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 .
Status of Claims:
Claims 6-15 are pending, belonging to elected Group II.
Claims 1, 6, 11, 12 are amended (Remarks dated 09/18/2025 stated claim 15 was amended, but it was not).
Claims 1-5 and 16-20 were withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20170008342-A1 to Martin (“Martin”) further in view of WO-2020/021006-A1 to Cornille (“Cornille”).
Regarding Claim 6, Martin (Figs 2-4, 6) discloses a non-pneumatic tire (12) comprising: an inner ring (26 “internal tension band”, Para 28, 31) having a first diameter (Fig 2); an outer ring (30 “external compression band”, Para 28, 31) having a second diameter (Fig 2) greater than the first diameter, the outer ring being substantially coaxial (sharing X central axis , Fig 2) with the inner ring; a support structure (34, Para 29) extending between (Fig 2-4) the inner ring and the outer ring, wherein the support structure includes a layer of reinforcement (40” first reinforcement element”, Para 32 line 2) disposed therein, and said layer of reinforcement comprises one or more cords (50 “one or more/at least one module of reinforcement cords , Para 32, line 9, “a single cord spirally wrapped, Para 37 lines 4-13, Fig 3, 6 spirally wrapped) containing multiple filaments or strands of filaments (46 “a wire rope and/or 48 wires” , Para 32 lines 13-20, Para 37 lines 6-10, Fig 6).
Martin does not disclose said cord satisfying the following relationship: x*y < 18,000 where x is the stiffness of cord measured in Megapascals, wherein the stiffness of the cord is determined by: subjecting the cord to a tensile strength testing according to ASTM D-2969 using a gauge length of 660 mm, calculating stress by dividing the load on the cord by a cross- sectional area of the cord, wherein the cross-sectional area of the cord is the sum of the real cross-sectional area of individual filaments in the cord, plotting stress value for a given strain up to a point of breakage, and fitting a whole curve defined by the plotted points with a linear trend line, wherein a slope of the linear trend line represents the stiffness of the cord (underlined limits (method limit in product claim, [i.e. product by process], not limiting: "The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production", (MPEP 2113) because the patentability of the cord stiffness does not depend on the specifics of the method used to calculating the stiffness, as the cord with stiffness x would be the same regardless of the method used to measure the stiffness), and y is the diameter of the largest filament in the cord measured in mm.
Cornille (FOR Ref N Figures 1-12; NPL U Google English Translation) discloses a reinforcing cord structure satisfying the following relationship: x*y < 18,000 where x is the stiffness of cord measured in Megapascals, and y is the diameter of the largest filament in the cord measured in mm (English Translation “ET”, Para 145: four filaments at Df=0.0032 mm diameter; thus a cable diameter of 1.27 mm; Fig 6 showing breaking load is 900N and elongation at break is 8%, x stiffness = load/(summed area of each cord fibers)*(elongation)={900/[( (.32/2i)^2)*pi)*4*8]]=34971 ; thus x*y=11,191 < 18000 Mpa/mm^2.
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the non-pneumatic tire and the discloses a reinforcing cord structure satisfying the following relationship: x*y < 18,000 where x is the stiffness of cord measured in Megapascals, and y is the diameter of the largest filament in the cord measured in mm in a single combined apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the on-pneumatic tire of Martin and the teaching of the reinforcing cord structure satisfying the following relationship: x*y < 18,000 where x is the stiffness of cord measured in Megapascals, and y is the diameter of the largest filament in the cord measured in mm of Cornille, to modify the reinforcing cord structure such that the cords and individual filaments therein satisfy the following relationship: x*y < 18,000 where x is the stiffness of cord measured in Megapascals, and y is the diameter of the largest filament in the cord measured in mm, with the motivation to have a support structure with reduced risk of buckling, less strain and greater longitudinal compressibility (Description Para 8 beginning “The cable according to the invention has, as the comparative tests…”, lines 1-2, Para 9 beginning “On the one hand, the inventors”, lines 1-6 having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Martin and Cornille discloses the non-pneumatic tire of claim 6, wherein the cords are steel cords (Martin: Para 32, lines 10-20).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Martin and Cornille discloses the non-pneumatic tire of claim 7, wherein the support structure comprises elastomeric material (Martin: Para 40, lines 1-9).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Martin and Cornille discloses the non-pneumatic tire of claim 6, wherein the support structure includes a plurality of loops (24 of 34 “shear modules” [i.e. loops] are shown Figs 2, 3, 4) extending laterally (Fig 4) from a first side (front left Fig 4) of the non-pneumatic tire to a second side (rear right Fig 4) of the non-pneumatic tire, wherein each of the plurality of loops defines an opening (34 “shear modules”, have openings extending laterally from first to second side as shown Fig 4) that is visible from the first side of the non-pneumatic tire, wherein each of the plurality of loops is in direct contact with both the inner ring and the outer ring (Fig 2-4, and wherein the plurality of loops includes at least a first loop and a second loop, the first loop being in direct contact with the second loop.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Martin and Cornille, according to claim 6, and further in view of US-2006/124219-A1 to Miyazaki (“Miyazaki”).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Martin and Cornille discloses the non-pneumatic tire of claim 6, wherein the cords (50) are spirally wrapped (Para 37, lines 4-10, Para 32 lines 13-20, Fig 3, 6), but does not disclose the lay direction of the spiral wrapping wherein the cords have a Lang Lay construction (common meaning: wires twisted in same direction as strands in rope [merriam-webster.com]).
Miyazaki discloses spirally wrapped cords (Para 38, 3x3 construction with “same direction” twisting, i.e. Lang Lay, Para 58, Fig 6, having spiral wave height and wave pitch ranges, determining range of diameters, Para 61-63) having a Lang Lay construction).
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the non-pneumatic tire and spirally wrapped cords having a Lang Lay construction in a single combined apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the non-pneumatic tire of the combination of Martin and Cornille and the teaching of the spirally wrapped cords having a Lang Lay construction of Miyazaki, to modify the spiral cords of the non-pneumatic tire (of the combination of Martin and Cornille) such that the spiral wrapping is a Lang Lay construction, with the motivation have a tire with enhanced flexibility, wear and fatigue resistance (Lang Lay construction when compared to “regular lay” construction, is known in the art to have such benefits], having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Martin, Cornille and Miyazaki discloses the non-pneumatic tire of claim 8, wherein the cords (spirally wrapped Lang Lay construction as described in paragraph 10 of this document) comprising a construction of 3x3 spiral construction with “same direction” twisting i.e. Lang Lay wrapping with diameters in range of 0.14 to 0.30 mm, thus inclusive of diameter of 0.17 mm, thus a 3x3x0.17 mm Lang Lay construction (3 wires of 3 filaments each, Fig 6, Para 58; per equation Para 63, and values of r wave height h and wave pitch Pw Para 62, which combined defines filament diameters in range of 14-30 mm, which is inclusive of 0.17mm).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Martin and Cornille discloses the non-pneumatic tire of claim 11, wherein each of the plurality of loops is formed by a spiraled ribbon of elastomeric material (40 first reinforcement and 42 second reinforcement are formed as two layers of a single spirally wound “ribbon”, between which 44 “separator ”Para 29, lines 7-9, Para 35 lines 1-5, “ 44 separator is encapsulated by polyurethane or similar material” [ i.e. elastomeric material], Col Para 35 all, “ one reinforcement element is encapsulated” Para 36, 1-3), having a single layer of reinforcement disposed therein (each of 40/42 “have at least one 50 module reinforcement cord” Para 32, lines 1-4, Para 36, lines 1-3, Fig 2,3), but does not disclose said reinforcement comprises steel cords having a Lang Lay construction (common meaning: wires twisted in same direction as strands in rope [merriam-webster.com]).
Miyazaki discloses spirally wrapped cords (Para 38, 3x3 construction with “same direction” twisting i.e. Lang Lay Para 58, Fig 6, having spiral wave height and wave pitch ranges, determining range of diameters, Para 61-63) having a Lang Lay construction.
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the non-pneumatic tire and spirally wrapped cords having a Lang Lay construction in a single combined apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the non-pneumatic tire of the combination of Martin and Cornille and the teaching of the spirally wrapped cords having a Lang Lay construction of Miyazaki, to modify the spiral cords of the non-pneumatic tire (of the combination of Martin and Cornille) such that the spiral wrapping is a Lang Lay construction, with the motivation have a tire with enhanced flexibility, wear and fatigue resistance (Lang Lay construction when compared to “regular lay” construction, is known in the art to have such benefits], having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Martin and Cornille discloses the non-pneumatic tire of claim 12, wherein the spiraled ribbon of elastomeric material includes at least one steel cords embedded therein (50 “one or more/at least one module of reinforcement cords , Para 32, line 9, “two or more" Para 32, lines 1-4, and as described in paragraph 5 of this document), but does not specifically disclose the spiraled ribbon of elastomeric material includes exactly two steel cords embedded therein.
The number of reinforcement cords embedded in the spiraled ribbon is not an inventive concept but rather a design choice is/are not an inventive concept, made from many possible choices of the number of reinforcement cords, made as a part of routine design optimization giving proper consideration of use, design loads, material and manufacturing requirements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected exactly two reinforcement cords embedded in the spiraled ribbon with the motivation to ensure non-pneumatic tire was sufficiently designed to meet the design parameters just described. This combination/modification being done with a reasonable expectation of success and having equivalent function in the combination as in the separately configurations.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Martin and Cornille discloses The non-pneumatic tire of claim 12, wherein the first loop includes a first extent and a second extent extending between the inner ring and the outer ring, wherein the second loop includes a third extent and a fourth extent extending between the inner ring and the outer ring, and wherein the second extent contacts the third extent (curved extents as shown Annotated Fig 3 Martin).
PNG
media_image1.png
250
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Martin and Conrnille discloses the non-pneumatic tire of claim 14, wherein each of the first extent, the second extent, the third extent, and the fourth extent are curved extent (as described in paragraph 14 of this document, and shown Annotated Fig 3 Martin).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 09/18/2025, with respect to objections to claims 11 and 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 11 and 12 been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with regard to the 103 rejection claim 6 filed 09/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on Pages 2-3, that the amendment to claim 6, reciting limits of a method of determining the stiffness x of the cord, overcomes the rejection of the Non-Final, because the of determining the stiffness x of the cord of reference Cornille differs from that of the amendment to claim 6. Examiner responds that the method used to determine the stiffness, is irrelevant, as long as a stiffness is determined, because the specifics of the method, are not limiting, being a method limit in a product claim (“product by process”), see paragraph 5 of this document and MPEP 2113. Therefore the rejections of the Non-Final are repeated herein, reflecting the amended claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVA LYNN COMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Joe Morano can be reached at 571-272-6684. 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.
/EVA L COMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615