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 .
1) 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.
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 18 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.
In claim 18, the scope and meaning of “the bottom ends of the blind holes are located between a primer and belts” is ambiguous when read in light of the specification and FIGURES. It is noted that in FIGURE 1, bottom ends of blind holes 10 are not located between primer 1 and belt 3 comprising six belt layers. It is emphasized that this language excludes blind holes 10 as illustrated in FIGURES 1 and 3.
4) 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.
5) Claims 14-15 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasenkopf (WO 2013/029974) in view of Chauvin (US 2014/0299242), Japan 910 (JP 2002-248910), Japan 229 (JP 2001-180229) and either Pouille et al (US 5,868,880) or Japan 938 (JP 61-239938).
Hasenkopf discloses a method of retreading a pneumatic vehicle tire by assembling a vulcanized tread having grooves, a binding rubber layer and a tire carcass and vulcanizing the binding rubber layer. FIGURE 4 of Hasenkopf is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
224
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In FIGURE 4, the vulcanized tread has a concave curved inner surface in the middle region and a concave curved inner surface in each shoulder region. See FIGURE 4 and machine translation]. Hasenkopf teaches retreading an earthmover tires such as tires for wheel loaders, graders, loaders and other construction site vehicles [paragraph 46 of machine translation]. Hasenkopf does not recite the tire having a nominal diameter of 33 inches or more and a nominal width of 24 inches or more.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Hasenkopf’s vulcanized tread (pre-vulcanized annular crown) such that the vulcanized tread (pre-vulcanized annular crown) is for an extra-large tire, wherein the extra-large tire is a pneumatic tire with a nominal diameter of 33 inches or more of a rim and a nominal width of 24 inches or more of a section, and the tire is designed that the outer diameter is 2,000mm or more, and a single tire load is 2,000kg or more; the extra-large tire comprises an annular crown, and shoulder extending edges extending from both sides of the crown to the central direction of the tire along shoulders, where the shoulder extending edges are provided with a structure of pattern blocks and pattern grooves, which extend from a tread to sidewalls and are suitable for the extra-large tire, outer contour lines of sections of the shoulders and the shoulder extending edges are concave inwards since (1) Hasenkopf teaches retreading an pneumatic earthmover tires such as tires for wheel loaders, graders, loaders and other construction site vehicles using a vulcanized tread wherein the vulcanized tread has a concave curved inner surface in the middle region and a concave curved inner surface in each shoulder region (and thereby defines outer contour lines of sections of the shoulders and the shoulder extending edges being concave inwards) and (2) Japan 910 teaches a pneumatic radial tire (e.g. extra large tire size 40.00R57) for a dump truck having a tread comprising “a structure of pattern blocks and pattern grooves which extend from a tread to sidewalls”; the tire having improved durability [FIGURES 4A-4B, 8A-8B, machine translation]. A tire having a size of 40.00R57 (extra large tire size) has a nominal width of section (section width) = 40 inches and a nominal diameter of rim (rim diameter) = 57 inches. A tire having a size of 40.00R57 (extra large tire size) as disclosed by Japan 910 inherently has a outer diameter of 2,000 mm or more and a single tire load being 2,000 kg or more. IN ANY EVENT: it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to provide the tire having a size of 40.00R57 with an outer diameter of 2000 mm or more since Chauvin, also directed to an extra large tire having a size of 40.00R57, teaches providing such a tire with an outer diameter of 3500 mm.
It is noted that Japan 910 conducts a test where the tire is subjected to 60 tons [paragraph 34 of machine translation]. Since Hasenkopf teaches retreading tires of the same type disclosed by Japan 910 (both Hasenkopf and Japan 910 disclose a heavy duty pneumatic construction tire), there is ample suggestion to provide Hasenkopf’s vulcanized tread with a tread pattern and size as disclosed by Japan 910 and to retread Japan 910’s extra large pneumatic tire (construction pneumatic tire) using this vulcanized tread.
As to radius, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Hasenkopf’s vulcanized tread (pre-vulcanized annular crown) having a tread pattern and size as suggested by Japan 910 such that the arc radius of the inner surfaces of the shoulder extending edges is 100-350mm since Japan 229, also directed to retreading using a vulcanized tread (precured tread), teaches providing the vulcanized tread such that the vulcanized tread has a concave curved inner surface in the middle region and a concave curved inner surface in each shoulder region wherein radius S of the inner surface in each shoulder region is 10 mm to 100 mm so that there is uniform compression of fin part 20 (shoulder extending edge) of the vulcanized tread during attachment of the vulcanized tread to the base tire to prevent wrinkles [FIGURES 1-4, machine translation]. Japan 229’s range of 10 mm to 100 mm overlaps the claimed range of 100 mm to 350 mm.
As to thickness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Hasenkopf’s vulcanized tread (pre-vulcanized annular crown) having a tread pattern and size as suggested by Japan 910 such that the ends of the shoulder extending edges are blunt ends formed by a straight line or an arc, and the thickness of the blunt edges is 3-10mm since (1) Pouille et al, also directed to retreading using a vulcanized tread, teaches providing the vulcanized tread such that the vulcanized tread has wings wherein each wing (shoulder extending edge) has a minimum thickness Emin being less than 3 mm (e.g. 2 mm) and a maximum thickness Emax (at “blunt end” of wing) being at least two times the minimum thickness Emin to improve resistance to cracking at region of connection of the vulcanized tread to the tire carcass to increase fatigue life of the retreaded tire [FIGURES 1, 4, 5A, 5B, col. 1 lines 5-9, col. 4 lines 34-43, col. 6 lines 3-11] or (2) Japan 938, also directed to retreading using a vulcanized tread (precured tread), teaches providing the vulcanized tread such that the vulcanized tread has side treads 9 (shoulder extending edges) having a thickness D9 (including end of side tread) = 2 mm to 5 mm so that characters 10 such as tire size, pattern name and trademark can be formed on the side tread and so that the characters do not disappear due to tread wear [FIGURES 1-4, machine translation].
As to claim 15, both Hasenkopf [FIGURE 4] and Japan 229 [FIGURE 1] teach providing the pre-vulcanized tread such that the middle of the inner surface of the pre-vulcanized tread is defined by an arc and each outer side of the inner surface of the pre-vulcanized tread is defined by an arc.
As to claims 22 and 23, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Hasenkopf’s pre-vulcanized tread (annular crown) such that section height of the annular crown is 1.5 to 2.5 times the central thickness of the annular crown [claim 22], the total width of the annular crown is 1.02 to 1.15 times the width of the traveling surface [claim 23] since Hasenkopf [FIGURE 4] and Japan 229 [FIGURE 1] show the section height of the annular crown being greater than the central thickness of the annular crown and the total width of the annular crown being greater than the width of the traveling surface.
6) Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasenkopf (WO 2013/029974) in view of Chauvin (US 2014/0299242), Japan 910 (JP 2002-248910), Japan 229 (JP 2001-180229) and either Pouille et al (US 5,868,880) or Japan 938 (JP 61-239938) as applied above and further in view of Japan 295 (JP 2004-262295).
As to claim 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Hasenkopf’s pre-vulcanized tread (annular crown) such that width of the traveling surface (tread width) is greater than 500 mm, arc radius of the traveling surface (tread surface) is more than 2000 mm and the thickness of the annular crown is 100 to 250 mm since (1) Japan 295, also directed to an extra large tire having a size of 40.00R57, teaches providing such a tire with a tread width = 1000 mm and a tread thickness= 60 to 200 mm [FIGURES 1-4, invention example in Table, machine translation] and (2) official notice is taken that it is well known / conventional per se in the tire art to provide an extra large tire / construction tire having a tread such that radius of the tread surface is within the range of more than 2000 mm (this now being taken as admitted prior art because applicant did not traverse this official notice, MPEP 2144.03(C)).
7) Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasenkopf (WO 2013/029974) in view of Chauvin (US 2014/0299242), Japan 910 (JP 2002-248910), Japan 229 (JP 2001-180229) and either Pouille et al (US 5,868,880) or Japan 938 (JP 61-239938) as applied above and further in view of Nakasato et al (US 2021/0188009).
As to claim 17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Hasenkopf’s pre-vulcanized tread (annular crown) such that cooling grooves are provided on the surface of pattern blocks at the shoulders since Nakasato et al teaches providing a heavy duty tire having a tread comprising shoulder blocks such that recess portions are provided on the surface of blocks at the shoulders to provide improved cooling capability [FIGURES 1-3].
8) Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasenkopf (WO 2013/029974) in view of Chauvin (US 2014/0299242), Japan 910 (JP 2002-248910), Japan 229 (JP 2001-180229) and either Pouille et al (US 5,868,880) or Japan 938 (JP 61-239938) as applied above and further in view of China 842 (CN 101596842), Li et al (US 2023/0119839) and either Spinnler (US 2019/0329597) or Japan 177 (JP 2005-132177).
As to claim 18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Hasenkopf’s pre-vulcanized tread (annular crown) such that the annular crown comprises belts (belt layers) and primer since (1) China 842 teaches retreading an engineering vehicle tire (extra large vehicle tire) using (pre-vulcanized) annular crown and adhesive 4 such that the annular crown comprises tread rubber 1 and belt layers 3 [FIGURES 1-2, machine translation] and (2) Li et al teaches applying a primer to the inner surface of a pre-vulcanized tread so that when the pre-vulcanized tread is bonded to a tire casing, adhesion is improved [FIGURES 2-5, 14, paragraphs 54-61].
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the annular crown with the claimed blind holes since (1) Spinnler teaches forming blind holes in the upper surfaces of blocks of a tread of a civil engineering tire / off road tire (extra large tire) to reduce temperature of tread during operation [FIGURES 1-2] or (2) Japan 177 teaches providing blind holes in a tread of a pneumatic tire so that sensor pins may be inserted in the blind holes and at least one physical quantity (e.g. temperature) may be measured [FIGURES 1-12, machine translation].
9) Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasenkopf (WO 2013/029974) in view of Chauvin (US 2014/0299242), Japan 910 (JP 2002-248910), Japan 229 (JP 2001-180229) and either Pouille et al (US 5,868,880) or Japan 938 (JP 61-239938) as applied above and further in view of China 842 (CN 101596842) and Li et al (US 2023/0119839).
As to claims 19 and 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Hasenkopf’s pre-vulcanized tread (annular crown) such that the annular crown comprises belts (belt layers) and primer since (1) China 842 teaches retreading an engineering vehicle tire (extra large vehicle tire) using (pre-vulcanized) annular crown and adhesive 4 such that the annular crown comprises tread rubber 1 and belt layers 3 [FIGURES 1-2, machine translation], (2) Li et al teaches applying a primer to the inner surface of a pre-vulcanized tread so that when the pre-vulcanized tread is bonded to a tire casing, adhesion is improved [FIGURES 2-5, 14, paragraphs 54-61] and (3) optionally with respect to claim 20, official notice is taken that it is well known / conventional per se in the tire art to provide a heavy duty pneumatic tire comprising a belts layers such that the tire also comprises “shoulder pads” (this now being taken as admitted prior art because applicant did not traverse this official notice, MPEP 2144.03(C)).
10) Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasenkopf (WO 2013/029974) in view of Chauvin (US 2014/0299242), Japan 910 (JP 2002-248910), Japan 229 (JP 2001-180229) and either Pouille et al (US 5,868,880) or Japan 938 (JP 61-239938) and further in view of China 842 (CN 101596842) and Li et al (US 2023/0119839) as applied above and further in view of Hasegawa et al (US 2015/0107741) and Japan 911 (JP 2003-136911).
As to claim 21, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the annular crown with the claimed belts (belt layers) since (1) as mentioned above, China 842 teaches providing an annular crown for retreading an engineering vehicle tire (extra large vehicle tire) such that the annular crown comprises tread rubber 1 and belt layers 3 [FIGURES 1-2, machine translation] and (2) Hasegawa [FIGURE 2, tire size 46/90R57] and Japan 911 [FIGURE 1, tire size 40.00R57, machine translation] teach providing an extra large tire comprising belt layers such that the tire comprises six belt layers wherein each belt layer comprises cords inclined at a small angle with respect to the circumferential direction; Hasegawa et al illustrating the opposite angle [FIGURE 2] and Japan 911 teaching the use of steel cords [machine translation].
11) Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasenkopf (WO 2013/029974) in view of Chauvin (US 2014/0299242), Japan 910 (JP 2002-248910), Japan 229 (JP 2001-180229) and either Pouille et al (US 5,868,880) or Japan 938 (JP 61-239938) as applied above and further in view of China 842 (CN 101596842).
As to claim 25, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Hasenkopf’s pre-vulcanized tread (annular crown) such that the annular crown comprises belts (belt layers) since China 842 teaches retreading an engineering vehicle tire (extra large vehicle tire) using (pre-vulcanized) annular crown and adhesive 4 such that the annular crown comprises tread rubber 1 and belt layers 3 [FIGURES
1-2, machine translation]. In light of China 842’s teaching to include belt layers in an annular crown for retreading, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate and would have found obvious to prepare the tire casing by removing both the tread rubber and belt layers from the old tire.
12) Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasenkopf (WO 2013/029974) in view of Chauvin (US 2014/0299242), Japan 910 (JP 2002-248910), Japan 229 (JP 2001-180229) and either Pouille et al (US 5,868,880) or Japan 938 (JP 61-239938) and further in view of China 842 (CN 101596842) and Chlebina et al (US 6,089,290).
As to claim 26, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Hasenkopf’s pre-vulcanized tread (annular crown) such that the annular crown comprises belts (belt layers) since China 842 teaches retreading an engineering vehicle tire (extra large vehicle tire) using (pre-vulcanized) annular crown and adhesive 4 such that the annular crown comprises tread rubber 1 and belt layers 3 [FIGURES 1-2, machine translation].
Furthermore, it would have been an obvious alternative to form a new extra large tire instead of a retreaded extra large tire (from an old tire) since Chlebina et al teaches mounting a pre-vulcanized tread to a new vulcanized tire casing or a previously used vulcanized tread casing [col. 3 lines 24-26, col. 5 line 56, col. 7 lines 37-44].
In light of China 842’s teaching to include belt layers in an annular crown for retreading, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate and would have found obvious to prepare the new vulcanized tire casing without belt layers.
Remarks
13) Applicant's arguments filed 8-7-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to 112b, applicant’s argument regarding claim 18 is not persuasive since applicant’s FIGURES 1, 3, 6 and 7 show the bottom ends of the blind holes 10 being located radially above the belts 3 and primer 1 instead of radially between the belts 3 and primer 1.
Applicant argues that Japan 229 teaches away from an arc radius of the inner surfaces of the shoulder extending edges being 100-250 mm. Applicant is incorrect. Japan 229 teaches providing a vulcanized tread such that an arc radius of the inner surfaces of the shoulder extending edges is 100 mm (radius S = 10 to 100 mm). This value of 100 mm falls within the claimed range of 100-350 mm. Claim 14 fails to require an arc radius greater than 100 mm.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Pouille et al are not persuasive since Pouille et al fairly teaches blunt edges having a thickness eMAX within the claimed range of 3-10 mm (e.g. 4 mm); it again being noted that Pouille et al discloses eMAX is at least 2 times eMIN, eMIN is less than 3 mm such as eMIN = 1-2 mm [2 x 2 mm = 4 mm]. Claim 14 reads on and fails to exclude an annular crown defining thickness eMIN.
With respect to the alternative reference Japan 938, applicant ignores this reference, which teaches blunt edges having a thickness of 2 to 5 mm; 5 mm falling within the claimed range of 3 to 10 mm.
Claim 24 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group #2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10-31-24.
14) No claim is allowed.
15) THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
16) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN D MAKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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 B Smith (Whatley) 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 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.
/STEVEN D MAKI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
January 24, 2026