DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made to applicant’s amendment of claim 1. Claims 1-16 are pending in this application.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda (JP 2000-301910 A - of record), in view of Hottebart et al. (US 2020/0164689 A1 – of record), in view of Sakamoto (JP 2018138430 A - of record), in view of Sekoguchi et al. (US 2009/0218021 A1).
[AltContent: textbox (Grooves and land portions)]Regarding claims 1-2, 15-16, Umeda discloses a pneumatic tire to include a tread portion 12, sidewall portions, bead portions 10, carcass layers 11, grooves and land portions, see figure 1 depiction below
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (sidewall)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It being understood the tread portion extends in a tire circumferential direction having an annular shape, the sidewalls are disposed on both sides of the tread portion, the bead portions are disposed on an inner side of the sidewall portions in a tire radial direction, the carcass layer is mounted between the pair of bead portions, the plurality of main grooves extend in the tire circumferential direction and are formed in the tread portion, defining a plurality of land portions between them. Umeda further discloses the carcass cords are formed of polyester, see [0008]. And the cord having heat shrinkage ratio of 1% to 4.5%, see [0017] – (corresponds to and overlaps the claimed thermal shrinkage rate of 0.5% to 2.5%, 1.9% to 2.5%). Umeda does not explicitly disclose the claimed elongation at break or groove ratios and depth. However, it is very common in the art to tailor the cord and tread properties for benefits they provide such as strength (elongation at break) and drainage (groove ratios/depth). In any event, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Umeda as claimed since:
Hottebart discloses a carcass cord having an elongation at break configured such that the working layer cords should break first. The carcass cords break at a sufficient level of elongation for the carcass layer to cooperate with the working layers to satisfy a desirable performance level, see at least [0038]. And configured to have an elongation at break of at least 25%, see at least [0038] – (corresponds to and overlaps the claimed range of 20% to 30% and 26% to 30%).
Sakamoto discloses it is conventional to form a tread surface having a main groove depth of 5.0 mm or more, see page 25 paragraph 3 – (corresponds to and overlaps a depth G of the main groove included in the center region being from 7 mm to 10 mm). And a groove area ratio of the entire ground contact surface of 15% to 40% - (construed as and overlaps the claimed a groove area ratio SgA in a ground contact region of the tread portion being from 30% to 60%). And where doing so provides a benefit of achieving both suppression of buckling and improved drainage, see page 26 paragraph 9.
Sekoguchi discloses it is conventional to form a tread surface having a main groove depth of 4.0 mm to 8.5 mm, see [0034] – (corresponds to and overlaps a depth G of the main groove included in the center region being from 5 mm to 8 mm). And a groove area percentage of a center region 1C is in a range of 50% - 60%, see [0031] - (construed as and overlaps the claimed a groove area ratio SgB in the center region being from 40% to 60% and 51% to 60%). And one would adopt such a depth and center region groove area percentage as Sekoguchi disclose this contributes enhanced drainage and driving stability, see [0031].
It being readily seen that taking the groove area ratio of the center region as 40% and the total ground area groove part ratio as 30%, gives a ratio SgB/SgA ≈ 1.33 (which overlaps the range of 1.1 ≤ SgB/SgA ≤ 1.5).
Thus, one would have good reason to update Umeda’s tire with aforementioned prior art teachings. That is, one would reasonably and predictably improve Umeda’s tire by providing advantages such suppression of buckling, improved drainage and driving stability and satisfactory carcass ply performance as discussed above.
Concerning the claimed ranges, it has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap and/or do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 2, modified Umeda discloses the land potion including the center land portions are configured to have a rubber thickness as measured from the base of the land to a point P1 – (construed as a main groove side end portion of the land portion Te) and a rubber thickness as measured from the base of the land to a point P2 – (construed as a central portion of the land portion Tc); where a relationship Tc > Te is satisfied, see at least Sakamoto figures 8B, 8C, 9).
Regarding claims 3, 9, modified Umeda discloses the carcass is a single ply, see Umeda [0012] – (corresponds to the number of layers of the carcass layer in the center region is one). Concerning the claimed ranges, it has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap and/or do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 6, modified Umeda discloses an intermediate elongation is 2 to 5% under a load of 2.25 g/d ≈ 1.99 cN/dtex, see Umeda [0017], [0019]. It is considered the intermediate elongation load of 1.99 cN/dtex is sufficiently close to the claimed load of 1.0 cN/dtex that one would expect similar intermediate elongation values to be obtained. In particular, as Umeda discloses having an intermediate elongation of 2% - 5% provides favorable balance between fatigue resistance and sidewall unevenness; one would under similar loadings form the carcass cord to have an intermediate elongation under 5.0% which meets the claimed range. Moreover, it has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claims 7-8, modified Umeda discloses the carcass cord has a total denier of (3000 D – 8000 D) ≈ (3333 dtex – 8888 dtex), see Umeda [0017] – (corresponds to and overlaps a fineness based on corrected mass CF of from 4000 dtex to 8000 dtex); and wherein a twist coefficient K of the carcass cord represented by K = T / D1/2 is 1500 – 2500 – (corresponds to and overlaps the claimed range of 2000 or more), where T is a cable twist count (counts/10 cm) of the carcass cord and D is a total fineness (dtex) of the carcass cord, see Umeda [0017].
Claims 4-5, 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda (JP 2000-301910 A - of record), in view of Hottebart et al. (US 2020/0164689 A1 – of record), in view of Sakamoto (JP 2018138430 A - of record), in view of Sekoguchi et al. (US 2009/0218021 A1), as applied to claims 1, 9 above, and further in view of Takenaka (US 2018/0154695 A1 – of record).
Regarding claims 4-5, 10-11, modified Umeda discloses a belt layer 3 disposed between the carcass and tread. The belt layer having a plurality of belt layers 3A, 3B whose cords are crossed with each other, see Sakamoto page 23 paragraph 6 – (construed as a plurality of belt layers comprising a belt cord inclined with respect to the tire circumferential direction are disposed on an outer circumferential side of the carcass layer in the tread portion). And the use of a belt cover layer 4 to include steel or organic fiber cord materials and where in the center region of the tire the belt cover layer is a single number of layers, see at least Sakamoto figure 2. To the extent modified Umeda does not explicitly disclose the claimed cord composition. A prima facie case of obviousness is supported by substitution of a material’s composition based on its intended use. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Umeda as claimed since: Takenaka discloses it is conventional to form tires having a plurality of belt layers 22 having a belt cord inclined with respect to the tire circumferential direction disposed on an outer circumferential side of the carcass layer 20 in the tread portion, see FIG. 1, [0030]; a belt cover layer 24 comprising a cover cord oriented in the tire circumferential direction disposed on an outer circumferential side of the belt layers, the cover cord is a hybrid cord of nylon fibers and aramid fibers or a nylon cord, and the number of layers of the belt cover layer in the center region is one or two, see FIG. 1, [0033] – [0037].
Regarding claims 12-14, modified Umeda discloses an intermediate elongation is 2 to 5% under a load of 2.25 g/d ≈ 1.99 cN/dtex, see Umeda [0017], [0019]. It is considered the intermediate elongation load of 1.99 cN/dtex is sufficiently close to the claimed load of 1.0 cN/dtex that one would expect similar intermediate elongation values to be obtained. In particular, as Umeda discloses having an intermediate elongation of 2% - 5% provides favorable balance between fatigue resistance and sidewall unevenness; one would under similar loadings form the carcass cord to have an intermediate elongation under 5.0% which meets the claimed range.
And further where, the carcass cord has a total denier of (3000 D – 8000 D) ≈ (3333 dtex – 8888 dtex), see Umeda [0017] – (corresponds to and overlaps a fineness based on corrected mass CF of from 4000 dtex to 8000 dtex); and wherein a twist coefficient K of the carcass cord represented by K = T / D1/2 is 1500 – 2500 – (corresponds to and overlaps the claimed range of 2000 or more), where T is a cable twist count (counts/10 cm) of the carcass cord and D is a total fineness (dtex) of the carcass cord, see Umeda [0017]. Concerning the claimed ranges: It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap and/or do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-16 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Sekoguchi et al.
Applicant' s Argument #1
Applicant argues that: Umeda is not combinable with Hottebart, That Umeda discloses a tire size of 265 and Hottebart requires a tire size of at most equal to 235 mm. Thus, it could not be understood that the same carcass cords as Hottebart should be used in a tire of Umeda when Hottebart is explicit that the invention does not apply to tires such as that of Umeda.
Examiner's Response #1
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant misinterprets Umeda for what it reasonably discloses. The interpretation of Umeda’s tire size of 265 mm is by example only. Umeda does not explicitly or reasonably suggest its tire size should be restricted to only a size of 265 mm. Therefore, at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation afforded the examiner. Umeda’s inventive concepts are suitable for any tire size to include those required by Hottebart.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571) 272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00AM--5:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Katelyn Smith can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749