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 § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 requires limitations that are required by amended independent claim 1 and as such, it is unclear how claim 7 further defines the structure of the claimed tire.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
5. Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 6635762 (of record) and further in view of Oare (US 5,115,853, of record).
As best depicted in Figures 1-4, JP ‘762 is directed to a tire construction comprising a carcass 5, a tread 2, a pair of sidewalls 3, a pair of bead cores 14, a pair of bead fillers 15, a pair of working belt layers 9A,9B, and a belt cover. More particularly, said belt cover is defined by a full cover portion 11, a first edge cover portion 12A located on a radially outer side of said full cover portion, and a second edge cover portion 12B located on a radially inner side of said full cover portion. JP ‘762 also states that said full cover portion and said edge cover portions are formed continuously by winding a single tape having a plurality of cords (corresponds with claimed single continuous strip of material- see Page 2 of machine translation). In such an instance, though, JP ‘762 fails to specifically teach the presence of overlapping windings in said full cover portion.
In any event, the inclusion of overlapping windings is consistent with the well-known and conventional manner in which belt cover assemblies are formed, as shown for example by Oare (Column 2, Lines 44-55). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use an overlapping arrangement in the belt cover of JP ‘762 as it corresponds with common belt cover processing and provides additional reinforcement in a desired belt portion (overlapped arrangement increases cord density in a given belt portion). It is emphasized that there are an extremely limited number of winding arrangements and each is disclosed by Oare as being well known and conventional. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed winding arrangement (and result belt cover structure).
With further respect to claim 1, the general disclosure detailed above is seen to encompass belt cover assemblies in which at least shoulder portions of said full cover layer are formed by overlapping adjacent windings. This arrangement is consistent with common arrangements designed to provide improved shoulder wear resistance and high-speed durability. It is emphasized that shoulder regions (at a minimum) are well recognized as experiencing high stresses and the inclusion of extra reinforcement (as a result of overlapped windings) in such regions to counter said stresses is consistent with known belt cover assemblies. Oare also states that (a) an amount of overlap is larger in respective shoulder portions (Column 3, Lines 4+) and (b) a variety of relationships within the same overlay structure can be used (Column 2, Lines 44+). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized (b) as encompassing a plurality of embodiments in the tire of JP ‘762, particularly the use of an overlapping arrangement in only respective full cover shoulder portions, the use of an overlapping arrangement in only respective edge cover portions, or the use of an overlapping arrangement in both the full cover shoulder portions and the edge cover portions. Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to form the tire of JP ‘762 in accordance to the claimed invention (overlap in only respective full cover shoulder portions). It is emphasized that all three of the aforementioned arrangements would result in greater reinforcement in respective shoulder or edge portions as taught by Oare (extremely limited number of possible arrangements).
Additionally, regarding claim 1, respective edge cover portions are wound radially below and radially above respective axially outer ends of the full cover portion (continuous structure) and as such, axially outermost edges of the full cover portion and respective edge cover portions would be aligned. It is emphasized that the overlap between adjacent windings in the full cover shoulder portions is independent of an axially alignment between the edge cover portions and the full cover shoulder portions. Again, there are axially outermost windings in respective full cover shoulder portions and adjacent additional windings (axially inward of the axially outermost windings), either below or above said axially outermost winding, that define respective edge cover portions that would in fact be aligned with the axially outermost winding. The fact that an axially outermost winding in the full cover shoulder portion overlaps with an adjacent winding (axially inside) in the full cover shoulder portion is immaterial to the alignment of the axially outermost winding of the full cover shoulder portion and windings in the edge cover portions below or above the full cover shoulder portion (edge cover portions are formed in a continuous winding method in that respective edge cover portions are integral with and continuous with the full cover portion and thus axially outermost edges of the full cover portion would be aligned with axially outermost edges of the edge cover portions).
Lastly, with respect to claim 1 (and claim 7), respective edge cover portions can extend beyond a tread end by a distance S as small as 5% of a tire section width H2 (slightly greater width than an overall width of the belt cover). It appears that distance S is on the order of 0.5 times overall widths W1 and W2 associated with respective edge cover portions. This suggests widths for said edge cover portions that are consistent with the broad range of the claimed invention and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed ratio.
As to claim 3, Oare describes an exemplary overlap of 50% in respective shoulder portions, which would equate to a ratio of 0.5 between the pitch and the tape or strip width. Oare also states that a center portion can include an overlap between 0% and 75% and such corresponds with a ratio of 0.25-1 (fully encompasses the claimed range of 0.5-1 in the full cover portion). In regards to the edge cover portions of JP ‘762, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use a ratio of 1 (non-overlapping arrangement) since the inclusion of an overlapping arrangement beneath the overlapping arrangement in the full cover portions would create excessively larger rigidities at respective ends (akin to the presence of 4 layers in a given radial plane). Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the specific combination required by the claimed invention, it being noted that Oare even suggests the use of abutting or overlapping arrangements in the center and middle portions (Column 3, Lines 1+).
Regarding claims 5 and 8, an exemplary strip or tape of Oare includes 12 cords (Figure 2).
As to claims 6 and 9, Figure 1 of JP ‘762 depicts the claimed arrangement.
Regarding claim 10, given that the cords taught by Oare include first and second yarns, it reasons that a maximum outer diameter of said cords would be on the order of 0.46 mm and in accordance to the claimed invention (in light of Applicant’s calculation that individual yarns have a diameter of approximately 0.23 mm).
6. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘762 and Oare as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Ito (US 2018/0272802, newly cited).
As detailed above, JP ‘762 is directed to a tire construction (e.g. passenger car tires and light truck tires) including a conventional cap layer or zero degree belt layer. In such an instance, though, JP ‘762 is completely silent with respect to a cord material used in said cap layer.
It is extremely well known and conventional, though, that tire cap layers are formed with any number of common textile cord materials, including those required by the claimed invention. Ito, which is similarly directed to passenger tires and light truck tires, describes an overlay or cap ply formed with polyesters fibers, nylon fibers, rayon fibers, PEN fibers, and aramid (Paragraphs 25, 26, and 55). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of conventional cord materials, including polyester or rayon, in the cap layer of JP ‘762 (materials are well recognized as being suitable for tire cap layers- demonstrate necessary shrinkage, for example, to restrict tire growth during processing).
7. Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘762 and Oare as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Westgate (US 2005/0133137, newly cited).
As detailed above, JP ‘762 is directed to a tire construction (e.g. passenger car tires and light truck tires) including a conventional cap layer or zero degree belt layer. In such an instance, though, JP ‘762 is completely silent with respect to a cord density or loading used in said cap layer.
It is extremely well known and conventional, though, that tire cap layers are formed with cord densities in accordance to the claimed invention, as shown for example by Westgate (Paragraph 58). More particularly, a cord density of about 10 ends per inch to about 50 ends per inch corresponds with a cord density of about 20 ends per 50 mm to about 98 ends per 50 mm and thus, the disclosure of JP ‘762 fully encompasses the broad range of the claimed invention. Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use cord loadings consistent with that required by the claimed invention. It is emphasized that the claimed cord loadings are recognized as providing the necessary amount of cords in a tire cap layer (also a function of the cord diameter).
Regarding claims 13-15, Westgate teaches a tape or ribbon width between 5 mm and 30 mm and a cord density between approximately 0.4 cords per mm and 2 cords per mm (corresponds with 10-50 epi). It is evident that the disclosure of Westgate fully encompasses the claimed ranges. For example, a tape or ribbon width of 5 mm would include between 2 cords and 10 cords (using the per mmm cord density calculated above) and such results in a ratio between the number of cords and the strip width of 0.4 to 2.0 (fully encompasses the claimed ranges). It is further noted that the disclosure of mutually exclusive (non-overlapping) ranges for such a ratio in separate dependent claims further suggests that the claimed ranges do not unexpectedly result in tire benefits.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed August 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there is no explicit disclosure regarding an absence of overlapping winding in the edge cover portions. This argument was addressed in the decision rendered by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board rendered on March 4, 2026 (Page 6). Oare generally teaches the use of overlapping and abutting relationships within a single overlay structure and more particularly, teaches an overlap of at least 50% at respective edges of the overlay, while an overlap at additional axial locations in Oare can be as small as 0% (corresponds with abutting relationship). Thus, it reasons that an overlapping relationship can solely be provided at respective edges or axially outer ends of the overlay in JP ‘762. Furthermore, given the overlay structure of JP ‘762, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use an overlapping relationship in the full cover shoulder portion and/or the edge portion of JP ‘762 (both portions define axially outer edges of the overlay in JP ‘762). There are only 3 possible configurations and one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any such configuration given the limited number of configurations and a lack of criticality for the claimed configurations (overlapping only provided in full cover shoulder portion).
Applicant contends that a ratio Wfs/Wc in Oare is approximately 1.0. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In fact, any width including an axially outer end of the full cover layer can be viewed as the claimed “full cover shoulder portion”. For example, a width of the full cover layer that corresponds with a width of respective edge cover portions 12 can be viewed as the claimed “full cover shoulder portion”. In such an instance, respective edge cover portions can extend beyond a tread end by a distance S as small as 5% of a tire section width H2 (slightly greater width than an overall width of the belt cover). It appears that distance S is on the order of 0.5 times overall widths W1 and W2 associated with respective edge cover portions. This suggests widths for said edge cover portions (and thus the full cover shoulder portions) that are consistent with the broad range of the claimed invention and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed ratio. Again, any arbitrary width can be selected to define the “full cover shoulder portion”.
With respect to new claims 11-15, Ito and Westgate have been provided to address the new limitations.
Conclusion
9. 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.
10. 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 September 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights