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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/04/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 6-7, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (WO 2019/097927 with citations made from English equivalent US 2020/0276867) (of record) in view of Koide et al. (US 2015/0129101) (Koide) (of record), Jeon et al. (US 2011/0108178) (Jeon) (of record), and Takenaka (US 2018/0154695) (of record).
Regarding claim 6, Shimizu discloses a pneumatic tire (title) comprising: a tread portion (2) extending in a tire circumferential direction and having an annular shape (see Fig. 1; annular shape is implied by cross-sectional shape in Fig. 1); a pair of sidewall portions (8) respectively disposed on both sides of the tread portion (2) (see Fig. 1); a pair of bead portions (10) each disposed on an inner side of the sidewall portion (8) in a tire radial direction (see Fig. 1); at least one carcass layer (13) spanning between the pair of bead portions (10) (see Fig. 1); and a plurality of belt layers (14) disposed on an outer side of the carcass layer (13) in the tire radial direction (see Fig. 1; [0038]), the carcass layer (13) comprising carcass cords formed of organic fiber cords ([0039]), and comprising turn-up portions respectively formed by being turned back at an end portion of the pair of bead portions (10) to an outer side in a tire width direction (see Fig. 1; [0039]). While Shimizu fails to explicitly disclose that the carcass cords are obtained by intertwining a bundle of filaments of organic fibers, this is a conventional way of obtaining organic fiber cords in the art. For instance, Koide specifically discloses a carcass layer (Koide: 5) comprising carcass cords formed of organic fiber (Koide: see Fig. 1; [0021]; [0176]), wherein the organic fiber is obtained by intertwining a bundle of filaments of organic fiber (Koide: [0195]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the organic carcass cords disclosed by Shimizu to be obtained by intertwining a bundle of organic fibers because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized this configuration as an effective way of producing organic carcass cords. Shimizu further discloses that the cap tread rubber (4) of the tread portion (2) has a 300% modulus MD of 10 MPa or more and 16 MPa or less ([0055]), overlapping the claimed range of 4 MPa or more and 13 MPa or less. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Furthermore, Shimizu discloses specific examples in which the cap tread rubber (4) of the tread portion (2) has a 300% modulus MD of 9 MPa (see Examples 1-10 in Figs. 11A and 11B), suggesting the claimed range of 4 MPa or more and 13 MPa or less.
Shimizu further discloses that the tread portion (2) comprises a pair of center main grooves (31) extending in the tire circumferential direction with a tire equator line (CL) interposed between the center main grooves (31) (see Fig. 1; [0033]), and a center land portion (21) defined by the pair of center main grooves (31) (see Fig. 1; [0035]). Based on Fig. 1 of Shimizu, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine that the center land portion (21) is located within 10% of a width of a second widest belt (142) of the belt layers (14) on each of a left side and a right side of a tire equatorial plane in the tire width direction. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). Shimizu further discloses that a thickness (Tg) of the rubber between the belt layer (14) and a groove bottom (36) of the center main groove (31) has the relationship 0.12
≤
Tg/Tc
≤
0.4 with respect to the average thickness (Tc) of the tread rubber layer (4) in the center region (Ac), which is substantially equal to the average total gauge GC of the center land portion (21) ([0088]; see Fig. 3). Shimizu further discloses that the center main grooves (31) can have a depth of 6 mm or more ([0034]). Thus, since the thickness (Tc) of the tread rubber (4) in the center region (Ac) is equal to the depth of the center main grooves (31) plus the thickness (Tg) of the rubber between the belt layer (14) and the groove bottom (36), Shimizu necessarily discloses that the thickness (Tc) is at least in a range of 6.8 mm (6/(1-0.12)) to 10 mm (6/(1-0.4)), overlapping the claimed range of 5 mm or more and 7.5 mm or less. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Shimizu to satisfy the claimed gauge range based on the overlapping range disclosed by Shimizu. Shimizu fails to disclose, however, that the carcass cords have an elongation at break EB of from 25% to 30%.
Jeon teaches a similar tire (title) comprising a carcass layer (6) made of cords having a preferred elongation at break between 15% and 25% ([0047]; see Fig. 1), overlapping the claimed range of 25% to 30%. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Jeon further teaches that configuring the carcass cords in this way provides high dimensional stability and economic efficiency ([0048]-[0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carcass cords disclosed by Shimizu to have the claimed elongation at break, as suggested by Jeon, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would improve provide high dimensional stability and economic efficiency.
Thus, given the above values of 9 MPa for the 300% modulus MD of the cap tread rubber (Shimizu: 4) and 15-25% for the elongation at break EB, modified Shimizu discloses that the elongation at break EB and the 300% modulus MD have the relationship: 660 (MD=9; EB=15)
≤
40*MD+20*EB
≤
860 (MD=9; EB=25), suggesting the claimed relationship of 600
≤
40*MD+20*EB
≤
1300.
Modified Shimizu still fails to disclose, however, that the carcass cords have, after dip treatment, a twist coefficient CT satisfying CT
≥
2150 (T/dm)*dtex0.5.
Takenaka teaches a similar pneumatic tire (title) comprising a carcass layer (20) comprising carcass cords (40) formed of organic fiber (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0047]). Takenaka further teaches that the carcass cords (40) have a twist coefficient (K) of 1,700 to 2,200 ([0065]-[0066]), overlapping the claimed range of greater than or equal to 2,150. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Takenaka further teaches that configuring the carcass cords (40) in this way helps to achieve high rigidity while maintaining steering stability ([0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carcass cords disclosed by modified Shimizu to have a twist coefficient within the claimed range, as suggested by Takenaka, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would help to achieve high rigidity while maintaining steering stability. Thus, modified Shimizu satisfies all of the limitations in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, modified Shimizu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 6. Given the above values of 9 MPa for the 300% modulus MD of the cap tread rubber (Shimizu: 4), 15-25% for the elongation at break EB, and 6.8 mm-10 mm for the average total gauge GC, modified Shimizu discloses that the average total gauge GC, the 300% modulus MD, and the elongation at break EB have the relationship: 1068 (GC=6.8; MD=9; EB=15)
≤
60*GC+40*MD+20*EB
≤
1460 (GC=10; MD=9; EB=25), which at least overlaps with the claimed relationship of 1100
≤
60*GC+40*MD+20*EB
≤
1600. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, given the above range of values, it would have been obvious for modified Shimizu to satisfy all of the limitations in claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, modified Shimizu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 6. Modified Shimizu fails to disclose, however, that the carcass cords have a standard amount fineness CF satisfying 4000 dtex
≤
CF
≤
8000 dtex.
Koide teaches a similar tire (title) comprising a carcass layer (5) comprising carcass cords formed of organic fiber (see Fig. 1; [0021]; [0176]). Koide further teaches that the carcass cords have a standard amount fineness from 1,000 to 10,000 dtex ([0196]), encompassing the claimed range of 4,000 or more and 8,000 or less. A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05. Koide further teaches that configuring the carcass cords in this way helps to balance the tire weight and the tire strength ([0196]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carcass cords disclosed by modified Shimizu such that they have the claimed standard amount fineness, as suggested by Koide, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would help to balance the tire weight and the tire strength.
Regarding claim 14, modified Shimizu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 6. Modified Shimizu further discloses specific examples in which the cap tread rubber (4) of the tread portion (2) has a 300% modulus MD of 13 MPa (see Examples 12-17 in Fig. 11C). Thus, based on this 300% modulus MD value as well as the elongation at break EB range of 15-25%, modified Shimizu discloses that the elongation at break EB and the 300% modulus MD have the relationship: 820 (MD=13; EB=15)
≤
40*MD+20*EB
≤
1020 (MD=13; EB=25), overlapping the claimed range of 900
≤
40*MD+20*EB
≤
1300. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, based on the overlapping range of preferable values disclosed by modified Shimizu, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Shimizu to satisfy all of the limitations in claim 14.
Claims 8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (WO 2019/097927 with citations made from English equivalent US 2020/0276867) (of record) in view of Koide et al. (US 2015/0129101) (Koide) (of record), Jeon et al. (US 2011/0108178) (Jeon) (of record), and Takenaka (US 2018/0154695) (of record) as applied to claims 6 and 7 above, and further in view of Koyama (JP 2015231773 with English Machine Translation) (of record).
Regarding claims 8 and 11, modified Shimizu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 6 and 7, respectively. Modified Shimizu fails to disclose, however, that the carcass cords have, under a load of 1.0 cN/dtex, an intermediate elongation EM satisfying EM
≤
5.0%.
Koyama teaches a similar pneumatic tire (title) comprising a carcass layer (4) comprising carcass cords formed of organic fiber (see Fig. 1; [0015]). Koyama further teaches that the carcass cords have an intermediate elongation of 4.2% or less under a load of 1.5 cN/dtex ([0015]), suggesting the claimed range of less than or equal to 5.0%. While Koyama teaches an intermediate elongation at a higher load than the claimed invention, the intermediate elongation taught by Koyama would still satisfy the claimed range since the intermediate elongation taught by Koyama would not be expected to be higher under a smaller load. Koyama further teaches that configuring the carcass cords in this way improves the tire durability and improves the maneuvering stability of the tire.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carcass cords disclosed by modified Shimizu to have the intermediate elongation taught by Koyama, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would improve the durability of the tire and improve the maneuvering stability of the tire.
Regarding claim 12, modified Shimizu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 11. Modified Shimizu in view of Koide satisfies all of the limitations in claim 12, as set forth above for claim 9, which has the same subject matter as claim 12.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (WO 2019/097927 with citations made from English equivalent US 2020/0276867) (of record) in view of Koide et al. (US 2015/0129101) (Koide) (of record), and Jeon et al. (US 2011/0108178) (Jeon) (of record).
Regarding claim 20, Shimizu discloses a pneumatic tire (title) comprising: a tread portion (2) extending in a tire circumferential direction and having an annular shape (see Fig. 1; annular shape is implied by cross-sectional shape in Fig. 1); a pair of sidewall portions (8) respectively disposed on both sides of the tread portion (2) (see Fig. 1); a pair of bead portions (10) each disposed on an inner side of the sidewall portion (8) in a tire radial direction (see Fig. 1); at least one carcass layer (13) spanning between the pair of bead portions (10) (see Fig. 1); and a plurality of belt layers (14) disposed on an outer side of the carcass layer (13) in the tire radial direction (see Fig. 1; [0038]), the carcass layer (13) comprising carcass cords formed of organic fiber cords ([0039]), and comprising turn-up portions respectively formed by being turned back at an end portion of the pair of bead portions (10) to an outer side in a tire width direction (see Fig. 1; [0039]). While Shimizu fails to explicitly disclose that the carcass cords are obtained by intertwining a bundle of filaments of organic fibers, this is a conventional way of obtaining organic fiber cords in the art. For instance, Koide specifically discloses a carcass layer (Koide: 5) comprising carcass cords formed of organic fiber (Koide: see Fig. 1; [0021]; [0176]), wherein the organic fiber is obtained by intertwining a bundle of filaments of organic fiber (Koide: [0195]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the organic carcass cords disclosed by Shimizu to be obtained by intertwining a bundle of organic fibers because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized this configuration as an effective way of producing organic carcass cords. Shimizu further discloses that the cap tread rubber (4) of the tread portion (2) has a 300% modulus MD of 10 MPa or more and 16 MPa or less ([0055]), overlapping the claimed range of 4 MPa or more and 13 MPa or less. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Furthermore, Shimizu discloses specific examples in which the cap tread rubber (4) of the tread portion (2) has a 300% modulus MD of 9 MPa (see Examples 1-10 in Figs. 11A and 11B), suggesting the claimed range of 4 MPa or more and 13 MPa or less.
Shimizu further discloses that the tread portion (2) comprises a pair of center main grooves (31) extending in the tire circumferential direction with a tire equator line (CL) interposed between the center main grooves (31) (see Fig. 1; [0033]), and a center land portion (21) defined by the pair of center main grooves (31) (see Fig. 1; [0035]). Based on Fig. 1 of Shimizu, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine that the center land portion (21) is located within 10% of a width of a second widest belt (142) of the belt layers (14) on each of a left side and a right side of a tire equatorial plane in the tire width direction. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). Shimizu further discloses that a thickness (Tg) of the rubber between the belt layer (14) and a groove bottom (36) of the center main groove (31) has the relationship 0.12
≤
Tg/Tc
≤
0.4 with respect to the average thickness (Tc) of the tread rubber layer (4) in the center region (Ac), which is substantially equal to the average total gauge GC of the center land portion (21) ([0088]; see Fig. 3). Shimizu further discloses that the center main grooves (31) can have a depth of 6 mm or more ([0034]). Thus, since the thickness (Tc) of the tread rubber (4) in the center region (Ac) is equal to the depth of the center main grooves (31) plus the thickness (Tg) of the rubber between the belt layer (14) and the groove bottom (36), Shimizu necessarily discloses that the thickness (Tc) is at least in a range of 6.8 mm (6/(1-0.12)) to 10 mm (6/(1-0.4)), suggesting the claimed range of 5 mm or more and 10 mm or less. Shimizu fails to disclose, however, that the carcass cords have an elongation at break EB of 26% or more.
Jeon teaches a similar tire (title) comprising a carcass layer (6) made of cords having a preferred elongation at break between 15% and 25% ([0047]; see Fig. 1), which is substantially close to the claimed range of 26% or more. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed range does not overlap with the prior art but is merely close. See MPEP §2144.05. Jeon further teaches that configuring the carcass cords in this way provides high dimensional stability and economic efficiency ([0048]-[0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carcass cords disclosed by Shimizu to have the claimed elongation at break, as suggested by Jeon, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would improve provide high dimensional stability and economic efficiency.
Thus, given the above values of 9 MPa for the 300% modulus MD of the cap tread rubber (Shimizu: 4) and 15-25% for the elongation at break EB, modified Shimizu discloses that the elongation at break EB and the 300% modulus MD have the relationship: 660 (MD=9; EB=15)
≤
40*MD+20*EB
≤
860 (MD=9; EB=25), suggesting the claimed relationship of 600
≤
40*MD+20*EB
≤
1300.
Regarding claim 21, modified Shimizu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 20. As set forth above, modified Shimizu discloses that the carcass cords have an elongation at break between 15% and 25% (Jeon: [0047]; see Fig. 1), which is substantially close to the claimed range of 27% or more. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed range does not overlap with the prior art but is merely close. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Shimizu to have satisfied the claimed range based on the close range disclosed by modified Shimizu.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (WO 2019/097927 with citations made from English equivalent US 2020/0276867) (of record) in view of Koide et al. (US 2015/0129101) (Koide) (of record), and Chaya (JP 2019156047 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 20, Shimizu discloses a pneumatic tire (title) comprising: a tread portion (2) extending in a tire circumferential direction and having an annular shape (see Fig. 1; annular shape is implied by cross-sectional shape in Fig. 1); a pair of sidewall portions (8) respectively disposed on both sides of the tread portion (2) (see Fig. 1); a pair of bead portions (10) each disposed on an inner side of the sidewall portion (8) in a tire radial direction (see Fig. 1); at least one carcass layer (13) spanning between the pair of bead portions (10) (see Fig. 1); and a plurality of belt layers (14) disposed on an outer side of the carcass layer (13) in the tire radial direction (see Fig. 1; [0038]), the carcass layer (13) comprising carcass cords formed of organic fiber cords ([0039]), and comprising turn-up portions respectively formed by being turned back at an end portion of the pair of bead portions (10) to an outer side in a tire width direction (see Fig. 1; [0039]). While Shimizu fails to explicitly disclose that the carcass cords are obtained by intertwining a bundle of filaments of organic fibers, this is a conventional way of obtaining organic fiber cords in the art. For instance, Koide specifically discloses a carcass layer (Koide: 5) comprising carcass cords formed of organic fiber (Koide: see Fig. 1; [0021]; [0176]), wherein the organic fiber is obtained by intertwining a bundle of filaments of organic fiber (Koide: [0195]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the organic carcass cords disclosed by Shimizu to be obtained by intertwining a bundle of organic fibers because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized this configuration as an effective way of producing organic carcass cords. Shimizu further discloses that the cap tread rubber (4) of the tread portion (2) has a 300% modulus MD of 10 MPa or more and 16 MPa or less ([0055]), overlapping the claimed range of 4 MPa or more and 13 MPa or less. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Furthermore, Shimizu discloses specific examples in which the cap tread rubber (4) of the tread portion (2) has a 300% modulus MD of 9 MPa (see Examples 1-10 in Figs. 11A and 11B), suggesting the claimed range of 4 MPa or more and 13 MPa or less.
Shimizu further discloses that the tread portion (2) comprises a pair of center main grooves (31) extending in the tire circumferential direction with a tire equator line (CL) interposed between the center main grooves (31) (see Fig. 1; [0033]), and a center land portion (21) defined by the pair of center main grooves (31) (see Fig. 1; [0035]). Based on Fig. 1 of Shimizu, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine that the center land portion (21) is located within 10% of a width of a second widest belt (142) of the belt layers (14) on each of a left side and a right side of a tire equatorial plane in the tire width direction. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). Shimizu further discloses that a thickness (Tg) of the rubber between the belt layer (14) and a groove bottom (36) of the center main groove (31) has the relationship 0.12
≤
Tg/Tc
≤
0.4 with respect to the average thickness (Tc) of the tread rubber layer (4) in the center region (Ac), which is substantially equal to the average total gauge GC of the center land portion (21) ([0088]; see Fig. 3). Shimizu further discloses that the center main grooves (31) can have a depth of 6 mm or more ([0034]). Thus, since the thickness (Tc) of the tread rubber (4) in the center region (Ac) is equal to the depth of the center main grooves (31) plus the thickness (Tg) of the rubber between the belt layer (14) and the groove bottom (36), Shimizu necessarily discloses that the thickness (Tc) is at least in a range of 6.8 mm (6/(1-0.12)) to 10 mm (6/(1-0.4)), suggesting the claimed range of 5 mm or more and 10 mm or less. Shimizu fails to disclose, however, that the carcass cords have an elongation at break EB of 26% or more.
Chaya teaches a similar tire (title) comprising a carcass layer (20) made of cords (52) having a preferred elongation at break between 20% and 30% ([0022]-[0024]; see Figs. 1-2), overlapping the claimed range of 26% or more. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Chaya further teaches that configuring the carcass cords (52) in this way contributes to high plunder strength ([0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carcass cords disclosed by Shimizu to have an elongation at break within the claimed range, as suggested by Chaya, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would contribute to high plunder strength.
Thus, given the above values of 9 MPa for the 300% modulus MD of the cap tread rubber (Shimizu: 4) and 20-30% for the elongation at break EB, modified Shimizu discloses that the elongation at break EB and the 300% modulus MD have the relationship: 760 (MD=9; EB=20)
≤
40*MD+20*EB
≤
960 (MD=9; EB=30), suggesting the claimed relationship of 600
≤
40*MD+20*EB
≤
1300.
Regarding claim 21, modified Shimizu discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 20. As set forth above, modified Shimizu discloses that the carcass cords have an elongation at break between 20% and 30% (Chaya: [0022]-[0024]; see Figs. 1-2), overlapping the claimed range of 27% or more. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Shimizu to have satisfied the claimed range based on the overlapping range disclosed by modified Shimizu.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 11/04/2024.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments related to amended claim 6, examiner disagrees. Applicant argues that the newly amended range for the twist coefficient of greater than or equal to 2,150 (T/dm)*dtex0.5 overcomes the Takenaka reference since the newly claimed range excludes the twist coefficient range disclosed by Takenaka. However, examiner notes that Takenaka also discloses that the carcass cords (40) can have a twist coefficient (K) of 1,700 to 2,200 ([0065]-[0066]; see also Table 2), which still overlaps with the newly claimed range. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, since applicant has not provided any showing of unexpected results or criticality for the newly claimed range, one of ordinary skill in the art would have still found the newly claimed range obvious over the overlapping range disclosed by Takenaka. Thus, applicant’s arguments against the Takenaka reference are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments related to newly added claims 20 and 21, examiner disagrees. Applicant argues that the claimed elongation at break values of 26% or more and 27% in claims 20 and 21, respectively, overcome the Jeon reference, which teaches an elongation at break range of 15% to 25%. Specifically, applicant argues that Jeon provides no evidence that the claimed range and the range disclosed by Jeon are so close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. However, the range of 15% to 25% disclosed by Jeon is cited as a preferred range only ([0047]), and Jeon nowhere discourages values outside of this claimed range. Indeed, while Jeon teaches that values within this claimed range can lead to “superior performance and economic efficiency” ([0049]), one of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected values of 26% or more or 27% or more, which are only slightly outside of this preferred range, to have significantly different properties from the preferred range. While values above 25% may not have “superior performance”, one of ordinary skill in the art would have still reasonably expected values within the claimed range to provide at least suitable performance given the proximity to Joen’s “superior” range. This is underscored by Jeon’s own disclosure, which discloses elongation at break values as low as 10% ([0047]), which is a 33% (5/15) decrease from the minimum value of 15% of the preferred range. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected a potential 4% ((26-25)/25) or 8% ((27-25)/25) increase from the maximum value of the preferred range to have significant impacts on the properties of the carcass cords when Jeon allows for at least a 33% variation in the preferred range. What’s more, applicant has seemingly claimed elongation at break ranges that are arbitrary portions of the broader disclosed range of greater than or equal to 15% (see at least [0051] of the PGPub of the instant application). Thus, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had no reason to conclude that the range disclosed by Jeon does not have the same properties as the newly claimed ranges. Thus, applicant’s arguments against the Jeon reference are not persuasive.
Notwithstanding, examiner notes that a new grounds of rejection for claims 20 and 21 has been added in view of Chaya, which discloses an elongation at break range of between 20% and 30%, overlapping the claimed ranges of 26% or more and 27% or more (see above rejection).
As such, claims 6-9, 11-12, 14, and 20-21 stand rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/BLAINE COPENHEAVER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781