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 .
This action is in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 07/11/2025. Claims 1-2 and 5-13 are currently pending for examination on the merits.
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 1-2 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vervaet et al. (US 2018/0370293) (Vervaet) (of record) in view of Kodama (US 2016/0068025) (of record), Guillaumain et al. (US 2019/0248184) (of record), Grabandt et al. (US 2015/0225894) (of record), and Ochiai (US 5,181,978) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Vervaet discloses a tire for an agricultural vehicle (title) comprising a tread (2) intended to come into contact with the ground via a tread surface (3) (see Fig. 1; [0052]), which tread (2) has an axial width LT (WT) and comprises a central portion with an axial width LT/2 and two axially outer portions, each with an axial width LT/4 (see Modified Figure 2 below), the two axially outer portions comprising tread pattern blocks (4) with a radial height (H) at least equal to 30 mm (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0052]). Examiner interprets the blocks (4) as continuous blocks that include the portions in the lateral parts (21, 22), the portions in the intermediate parts (23, 24), the portions in the middle part (20), and the bridges connecting the intermediate parts (23, 34) and the middle part (20) (see Modified Figure 2 below; [0053]). Thus, it is clear that Vervaet discloses that these blocks (4) have an axial length greater than half of the axial width LT of the tread (2) (see Modified Figure 2 below), suggesting the claimed length of at least equal to 80% of the axial width LT/4 of the axially outer portions of the tread (2).
PNG
media_image1.png
473
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 2, Vervaet
Regarding the limitation “for an agricultural-type vehicle, which tire is VF (“Very high Flexion”) according to the 2020 ETRTO standard, which has a speed index at least equal to D for a maximum speed at least equal to 65 km/h, which has a load index at least equal to 170, and which is configured to be mounted on a rim with a diameter at least equal to 42 inches and to be inflated under a maximum use pressure at least equal to 3.2 bar,” examiner notes that this limitation constitutes intended use and, thus, fails to require any tire structure not already present in the tire of Vervaet. Furthermore, it is clear that the tire of Vervaet would be capable of performing the claimed use. For instance, Vervaet discloses an exemplary tire construction of 710/70R42 ([0055]), which has a rim diameter of 42 inches. Vervaet also discloses that from a standards-compliance viewpoint, the recommended pressure level, load index, and speed index are defined according to the ETRTO depending on the intended use of the tire ([0001]-[0008]). Specifically, Vervaet gives examples of an agricultural tire used at pressures above 1.6 bar and a VF agricultural tire ([0006]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been able to appropriately select the speed index, maximum use pressure, and load index for the tire in order to perform the claimed use since the claimed speed index, maximum use pressure, and load index are consistent with those associated with agricultural tires.
Vervaet fails to explicitly disclose, however, that the claimed thickness ep of the tread pattern blocks (4).
However, the claimed thickness is common for agricultural tires. For instance, Kodama teaches a similar tire for an agricultural vehicle (title) comprising tread pattern blocks (2) having a circumferential thickness (W) from 20 mm to 75 mm ([0031]), overlapping the claimed range of at least equal to 55 mm. 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. Kodama further teaches that providing the blocks (2) with this thickness (W) guarantees the rigidity of the blocks (2) and guarantees steering stability on paved roads ([0030]).
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 configured the tread pattern blocks disclosed by Vervaet to have the claimed thickness, as taught by Kodama, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would guarantee the rigidity of the blocks and guarantee steering stability on paved roads.
Modified Vervaet also fails to explicitly disclose that a crown reinforcement, radially inside the tread (2), comprises four working layers, each working layer comprising textile reinforcing cords which are coated in a rubber material and which are mutually parallel to form angles at least equal to 15o and at most equal to 45o with a circumferential direction, wherein each textile reinforcing cord of each working layer is a hybrid cord that has a tensile breaking force at least equal to 32 daN and comprises first strand, which consists of aromatic polyamide (aramid) which has a linear density at least equal to 160 g per km and which has a tensile breaking force at least equal to 30 daN, and a second strand, which consists of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and which has a linear density of between 140 and 160 g per km.
Guillaumain teaches a similar tire (title) for application in agricultural vehicles ([0048]). Guillaumain further teaches that the tire comprises a crown reinforcement (14) radially on the inside of a tread (20) comprising at least one working layer ([0053]; [0094]; see Fig. 1), encompassing the claimed amount of four working layers. 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 to have at least tried configuring the tire to have four working layers based on the encompassing range taught by Guillaumain. Guillaumain further teaches that each working layer comprises mutually parallel reinforcing cords which are coated in a rubber material and form angles from 10o to 45o with the circumferential direction of the tire ([0053]; [0099]), encompassing the claimed range of at least equal to 15o and at most equal to 45o. 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. Guillaumain further teaches that the tire comprises a plurality of textile reinforcing cords (45) (see Figs. 3A, 4, and 5; [0105]), wherein each textile reinforcing cord (45) of each working layer is a hybrid cord that has a tensile breaking force of 39.6 daN (see Table 1, Reinforcing Element 45), suggesting the claimed range of at least equal to 32 daN. Guillaumain further teaches that the textile reinforcing cords (45) comprise a first strand (46) consisting of aromatic polyamide (see Figs. 3A, 4, and 5; [0105]), which has a linear density of 167 g per km ([0110]), suggesting the claimed range of at least equal to 160 g per km. Guillaumain further teaches that the first strand (46) is Twaron 1000 made by Teijin ([0106]). Twaron 1000 with this strand count is known in the art to have a breaking force of about 37.5 daN (see Table 1 and [0077] of Grabandt), suggesting the claimed range of at least equal to 30 daN. Guillaumain further teaches that the textile reinforcing cords (45) comprise a second strand (48), which consists of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) ([0105]-[0106]), with a linear density of between 100 and 210 g per km ([0111]), encompassing the claimed range of between 140 and 160 g per km. Guillaumain further teaches that these reinforcing cords (45) have increased breaking force in order to combat road hazards and have maintained durability ([0002]; [0022]; [0155] [0166]-[0167]). While the reinforcing cords (45) taught by Guillaumain are specifically used in the carcass ply (34), it is known in the art for the reinforcing cords used in the carcass ply to be the same as the reinforcing cords used in the crown reinforcement. For instance, Ochiai teaches a similar tire (title) in which the reinforcing cords used in the crown reinforcement (24) are made of the same material as the reinforcing cords used in the carcass (6) (Col. 5, lines 12-18).
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 configured the tire disclosed by modified Vervaet to have the claimed reinforcing cords, as taught by Guillaumain, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would help the tire combat road hazards while maintaining durability. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for these reinforcing cords to be used in the crown reinforcement, as taught by Ochiai, in order to further improve the tire’s ability to combat road hazards while maintaining durability.
Regarding claim 2, modified Vervaet discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Guillaumain teaches that each reinforcing cord (Guillaumain: 45) of each working layer is a hybrid two-strand cord consisting of the first strand (Guillaumain: 46) and the second strand (Guillaumain: 48) (Guillaumain: see Figs. 3A, 4, and 5; [0105]). Thus, since modified Vervaet includes the teachings from Guillaumain regarding the reinforcing cords (Guillaumain: 45), it would have been obvious for modified Vervaet to satisfy all of the limitations in claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, modified Vervaet discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Guillaumain teaches that the first strand (Guillaumain: 46) of each hybrid cord (Guillaumain: 45) has a linear density of 167 g/km (tex) (Guillaumain: [0110]), suggesting the claimed range of between 160 and 180 g per km. Thus, since modified Vervaet includes the teachings from Guillaumain regarding the reinforcing cords (Guillaumain: 45), it would have been obvious for modified Vervaet to satisfy all of the limitations in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, modified Vervaet discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 5. Regarding the claimed pitch, examiner notes that the instant application fails to specify how the claimed pitch would allow the instant tire to perform differently than a tire outside of the claimed pitch range. Furthermore, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV). Therefore, while modified Vervaet is silent as to a specific pitch between the reinforcing cords (Guillaumain: 45), absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, the claimed range is not sufficient to patently distinguish the claimed invention from the tire of modified Vervaet since the only difference between the instant application and the tire of modified Vervaet is a recitation of relative dimensions of the reinforcing cords.
Regarding claims 7, 8, 9, and 10, modified Vervaet discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Examiner notes that the limitations in these claims amount to intended use and fail to require structure not already present in the tire of modified Vervaet. Furthermore, as set forth above, the tire of Vervaet is clearly capable of being inflated to different pressures and having different load indices depending on the intended use of the tire (Vervaet: [0001]-[0008]). Therefore, modified Vervaet satisfies all of the limitations in claims 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Regarding claim 11, modified Vervaet discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As set forth above, modified Vervaet includes the teachings from Kodama that the blocks (Vervaet: 4) have a circumferential thickness (Kodama: W) from 20 mm to 75 mm (Kodama: [0031]), encompassing the claimed range of at least equal to 55 mm and less than 75 mm. 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. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Vervaet to satisfy the claimed thickness range based on the encompassing range taught by Kodama.
Regarding claim 12, modified Vervaet discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As set forth above, modified Vervaet discloses that each tread pattern block (Vervaet: 4) has an axial width Lba greater than half of the axial with LT of the tread (Vervaet: 2) (see Modified Figure 2 above), suggesting the claimed range of greater than 0.8*LT/4.
Regarding claim 13, modified Vervaet discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 12. Modified Vervaet further discloses that each tread pattern block (Vervaet: 4) has a surface which is included in the tread surface (Vervaet: 3) and which is continuous and uninterrupted from an axial inner edge of said surface to an axial outer edge of said surface over the axial width Lba (see Modified Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
314
610
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 1, Vervaet
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 04/17/2025.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Guillaumain fails to disclose the claimed specific ratio between the linear densities of the two strands in its hybrid cord (45). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant specifically argues that because the sole example of the hybrid cord (45) disclosed by Guillaumain is one in which the count of both the first strand (46) and the second strand (48) is 167 g per km, Guillaumain cannot make obvious the scenario in which the first strand’s count is always greater than the second strand’s count when the first strand exceeds 160 g per km, and the first strand’s count is equal to the second strand’s count when the first strand is equal to 160 g per km. However, examiner notes that the example disclosed by Guillaumain should not be considered limiting because Guillaumain gives many possibilities for the values for the first and second strand count. Indeed, Guillaumain discloses that the count of the first strand (46) can be equal to 167 g per km ([0110]), which clearly suggests the claimed range of at least equal to 160 g per km. Elsewhere, Guillaumain also broadly discloses that the count of the second strand (48) is between 100 to 210 g per km ([0111]), which encompasses the claimed range of 140 to 160 g per km. 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. Thus, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality for the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the counts of the first and second strands disclosed by Guillaumain to each fall within the claimed ranges based on the encompassing range disclosed by Guillaumain.
Applicant argues that Guillaumain fails to make obvious the use of the hybrid cord in each of four working layers. Examiner disagrees. Specifically, applicant alleges that the rejection relies on improper hindsight, and that Guillaumain teaches away from multiple working layers because Guillaumain desires to reduce the mass of the tire by reducing the carcass ply thickness, which would preclude one of ordinary skill in the art from modifying Guillaumain to contain four working layers. First, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Furthermore, Guillaumain nowhere discourages or specifically teaches away from using four working layers. Thus, Guillaumain’s teaching that the tire can have at least one, preferably two, working layers ([0053]) still encompasses the claimed scenario of four working layers, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to at least try using four working layers based on this teaching. Applicant’s mention of potential downsides for modifying Guillaumain to have four working layers, including the potential to adversely increase the weight of the tire, is pure speculation and fails to take into account the whole rejection. For instance, the rejection also cites Ochiai to show that it is obvious to use the same material in the carcass ply as in the crown reinforcing layer (Ochiai: Col. 5, lines 12-18). Thus, in modifying Guillaumain to have four working layers, one of ordinary skill in the art would also be using the same material as the carcass ply, which, as applicant points out, has reduced mass ([0007]). Thus, the combination suggested by the rejection would in no way be contrary to the stated goals of Guillaumain, and it would even potentially lead to greater ability to combat road hazards while having maintained durability due to the increased usage of the carcass ply material ([0002]; [0022]; [0155] [0166]-[0167]).
Applicant further argues that Guillaumain fails to suggest a rib having a constant circumferential thickness ep of at least 55 mm over the axial length. However, as noted previously, the claims do not require a constant thickness ep, but merely a thickness ep at least equal to 55 mm. Under BRI, this thickness ep need only be the circumferential thickness of the blocks at one position. Indeed, this interpretation is consistent with applicant’s own disclosure, which states that the claimed thickness ep is only measured “in the circumferential plane passing through the center of the axially outer portions of the tread” (see [0023] and [0036] of the PGPub of the instant application; see also Fig. 2).
Finally, applicant argues that because Ochiai is related to tires for heavy loads, it is non-analogous art and cannot be combined with Guillaumain’s agricultural tire. Examiner disagrees. First, examiner notes that agricultural tires would also be seen as a tire for heavy loads by one of ordinary skill in the art given that agricultural vehicles themselves are heavy and are often used to transport heavy loads. What’s more, Guillaumain specifically teaches a tire for use in buses, heavy road transport vehicles, and agricultural machinery ([0048]), which clearly includes the type of heavy load tire taught by Ochiai (Col. 1, lines 17-19). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have clearly viewed these references as analogous. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
As such, claims 1-2 and 5-13 stand rejected.
Conclusion
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.
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
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749