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 .
1) 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 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.
2) The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 7, in paragraph 34 line 5, “duplex strips 250” should be --duplex strip 250--.
On page 7, in paragraph 34 line 9, “the duplex strips are” should be --the duplex strip is--.
Appropriate correction is required.
3) 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.
4) Claim 20 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.
Claim 20 ambiguously refers to “the dual layer strip”. Which dual layer strip? Both dual layer strips?
5) The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
6) Claims 12, 15-17, 19-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 12, the subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention (i.e. the new matter) is
(1) “the component is formed from a continuous spiral winding of coextruded dual layer strips, wherein each strip has having a first layer formed of a first compound having a first property, and a second layer formed of a second compound having a second property” (emphasis added),
(2) “the strips are arranged such that the first layer and the second layer alternate across the component and wherein each strip each layer is oriented at angles from
0-60° relative to an application surface” (emphasis added),
(3) “the first zone is formed of one or more dual layer strips having a first volumetric ratio of the first compound to the second compound and the second zone is formed of one or more dual layer strips having a second volumetric ratio of the first compound to the second compound” (emphasis added), and
(4) “the first volumetric ratio and the second volumetric ratio are different and are from 30/70 to 60/40” (emphasis added).
In the original specification, paragraph 34 on page 7 describes “duplex strips”. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the description of “duplex strips” is an obvious informality which should be changed to --duplex strip--; it being emphasized that on page 7, lines 3-4 of paragraph describe “The duplex strip 250 [singular] as shown in FIG. 5 may be used”. The original specification fails to reasonably convey (1) “the component is formed from a continuous spiral winding of coextruded dual layer strips, wherein each strip has having a first layer formed of a first compound having a first property, and a second layer formed of a second compound having a second property” (emphasis added), (2) “the strips are arranged such that the first layer and the second layer alternate across the component and wherein each strip each layer is oriented at angles from 0-60° relative to an application surface” (emphasis added) and (3) “the first zone is formed of one or more dual layer strips having a first volumetric ratio of the first compound to the second compound and the second zone is formed of one or more dual layer strips having a second volumetric ratio of the first compound to the second compound” (emphasis added). The original specification fails to describe using “one or more” dual layer strips to form the first zone. The original specification fails to describe using “one or more” dual layer strips to form the second zone. The original specification fails to reasonably convey forming the first zone using one dual layer strip and forming the second zone using plural dual layer strips. In other words, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, failed to have possession of using dual layer strips as specifically described in claim 12.
The original disclosure describes one embodiment [FIGURE 1B] in which the tread comprises 60%A and 40%B and another embodiment [FIGURE 1C] in which the tread comprises 30%A and 70%B. However, the original specification fails to reasonably convey the range “30/70 to 60/40”. FOR EXAMPLE: The range “30/70 to 60/40” reads on 51/49 and the original disclosure fails to reasonably convey using a ratio of 51/49. In other words, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, failed to have possession of the range “30/70 to 60/40”.
Remarks
7) Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 12, 15-17, 19-20 and 22-24 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection and the reasons presented therein.
Allowable subject matter has not been indicated since claims 12, 15-17, 19-20 and 22-24 are subject to a 112a rejection.
8) No claim is allowed.
9) 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.
10) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN D MAKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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 B Smith (Whatley) 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.
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.
/STEVEN D MAKI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
March 20, 2026