximum carcass width is slightly less than said maximum section width, it reasons that a range of widths for the second hooping layer of Isobe would be between a value slightly less than 28.5 mm (0.1 times a maximum section width) and a value slightly less than 57 mm (0.2 times a maximum section width). This range overlaps with greater than 50% of the claimed range between 20 mm and 40 mm. It is emphasized that the claims are directed to absolute dimensions and it is well taken that such dimensions are a function of the tire size and ultimately the intended use of the tire. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of common bus or truck tires having an aspect ratio of 60% or less for the tire of Isobe and such tires would have resulted in dimensions as required by the claimed invention. Also, Applicant has failed to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a width between 20 mm and 40 mm (lack of comparative examples with widths outside the claimed range).
With respect to claim 2, respective hoop layers are radially inside the protective layer.
Regarding claim 3, first hooping layer 44 is positioned radially outward of working belt layer 42.
As to claim 6, see Figure 2.
Regarding claims 7-9, Isobe teaches the use of elastic steel cords (Paragraph 67). With specific respect to claim 9, the claims appear to be directed to a method of manufacture and such limitations fail to further define the structure of the claimed tire article (no evident that the claimed method results in a materially different tire article). It is further noted that “strip winding” represents one of the most well-known and conventional methods of forming tire hooping layers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, and 7-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 February 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights