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.
3. Claim(s) 1-4 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almonacil (US 9,346,320, of record) and further in view of Oare (US 5,115,853, of record).
Almonacil is directed to a tire construction comprising a carcass 103, a pair of working belt layers 106a,106b, and at least one band layer 107 (claimed plurality of spiral wound belt layers) formed by spirally winding a cord reinforced tape or strip (Column 4, Lines 20-30). Figure 1 clearly depicts tread layer 108 as being separate and distinct from the at least one band layer 107 (corresponds with claimed reinforcing structure). Almonacil further states that said tape includes at least one first cord (hybrid cord) and at least one second cord (Column 3, Lines 5+). More particularly, Almonacil teaches a specific embodiment in which a tape includes 4 hybrid cords (first cords) and 1 second cord (Column 4, Lines 10-27). In such an instance, though, Almonacil fails to specifically state that said band layer includes an “overlapping” spiral wound strip.
In any event, it is extremely well known and conventional to form band layers by abutting adjacent tapes/strips, overlapping adjacent tapes/strips, spacing adjacent tapes/strips, and using a combination of winding arrangements within a single band layer, as shown for example by Oare (Column 2, Lines 44-55). More particularly, Oare teaches the use of an overlap as small as 0% in both a center portion and a middle portion and an overlap between 50% and 95% in an axially outer portion (Column 3, Lines 10+). In such an instance, the final 2 windings at respective ends of the middle portion can be viewed as the first plurality of layers (each winding is a spiral wound belt layer) in which adjacent layers or windings have no overlap (final 2 windings would be adjacent and axially outward of the spiral wound belt layer). Furthermore, additional windings within the axially outer portions can be viewed as the second plurality of layers having a partial overlap. This arrangement is designed to combat the added stresses experienced in respective shoulder regions (corresponds with axially outer portion). It is emphasized that the “spiral wound strip in the shoulder” appears to be nothing more than further windings of the tapes or ribbons used to form the spiral wound belt layer (essentially a given ribbon or tape is wound with zero overlap in a first region (both to form the spiral wound belt layer and to form some layers in the shoulder) and then wound with a partial overlap in a second region (remaining layers in the shoulder).
Lastly, regarding claim 1, the amended claim language requires that an overlap amount is about 0.8 (shoulder layers 42,44,46 may be shifted laterally by approximately 0.2 of the strip width- see Paragraph 40). As detailed above, the axially outer portion includes an overlapped amount between 50% and 95% and such encompasses the claimed overlap amount. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed overlap amount.
As to claims 2 and 9, Almonacil teaches a hybrid cord comprising a high modulus material (e.g. aramid) and a low modulus material (e.g. nylon) (Column 6, Lines 45-60 and cord A in Example 1).
With respect to claims 3, 4, 10, and 11, Almonacil suggests the use of nylon for the second cord (Column 7, Lines 25+ and Column 8, Lines 20-27).
Regarding claim 8, Figure 2 of Almonacil depicts the presence of a portion of the band layer axially beyond the widest edges of working belt layers 106a,106b. This portion of the band layer can be viewed as being a “shoulder” region. The claims as currently drafted fail to structurally distinguish the claimed tire from that of Almonacil.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed February 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Almonacil does not describe a spiral wound strip provided in the shoulder and axially outward of the plurality of spiral wound belt layers. As detailed above, such a structural limitation is taught by Oare.
Applicant further contends that Oare explains a single, continuous ribbon overlay having an axial width at least equal to that of the belt reinforcing structure. It is unclear how the claims exclude such a structure. Additionally, Applicant contends that amended claim 1 does not recite a large overlap and instead, the spiral wound strip has portions with either no overlap or a small degree of overlap (0.2x the strip width). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Layers 42, 44, and 46, which appear to correspond with the claimed second layers, are described as being shifted laterally by approximately 0.2 of the strip. If layers are shifted, for example, by 1 times the strip, than adjacent layers would have no overlap. A shift of only 0.2 times the strip, does in fact suggest that adjacent layers are significantly overlapped. See the figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
484
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is emphasized that a shift of only 0.2 times a layer width or strip width (described as lateral shift) suggests an overlap amount of 0.8 times a strip width. It is evident that layers 42 and 44 have a significant overlap amount or width and thus, the claim language “a winding pitch of about 0.2 times the width of the strip” does in fact correspond with a large degree of overlap (small lateral shift corresponds with larger degree or amount of overlap).
Applicant also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not re-architect the structure of Oare into a shoulder-only strip separate from a shoulder to shoulder spiral belt layer, which is recited in claim 1. Also, Oare is silent regarding any removal of center and middle portions of the overlay. It is emphasized that the claims as currently drafted a directed to a tire article and patentability is a function of the structural of such an article. The claimed structure has the following sections: a plurality of axial adjacent windings (devoid of overlap) that extend from a first shoulder to a second shoulder and correspond with the claimed spirally wound belt layer (Paragraph 37 and Figure 1), a plurality of first layers or adjacent windings in the shoulder that are not overlapped, and a plurality of second layers or adjacent windings in the shoulder that are overlapped. The claims fail to require, for example, that different cord materials are used in the spiral wound belt layers and the spiral wound strip. It appears that the spiral wound strip is formed with a combination of hybrid cords and non-hybrid cords (single material construction); however, the claims fail to exclude using such a cord in the spiral wound belt layer. Lastly, the center/middle region in the tire of Oare corresponds with the claimed “spiral wound belt layer” and thus, it is not required to remove said region..
Conclusion
5. 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.
6. 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 April 1, 2026