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Claim 10 stands withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 23, 2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 now contradicts claim 1 (R1=R2 now excluded from claim 1). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1-4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fletcher (3,627,012) in view of British Patent Specification 1 487 426 A, Howe (2,317,912), and Castricum et al. (2,188,174).
See paragraph 10 of the Office action mailed April 18, 2025, with Howe and Castricum et al. added as examples of the well known technique of varying the carcass ply stiffness per unit width within the claimed range by varying the pitch spacing (and thus the end count) to obtain well known advantages such as improved rupture resistance (Howe p. 1 line 1 - p. 3 line 61, 395/460 = 0.859 and 440/525 = 0.838; Castricum et al. p. 2 line 57 - p. 3 line 2, 30/39.7 = 0.756); it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide such well-known varied carcass ply stiffness per unit width in order to obtain well known advantages such as improved rupture resistance. As to claim 4, see paragraph 4 above.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fletcher (3,627,012) in view of British Patent Specification 1 487 426 A, Howe (2,317,912), and Castricum et al. (2,188,174) as applied to claims 1-4 and 11 above, and further in view of Kitazawa et al. (4,096,899).
This reference is combined for the same reasons as set forth in paragraph 11 of the Office action mailed April 18, 2025.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 are allowed.
See paragraph 15 of the Office action mailed February 12, 2024.
Favorable consideration would be given to claim 1 with the metal reinforcers of each carcass layer having a critical compression buckling deformation DF at least equal to 4% and a compression elastic modulus MC at least equal to 45 GPa (original specification paragraph 0078), with 0.7≤ R1/R2 ≤1.3, and without the last four lines of claim 1: the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest making the two properties have the larger lower limits in the claimed environment.
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 March 29, 2026