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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 10 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 10 is rejected for the recitation of “loses its adhesive strength over time”. It is unclear what constitutes “loses its strength” and there is no quantitative value assigned so it is further unclear. Applicant amended the claims to recite the cause of the change, but not to clarity what actually is the change. The sentence where Applicant attempts to get support for such an amendment actually recites that the “adhesive property” is lost, not “strength”. The cited art is considered to meet the claim limitation.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is rejected for the recitation of “loses its adhesive strength over time through exposure to light, atmospheric oxygen or evaporation of a solvent or swelling agent”. The specification, as originally filed does not have support for such an amendment. The specification recites that adhesive property over time through exposure to light, atmospheric oxygen or evaporation of a solvent or swelling agent is lost not adhesive strength. Therefore, support does not exist for such an amendment. Applicant is invited to point to support or amend the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 10-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mikulecky et al. (PG Pub. 2015/2024077).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 7-8 and 17, Mikulecky et al. teach a ribbon yarn having an upper side and a lower side, filaments(including a substantial portion of inorganic fibers such as glass fibers and also thermoplastic polymer such as EVA which is a polyolefin since the glass is taught as being coated with EVA it is also a thermoplastic) and binder material and pressure sensitive adhesive contained in the upper and lower sides of the ribbon yarn and the binder material binds the filaments to one another and the pressure sensitive adhesive are on the upper and lower sides of the ribbon yarn [Abstract, 0016 and Figures]. It is noted Mikulecky er al. teaches the filaments bound with a binder and also the pressure sensitive adhesive taught by Mikulecky et al. can also considered to be both the binder and the pressure sensitive adhesive. The binder material is a pressure sensitive adhesive. The pressure sensitive adhesive forms at least one layer on the ribbon yarn as it is taught on the upper and lower faces.
Regarding claim 5, The pressure sensitive material is based on rubber, acrylate, silicones or a mixture thereof [0037].
Regarding claim 10, Mikulecky et al. teach winding the ribbon yarn including the pressure sensitive adhesive including a solvent such as water. With the use of water as a solvent, the pressure sensitive adhesive would “lose” its adhesive strength due to evaporation of water and therefore meets the present claim limitations. As set forth above in the 35 USC 112 rejection it is unclear what constitutes “loses” strength. Further, given Mikulecky teaches such a similar pressure sensitive adhesive made of such similar materials, the lose of strength would be inherent to the pressure sensitive adhesive of Mikulecky.
Regarding claim 11, Mikulecky et al. teaches a method for producing a ribbon yarn comprising laying out and spreading of the continuous filaments (the filaments are laid out and spread in the weaving process), binding the continuous filaments by applying one or more binder materials (binder and/or pressure sensitive adhesive) and winding up the bound yarn (placed on a roll) wherein a pressure sensitive adhesive is applied to the upper and lower of the ribbon yarn [Abstract, 0024 and 0032].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikulecky et al. (PG Pub. 2015/2024077) as evidenced by Newton et al. (PG Pub. 2006/0207202) or in the alternative over Mikulecky et al. (PG Pub. 2015/2024077) in view of Newton et al. (PG Pub. 2006/0207202).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Mikulecky et al. are silent regarding a substantial portion of the fibers being thermoplastic polymers as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a substantial portion of the fibers being thermoplastic polymers as thermoplastic polymers as claimed are known in the art as equivalent alternatives as evidenced by PG Pub. 2006/0207202. In the alternative, Newton et al. teach use of thermoplastic polymers (including polyester, polyolefin and polyamide) in ribbon yarns (tape yarns) in order to provide various mechanical properties desired and possibly using a combination of glass and thermoplastic yarns to provide a sundry of improved mechanical properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the substantial portion of thermoplastic polymers as taught by Newton et al. in Mikulecky et al. in order to provide various mechanical properties desired and possibly using a combination of glass and thermoplastic yarns to provide a sundry of improved mechanical properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikulecky et al. (PG Pub. 2015/2024077) in view of Lewis et al. (US Pat. 7,470,453).
Regarding claim 4, Mikulecky et al. teaches binder, but is silent regarding the claimed specific binder. However, Lewis et al. teach the binder material comprises silicones, copolyester or copolyamides to provide flexible with coating with improved properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the specific binder material as taught by Lewis et al. in Mikulecky et al. in order to and arrive at the claimed invention.
Although Mikulecky et al. does not disclose applying a force as claimed, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Mikulecky et al. meets the requirements of the claimed yarn, Mikulecky et al. clearly meet the requirements of present claims yarn.
Claims 6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikulecky et al. (PG Pub. 2015/2024077).
Regarding claim 6, Mikulecky et al. are silent regarding the claimed bond between two ribbons and the applied release force. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bond two yarns together for a number of obvious reasons to the skilled artisan including improved strength of two yarns together and arrive at the two bonded ribbon yarns.
Regarding claim 12, Mikulecky et al. are silent regarding the claimed application process. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the pressure sensitive adhesive to the ribbon yarn via bath, rollers or spraying and then drying as is known in the art and given the limited number of options.
Regarding claim 13, Mikulecky et al. are silent regarding the pressure sensitive adhesive being applied immediately prior to winding. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the pressure sensitive adhesive immediately prior to winding as this appears to be the case based upon the teachings of Mikulecky et al. and further it would have been obvious to immediately apply the pressure sensitive adhesive prior to winding in order to store the ribbon yarn after applying the adhesive as is known in the art.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikulecky et al. (PG Pub. 2015/0204077) in view of Dollase et al. (PG Pub. 2015/0037559).
Regarding claim 9, Mikulecky et al. are silent regarding the claimed swellable acrylic beads. However, Dollase et al. teach inclusion of swellable acrylic beads in order to provide improved pliability, density and shock absorption. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the swellable acrylic beads of Dollase et al. in Mikulecky et al. in order to provide improved pliability, density and shock absorption and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikulecky et al. (PG Pub. 2015/0204077) in view of Hrabal (PG Pub. 2012/0285596).
Regarding claims 14-15, Mikulecky et al. are silent regarding the claimed reinforcement for pneumatic tire containing ribbon yarn of claim 1 or airbag for pneumatic tire containing ribbon yarn of claim 1, However, Hrabal teaches a reinforcement for pneumatic tire containing ribbon yarn of claim 1 and airbag for pneumatic tire containing ribbon yarn of claim 1 to provide puncture resistance [Abstract, 0061 and Examples]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the reinforcement for pneumatic tire and airbag for pneumatic tire of Hrabal with the ribbon yarn of Mikulecky et al. in order to provide puncture resistance.
Mikulecky et al. teaches a method for producing a ribbon yarn comprising laying out and spreading of the continuous filaments (the filaments are laid out and spread in the weaving process), binding the continuous filaments by applying one or more binder materials (binder and/or pressure sensitive adhesive) and winding up the bound yarn (placed on a roll) wherein a pressure sensitive adhesive is applied to the upper and lower of the ribbon yarn [Abstract, 0024 and 0032].
Claims 1 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hrabal (PG Pub. 2012/0285596) in view of Mikulecky et al. (PG Pub. 2015/0204077).
Regarding claims 1 and 14-15, Hrabal teaches a reinforcement for pneumatic tire containing ribbon yarn and airbag for pneumatic tire containing ribbon yarn (tape) [Abstract, 0061 and Examples]. Hrabal is silent regarding the specifics of the tape and the method of producing the ribbon yarn. However, Mikulecky et al. teach a ribbon yarn having an upper side and a lower side, filaments(including inorganic fibers such as glass fibers) and binder material and pressure sensitive adhesive contained in the upper and lower sides of the ribbon yarn and the binder material binds the filaments to one another and the pressure sensitive adhesive are on the upper and lower sides of the ribbon yarn in order to provide a ribbon yarn (tape) that bend and can be applied to not-straight surfaces (i.e. such as the overlap area of the chamber that is inside the tire) [Abstract, 0016 and Figures]. It is noted Mikulecky et al. teaches the filaments bound with a binder and also the pressure sensitive adhesive taught by Mikulecky et al. can also considered to be both the binder and the pressure sensitive adhesive. Mikulecky et al. teaches a method for producing a ribbon yarn comprising laying out and spreading of the continuous filaments (the filaments are laid out and spread in the weaving process), binding the continuous filaments by applying one or more binder materials (binder and/or pressure sensitive adhesive) and winding up the bound yarn (placed on a roll) wherein a pressure sensitive adhesive is applied to the upper and lower of the ribbon yarn in order to provide a ribbon yarn (tape) that can bend and be applied to not-straight surfaces (i.e. such as the overlap area of the chamber that is inside the tire) [Abstract, 0024 and 0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the ribbon yarn and method of making the ribbon yarn of Mikulecky et al. in Hrabal in order to provide a ribbon yarn (tape) that can bend and be applied to not-straight surfaces (i.e. such as the overlap area of the chamber that is inside the tire) and arrive at the claimed invention.
Art Not Used but Relevant
US Pat. 3,461,025 teaches glass fibers with binder and method thereof.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Mikulecky is not a ribbon yarn and argues that present specification teaches “Ribbon yarns typically consist of multifilament yarns that are spread in such a way that the individual filaments preferably run next to each other and thus form a filament string whose cross-section is not round but flattened.” Applicant argues they can be their own lexicographer and while this is true, the instant specification teaches “preferably” and does not state that it is limited to it. Further, the ribbon yarns of Mikulecky are spread in such a way that the individual filaments run next to each other. Applicant further argues the ribbon has binder material. Mikulecky teaches binder material. Applicant argues the tape of Mikulecky is not a ribbon yarn and is a woven tape that comprises fibers perpendicular to parallel fibers. Again, the present specification is not limited to the preferential statement in the present specification and Mikulecky’s ribbon yarn reads on the present claims. Applicant further argues ribbon yarn is not woven and does not contain perpendicular fibers. This is not the case at all. As evidenced by PG 2013/0101787, teaches tapes are ribbons in stating “tapes comprising narrow woven tapes, such as narrow ribbons”. ‘In an alternative embodiment where the tapes comprise thin strips of woven fabrics, it is also typical for woven fabrics that are intended for use in ballistic resistant materials to be processed to have a width of from about 20'' (50.8 cm) to about 70'' (177.8 cm). As with the non-woven materials, a woven fabric of standard thickness (e.g. a broadloom fabric) may be cut or slit into tapes having the desired lengths, such as by using a slitting apparatus as disclosed, for example, in U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,035,138; 4,124,420; 5,115,839; 6,098,510 or 6,148,871, each of which is incorporated herein by reference to the extent consistent herewith. It is also known to form ribbons and similar narrow structures by weaving thin strips of fabric rather than cutting strips from a broadloom fabric, which generally may be accomplished by adjusting the settings on any conventional weaving machine, such as those disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,035,138; 4,124,420; 5,115,839, or by use of a ribbon loom specialized for weaving narrow woven fabrics or ribbons. Useful ribbon looms are disclosed, for example, in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,541,461; 5,564,477; 7,451,787 and 7,857,012, each of which is assigned to Textilma AG of Stansstad, Switzerland, and each of which is incorporated herein by reference to the extent consistent herewith, although any alternative ribbon loom is equally useful. Any conventional method may be employed herein using any fabric weave style where weaving is limited to limit the tape width to within the desired range. However, cutting strips from a broadloom fabric is more efficient and thus preferred. Accordingly, any useful method of forming thin, weavable fabric strips may be employed.”. PG 2013/0101787 teaches “A tape may be fabricated directly by combining a plurality of fibers or yarns into a thin, narrow structure. Alternatively, a tape may be fabricated by first forming a unidirectional fiber ply, non-woven fabric or non-woven fiber layer incorporating a plurality of unidirectional fiber plies, or a woven fabric or woven fiber layer, followed by slicing or cutting thin strips from the fiber ply, fiber layer or fabric, where each strip constitutes a single tape.” PG 2013/0101787 teaches “Thus the term "fiber" includes filaments, ribbons, strips and the like having regular or irregular cross-section, but it is preferred that the fibers have a substantially circular cross-section.”. So it is abundantly clear that it is known in the art that a ribbon yarn can in fact be woven.
Applicant argues the present claims require spreading and Mikulecky does not teach spreading. Mikulecky et al. teaches a method for producing a ribbon yarn comprising laying out and spreading of the continuous filaments (the filaments are laid out and spread in the weaving process). Spreading occurs during weaving on the loom for both warp and weft fibers.
Applicant argues the tape widths in Mikulecky are not ribbons. As set forth above, As evidenced by PG 2013/0101787, teaches tapes are ribbons in stating “tapes comprising narrow woven tapes, such as narrow ribbons”. ‘In an alternative embodiment where the tapes comprise thin strips of woven fabrics, it is also typical for woven fabrics that are intended for use in ballistic resistant materials to be processed to have a width of from about 20'' (50.8 cm) to about 70'' (177.8 cm). Therefore, it is clear Mikulecky teaches ribbon yarns.
Applicant argues the problem solved by the present invention is not the intent of the cited art. Per MPEP 2144 IV, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991).
Applicant argues that person of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Hrabal and Mikulecky. Hrabal and Mikulecky are in the analogous art of tapes. Hrabal teaches using a tape for joining, but does not teach the specifics of the tape. A person of ordinary skill in the art would in fact then combine Mikulecky with Hrabal in order to provide a ribbon yarn (tape) that can bend and be applied to not-straight surfaces (i.e. such as the overlap area of the chamber that is inside the tire) and arrive at the claimed invention.
Applicant argues claim 10 is clear and not indefinite. Claim 10 is not clear and is indefinite. The claim language merely states “loses its adhesive strength over time through exposure to light, atmospheric oxygen or evaporation of a solvent or swelling agent”. The specification, as originally filed does not have support for such an amendment. The specification recites that adhesive property over time through exposure to light, atmospheric oxygen or evaporation of a solvent or swelling agent is lost not adhesive strength. Therefore, support does not exist for such an amendment. Applicant is invited to point to support or amend the claims. Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789