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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 6, 2026 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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 15, 17-22 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Clerc (US Pub. No. 2018/0117970) in view of Reese (US Pub. No. 2017/0274706).
Regarding claims 15 and 18-19, Le Clerc teaches a tire comprising a crown, two sidewalls 3, two beads 4, the sidewalls each connecting their respective bead to the crown, a carcass reinforcement 8 anchored in each bead and extending in each sidewall and radially internally at the crown, the carcass reinforcement comprising at least one carcass layer 81, wherein the crown comprises a tread 2 intended to come into contact with a ground when the tire is rolling, and a crown reinforcement arranged radially between the tread and the carcass reinforcement, wherein the crown reinforcement comprises a working reinforcement 6 comprising a single working layer 61, and a hoop reinforcement 7 arranged radially outside the working reinforcement, the hoop reinforcement comprising one hooping layer 71 comprising hoop reinforcers, such a hoop reinforcer either being wound circumferentially helically, or else it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to wind such a layer helically as a conventional method of creating a hooping layer (paragraphs [0055]-[0058]; figure 1), where the hooping layer reinforcers can be a hybrid cord comprising a combination of aramid and nylon (paragraphs [0048]-[0049]), as well as teaching that the hooping layer has a secant modulus at least equal to 250 daN/mm and advantageously less than 900 daN/mm for an applied force F equal to 15% of the force at break of the hooping layer (paragraphs [0025] and [0044]), with the typical behavior of a hooping reinforcer displayed (paragraph [0056; figure 2) as well as four specific inventive embodiments S1-S4 (paragraph [0058]; figure 3). Examining the typical behavior displayed in figure 2 at the claimed 1.3% elongation, shows that the slope of the curve at this point is somewhat less than that of the line connecting the origin and the point at 0.15FR, meaning that the tangent modulus at this point would be somewhat less than the secant modulus value at the point 0.15FR. Given the disclosed range of secant modulus of from 250 to 900 daN/mm and the behavior of the typical hooping layer depicted in figure 2, suggests tangent modulus values within the claimed ranges of 200 to 650 daN/mm (claim 15), greater than or equal to 220 daN/mm (claim 18), and less than or equal to 600 daN/mm (claim 19), accordingly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to create an embodiment with a hooping layer having a tangent modulus at 1.3% elongation within the claimed ranges because typical behavior for a hooping cord of Le Clerc has a tangent modulus somewhat lower than secant modulus at 1.3% elongation and the disclosed range of secant modulus extends 50 daN/mm above the bottom endpoint of the claimed range to 250 daN/mm above the top endpoint of the claimed range. Le Clerc teaches that the hooping layer reinforcers can be a hybrid cord comprising a combination of aramid and nylon (paragraphs [0048]-[0049]), but does not specifically disclose using two strands of aromatic polyamide and one strand of nylon. Reese teaches a cord for a belt bandage (hooping reinforcement) where the cord is made up of two strands of aramid and one strand of nylon (paragraphs [0024]-[0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use two strands of aramid and one of nylon as taught by Reese as the cord configuration of the hooping layer of Le Clerc in order to improve the high-speed resistance of the tire (see Reese at paragraph [0010]). Regarding the claimed twist coefficient K, Le Clerc teaches specific embodiments using aramid with tpm of 270, 210, and 440 (table 1, Alternative forms S2, S3 and S4), resulting in a range of tpm from 210 to 440, and teaches aramid strands with tex of 330 and 167 (table 1, Alternative forms S2, S3 and S4), resulting in a range of tex of from 167 to 330, and Reese teaches that the high modulus yarn has ≥800 dtex (80 tex), resulting in the nylon yarn having a range of up to 250 tex (for 330 tex aramid yarn) and up to 87 tex (for 167 tex aramid yarn). Performing the calculation to determine the range using a cord of two strands of aramid and one of nylon, filling in the claimed formula to determine the range results in a lower bound of K = 116 (R = 210 tpm, T = 421 (167 tex x 2 + 87 tex), ρ = 1.38 (density calculated using relative amounts of aramid and nylon, density of aramid is 1.44, density of nylon is 1.15)), and an upper bound of in K = 360 (R = 440 tpm, T = 910 (330 tex x 2 + 250 tex), ρ = 1.36 (density calculated using relative amounts of aramid and nylon, density of aramid is 1.44, density of nylon is 1.15)), completely encompassing the claimed range.
Regarding claim 17, Reese teaches that the cord has 80-95% by weight of the high modulus yarn (paragraph [0011]), such a range overlapping the claimed range of 0.60 to 0.90.
Regarding claims 20-22, examining the typical behavior displayed in figure 2 at the claimed 2 daN/mm force, shows that the slope of the curve at this point is somewhat greater than that of the line connecting the origin and the point at 0.15FR, meaning that the tangent modulus at this point would be somewhat greater than the secant modulus value at the point 0.15FR. Given the disclosed range of secant modulus of from 250 to 900 daN/mm and the behavior of the typical hooping layer depicted in figure 2, suggests tangent modulus values within the claimed ranges of 150 to 400 daN/mm (claim 20), greater than or equal to 200 daN/mm (claim 21), and less than or equal to 350 daN/mm (claim 22), accordingly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to create an embodiment with a hooping layer having a tangent modulus under a force equal to 2 daN/mm within the claimed ranges because typical behavior for a hooping cord of Le Clerc has a tangent modulus somewhat higher than secant modulus at 1.3% elongation and the disclosed range of secant modulus extends from 100 daN/mm above the bottom endpoint of the claimed range to 500 daN/mm above the top endpoint of the claimed range.
Regarding claim 24, Le Clerc teaches that the hoop reinforcers form an angle of at most 5 degrees with the circumferential direction (paragraph [0055]), such a range being completely encompassed by the claimed range.
Regarding claim 25, Le Clerc teaches that the working reinforcers form an angle of at least 10 degrees with respect to the circumferential direction (paragraph [0055]), fully encompassing the claimed range.
Regarding claims 26-27, Le Clerc teaches that the carcass reinforcers form an angle of 55 to 80 degrees in a portion with the working reinforcers (paragraph [0027]) and form an angle at least equal to 85 degrees in the sidewalls (paragraph [0022]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to secant modulus and tangent modulus, it is granted that Le Clerc does not teach that the curve of cord modulus is linear, nor was such argued previously, merely that the curve was substantially linear. Regardless, as is set forth above, the rejections are based on the secant modulus being somewhat greater or lesser than tangent modulus based on the various conditions, as well as the overall disclosed range of secant modulus. Based on the relationships of secant modulus and tangent modulus, and the overall range of secant modulus as disclosed, renders the claimed ranges obvious.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to twist coefficient K, the rejection above does not rely upon the specific embodiment of Reese, but instead relies upon the range of aramid strand tpm and tex set forth in Le Clerc, with Reese relied upon for determining the tex amount of the nylon strand based on the tex of the aramid strand. This results in a prior art range completely encompassing Applicant’s claimed range, and rendering it obvious. It is noted that Applicant has not submitted any evidence establishing a criticality of the twist coefficient.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 August 6, 2026
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights