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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 32 stands withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 21, 2023.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
In the specification applicant has used the term “textile” to mean -- nonmetallic textile -- (substitute specification p. 3 lines 20-27) and so this meaning controls the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “textile” in the claims (MPEP 2111, 2111.01).
Contrary to applicant’s arguments, substitute specification p. 3 lines 20-27 clearly distinguishes “metallic” from “textile”:
Hereinafter, the expression “wire” will be used to refer to a single elongated element made of metallic material or to a single elongated element consisting of a single textile filament (in which case the expression “monofilament textile wire” will also be used), whereas the expression “yarn” will be used to refer to an elongated element consisting of the aggregation of a plurality of textile filaments (in which case the expression “multifilament textile yarn” will also be used). Each filament can also be identified as “fiber”. (emphasis added).
See also for example substitute specification p. 10 lines 16-26:
The applicant also believes that the hybrid reinforcing cords described above can also or only be used in other reinforcing components of the tyre, like for example in the reinforcing components of the tyre that are described below and indicated as “flipper” and “chafer”, both in place of the conventional metallic cords ... and in place of the conventional textile cords ... .
(emphasis added).
For the reasons noted above applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Applicant continues to argue this point in the remarks filed November 3, 2025, however applicant’s interpretation is clearly an overly broad interpretation of the term “textile” in view of applicant’s own specification as noted above.
There is no definition in the original disclosure for a “monofilament textile wire” that structurally distinguishes it from one of the filaments in a “multifilament textile yarn” other than requiring the monofilament textile wire to be an elongated element while the individual textile filaments in the multifilament textile yarn are not required to be elongated (substitute specification p. 3 lines 20-27), therefore this definition controls the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “monofilament textile wire” in the claims (MPEP 2111, 2111.01).
Applicant now argues against the interpretation that the individual textile filaments are not required to be elongated, however it is clear from paragraph 5 above that the definition of “wire” explicitly requires it to be a single elongated element whereas there is no such limitation placed on the plurality of textile filaments (only the “yarn” is explicitly recited as an elongated element, not the individual textile filaments). Further, without this distinction there would be no structural difference between a “monofilament textile wire” and a textile filament and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood the two different terms to denote exactly the same structure.
For the reasons noted above applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Applicant continues to argue this point in the remarks filed November 3, 2025, however applicant continues to conflate the multifilament textile yarn itself with the plurality of textile filaments forming the yarn as noted above.
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) 17-20, 24, 26, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mlinar (3,060,973).
See the embodiment of Figs. 4-6, col. 1 line 8 - col. 6 line 52: tire having tread portion (tread band) 60 and body portion (support structure) 61 wrapped around bead portions 62 “in the usual manner”, body portion 61 comprising a plurality of multiple core yarns 57 (hybrid reinforcing cords), each multiple core yarn 57 comprising at least two core yarns twisted together, each core yarn comprising substantially continuous fiber 20 - which before twisting can be a monofilament or a large number of substantially parallel smaller filaments of a material such as nylon (aliphatic polyamide) or polyethylene terephthalate (polyester) - around which is spun a yarn of short staple fibers 21 which can be cotton or other fiber having a relatively rough surface so as to facilitate bonding to the rubber tire, the fibers 20 and 21 being simultaneously twisted in the same direction at the same pitch to form the core yarn (first torsion pitch T = winding pitch W), which can be the opposite direction but the same value but as the twisting pitch of the multiple core yarn 57 (first torsion pitch T = winding pitch W = twisting pitch P) in order to counteract the twist in the individual core yarns thereby removing the twist imparted to the continuous fiber 20 in each yarn.
Contrary to applicant’s repeated arguments, the above highlighted portion is recited in the reference, see col. 5 lines 50-56 (T=W), col. 2 lines 40-51 and col. 6 lines 4-8 (T=W=P).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 17-20, 24, 26-28, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mlinar (3,060,973) in view of Korean Patent Application KR 10-2006-0102982 A and German Patent Application DE 10 2008 045 506 A1.
See Mlinar embodiment of Figs. 4-6, col. 1 line 8 - col. 6 line 52: tire having tread portion (tread band) 60 and body portion (support structure) 61 wrapped around bead portions 62 “in the usual manner”, body portion 61 comprising a plurality of multiple core yarns 57 (hybrid reinforcing cords), each multiple core yarn 57 comprising at least two core yarns twisted together, each core yarn comprising substantially continuous fiber 20 - which before twisting can be a monofilament or a large number of substantially parallel smaller filaments of a material such as nylon (aliphatic polyamide) or polyethylene terephthalate (polyester) - around which is is spun a yarn of short staple fibers 21 which can be cotton or other fiber having a relatively rough surface so as to facilitate bonding to the rubber tire, the fibers 20 and 21 being simultaneously twisted in the same direction at the same pitch to form the core yarn (first torsion pitch T = winding pitch W), which can be the opposite direction but the same value but as the twisting pitch of the multiple core yarn 57 (first torsion pitch T = winding pitch W = twisting pitch P) in order to counteract the twist in the individual core yarns thereby removing the twist imparted to the continuous fiber 20 in each yarn.
Contrary to applicant’s repeated arguments, the above highlighted portion is recited in the reference, see col. 5 lines 50-56 (T=W), col. 2 lines 40-51 and col. 6 lines 4-8 (T=W=P).
It is well known to provide monofilament textile wires in such tire cords with a diameter falling within the claimed ranges of 0.15 mm - 0.70 mm and 0.15 mm - 0.50 mm in order to facilitate cost-efficient manufacture of the cords while avoiding excessive cord thickness, as evidenced for example by KR ‘982 (embodiments of Figs. 1-2, translation: monofilament textile wire diameter approximately 0.1 mm - 0.5 mm with higher values maximizing facilitation of cost-efficient manufacture of the cords), and minimize tire weight while still providing sufficient reinforcement, as evidenced for example by DE ‘506 (embodiments of Figs. 1-2, translation: monofilament textile wire diameter preferably 0.2 mm - 0.5 mm); it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the monofilament textile wires in the above tire with a diameter falling within the claimed ranges of 0.15 mm - 0.70 mm and 0.15 mm - 0.50 mm such as values within the range of 0.2 mm - 0.5 mm in order to facilitate cost-efficient manufacture of the cords while avoiding excessive cord thickness and to minimize tire weight while still providing sufficient reinforcement (note the data in the specification do not constitute a convincing showing of unexpected results at least because the data are not commensurate in scope with the scope of the claimed invention and the results are not unexpected in view of the prior art). As to claim 28, KR ‘982 teaches to provide the multifilament textile yarn surrounding the monofilament textile wire in such tire cords with a linear density in the range of 500 D - 3000 D (550 dtex - 3300 dtex) with an exemplary value of 1260 D (1386 dtex), all within the claimed range of 400 dtex - 4000 dtex, in order to facilitate cost-efficient manufacture of the cords while avoiding excessive cord thickness; it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the multifilament textile yarn in such tire cords with a linear density within the claimed range of 400 dtex - 4000 dtex in order to facilitate cost-efficient manufacture of the cords while avoiding excessive cord thickness (note the data in the specification do not constitute a convincing showing of unexpected results at least because the data are not commensurate in scope with the scope of the claimed invention and the results are not unexpected in view of the prior art).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, 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, the motivation is clearly set forth in the rejection (with respect to KR ‘982 applicant’s arguments ignore the reference discussion of the prior art and the solution to overcome the disadvantages of the prior art).
In response to applicant's argument that the secondary reference cords cannot be bodily incorporated into the primary reference cords, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant’s remaining arguments are addressed in the final rejection mailed April 25, 2024 and the interview summary mailed August 5, 2024.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mlinar (3,060,973) in view of Korean Patent Application KR 10-2006-0102982 A and German Patent Application DE 10 2008 045 506 A1 as applied to claims 17-20, 24, and 26-28 above, and further in view of Lord (3,071,919), Alker (3,828,544), and US Patent Application Publication 2003/0205041 A1.
It is well known in such tire cords that suitable alternatives to cotton staple fiber include rayon staple, nylon (aliphatic polyamide) staple, and polyester staple, as evidenced for example by Lord (rayon staple, col. 1 line 11 - col. 2 line 68 and col. 4 lines 15-41), Alker (rayon, nylon (aliphatic polyamide), or polyester staple, embodiment of Fig. 2, col. 1 line 4 - col. 3 line 7), and US ‘041 (polyester staple, embodiment of Figs. 3-4, paragraphs 0002-0058, 0075, 0093-0094, and 0096-0099); it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such well known art-recognized alternative staple fibers as the staple fibers in the above tire cords absent unexpected results (note the data in the specification do not constitute a convincing showing of unexpected results at least because the data are not commensurate in scope with the scope of the claimed invention and the results are not unexpected in view of the prior art). Applicant’s arguments are addressed in paragraph 12 above.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mlinar (3,060,973) in view of Korean Patent Application KR 10-2006-0102982 A and German Patent Application DE 10 2008 045 506 A1 as applied to claims 17-20, 24, and 26-28 above, and further in view of Mechanics of Pneumatic Tires.
It is well known to provide such tires with a tread-reinforcing crossed belt structure radially outward of the carcass structure, as evidenced for example by Mechanics of Pneumatic Tires (pp. 219-220); it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide such a well-known crossed belt structure in the above tire in order to reinforce the tread portion (note the data in the specification do not constitute a convincing showing of unexpected results at least because the data are not commensurate in scope with the scope of the claimed invention and the results are not unexpected in view of the prior art). Applicant’s arguments are addressed in paragraph 12 above.
Claim(s) 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mlinar (3,060,973) in view of Korean Patent Application KR 10-2006-0102982 A and German Patent Application DE 10 2008 045 506 A1 as applied to claims 17-20, 24, and 26-28 above, and further in view of Japanese Patent Application 2-310105 A.
JP ‘105 teaches to provide such ply-twisted textile tire cords with the claimed opposite direction metallic wrapping wire in order to improve cut-resistance and prevent the twisted strands from untwisting (embodiment of Fig. 3A, translation p. 4 line 133 - p. 5 line 167); it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the hybrid cords in the above tire with the claimed opposite direction metallic wrapping wire in order to improve cut-resistance and prevent the twisted strands from untwisting (note the data in the specification do not constitute a convincing showing of unexpected results at least because the data are not commensurate in scope with the scope of the claimed invention and the results are not unexpected in view of the prior art). Applicant’s arguments are addressed in paragraph 12 above.
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 Adrienne C. Johnstone whose telephone number is (571)272-1218. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1PM-5PM.
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.
ADRIENNE C. JOHNSTONE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1749
Adrienne Johnstone /ADRIENNE C. JOHNSTONE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 February 23, 2026