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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 18, 2025 has been entered.
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) 1-9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aksay (US 2012/0237749, of record) and further in view of Cornetta (CA 2280627, newly cited).
Aksay is directed to a multifilament structure usable in a bicycle tire and comprising individual fibers having a preferred diameter between 15 microns and 1,500 microns (Paragraphs 12 and 54). This multifilament structure is further described as being formed into a tire cord having applicability in woven structures (Paragraph 51).
In terms of said fibers, Aksay suggests the use of a wide variety of polymer materials, including liquid crystalline polyester (Paragraph 17). Furthermore, while Aksay fails to specifically describe the make of said liquid crystalline polymer, it is well recognized that such a polymer, when used in a tire application, is commonly a wholly aromatic polyester comprising a structural unit derived from hydroxybenzoic acid (HBA) and a structural unit derived from hydroxynaphthoic acid (HNA), as shown for example by Cornetta (Page 2, Lines 15+, Page 8, Lines 12+, and Page 23, Lines 16+).
When forming a multifilament structure, it is evident that a plurality of filaments or fibers are present. More particularly, as noted above, an individual fiber diameter is preferably between 15 microns and 1,500 microns. While Aksay fails to include exemplary structures in which the fiber diameter is at least 25 microns, over 99% of the disclosed fiber materials in Aksay have a filament diameter of at least 25 microns (diameters between 25 microns and 1,500 microns- only diameters between 15 microns and 25 microns fall outside the claimed invention). As such, it reasons that Aksay expressly teaches tire cords formed with fibers having a diameter equal to or greater than 25 microns.
Lastly, regarding claim 1, a multifilament structure is by definition a structure that includes a plurality of filaments or fibers. Additionally, almost all of the embodiments disclosed by Aksay have a filament diameter of 25 microns or greater. In terms of the claimed quantitative relationship, Aksay is broadly directed to a multifilament structure comprising a plurality of filaments/fibers having a diameter of 25 microns or greater. When using a diameter of 25 microns, for example, the claimed relationship is satisfied when 60 or less filaments or fibers are included. The general disclosure of Aksay would have suggested multifilament structures having any number of filaments or fibers, including those formed with 60 or less filaments or fibers (consistent with the common construction of multifilament yarns). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to form the multifilament structure of Aksay with a quantitative relationship in accordance to the claimed invention.
It is emphasized that Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed relationship. Looking at Table 5 in Applicant’s original specification, none of the comparative examples include liquid crystalline polyester filaments having a filament diameter of at least 25 microns and a quantitative relationship greater than 1,500. Again, Aksay is seen to expressly teach liquid crystalline polyester filaments having a diameter of at least 25 microns. Essentially, Table 5 can be broadly viewed as providing desired maximum loads when liquid crystalline polyester filaments having a diameter of at least 25 microns are used and as detailed above, over 99% of the crystalline polyester filaments taught by Aksay have a filament diameter of at least 25 microns (lack of comparative examples including liquid crystalline polyester fibers formed with inventive diameters and having a quantitative relationship greater than 1,500).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Aksay recognizes the common inclusion or rubber topping layers (Paragraph 52). Additionally, the claimed maximum load property would be expected to result in the woven fabric of Aksay due to the presence of multifilament structures comprising liquid crystalline polyester fibers having a diameter of at least 25 microns.
With respect to claim 3, the disclosure of woven structures would have been recognized as including plain weave fabrics at a minimum.
As to claim 4, a fair reading of Aksay suggests the use of the aforementioned multifilament structures in the warp and/or weft. It appears that the claims as currently drafted only require a flattened design for the warp elements. If in fact the claims are intended to require a flattened design for at least one of the warp and/or weft, it is well recognized that tire cords in general, including those used in warp and weft components, are commonly formed with a flat or thin design (represents an extremely well-known and conventional geometry for tire cords).
Regarding claim 5, given that the individual fibers can have a diameter between 15 microns and 1,500 microns, it reasons that Aksay is directed to a wide variety of overall cord diameters, including those required by the claimed invention. It is further noted that the claims as currently drafted are directed to absolute dimensions and it is well taken that tire dimensions are highly dependent on the tire size and ultimately the intended use of the tire. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to form a multifilament structure or cord having the claimed diameter absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results (claimed diameters would be expected to result based on the general order of fiber diameters).
As to claim 6, the general disclosure of woven structures would have been expected to include multifilament strictures or cords in the warp and/or weft.
With respect to claim 7, Aksay recognizes the conventional twisting imparted to tire cords (Paragraph 51). Additionally, twisting values between 1 and 30 turns per 10 cm (10 tpm-300 tpm) are consistent with those that are conventionally used with tire cords in general.
Regarding claim 8, as noted above, the general disclosure of multifilament structures suggests the use of a plurality of fibers and such would include a structure including 29 or less fibers. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed number of filaments or fibers. In particular, Examples 2 and 4 have extremely similar maximum loads despite having inventive and non-inventive numbers of filaments or fibers.
As to claim 9, over 98% of the fiber or filament diameters taught by Aksay satisfy the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 11, Aksay is directed to bicycle tires (Paragraph 54). Additionally, woven fabrics that are used in bicycle tires are commonly positioned in the crown region (provide protection against puncture).
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claim 10 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9, 11, and 12 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
7. 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 November 20, 2025