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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/27/2026 has been entered.
Double Patenting
Claims 14-16, 20-28, and 30-32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16, 18-21, and 24-33 of copending Application No. 18/030,681 (reference application).
Claims 14-16, 20-28, and 30-32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15-17, 19-20, and 24-33 of copending Application No. 18/030,655 (reference application).
Claims 14-16, 20-28, and 30-32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15-16, 18, 20, 23, and 25-32 of copending Application No. 18/030,670 (reference application).
Claims 14-16, 20-28, and 30-32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-18, 20, 24-32, and 34-37 of copending Application No. 18/030,674 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of each of the copending applications are directed to substantially similar subject matter and any difference would have been obvious. Claim 16 of the copending 18/030,681 requiring a HIGH LOAD CAPACITY type renders obvious LI ≥ LI’ + 1 wherein LI’ being a load index of an EXTRA LOAD tire having a same size in accordance with standard ETRTO 2019 required by the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 14-16, 20-27, and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirotte et al. (US 2015/0202924) in view of Narahara (US 5,505,242), at least one of: Continental (https://www.continental.com/en/press/press-releases/2021-01-21-load-index-code/), Murata (US 2010/0212795), and Yukawa (US 2009/0277551), and Yoshimi (US 2012/0247639).
Regarding claims 14-16, 20, and 26, FIG. 6 teaches a tire-rim assembly wherein the tire for a passenger vehicle comprising a crown, two beads, two sidewalls, a carcass reinforcement, a crown reinforcement, and a tread (FIG.3 and [0002]).
As to limitations related to the rim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tire of Pirotte et al. mounted on a rim having a rim width code equal to a measuring rim width code for a tire size defined according to standard minus 0.5 because Narahara teaches a tire mounted on a rim of a smaller width than the standard rim to specification by ½ inches for bruise resistance to the tire (col. 2 , lines 15-25).
Pirotte et al. teaches a tire having a load index LI lying in the range between 65 and 105 and satisfying the following inequality:
OD/SW > -.00082641 LI2 + 0.11266 LI – 0.185 (abstract).
Pirotte et al. does not recite the claimed tire sizes. However, Continental discloses a tire size of HL 245/40R19 101 Y. Murata teaches a passenger car tire size being 255/40R20 [0082]. Yukawa teaches a passenger car tire size of 245/35R20 [0022]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tire of Pirotte et al. with the claimed tire size/dimension and load because (1) Pirotte et al. teaches a tire for a passenger car vehicle having a load index L1 ranging between 65 and 105 and OD/SW > -.00082641 LI2 + 0.11266 LI – 0.185, (2) Continental, Murata, and Yukawa each teaches a known tire size for a passenger car, and (3) providing a known and suitable tire size to the tire of Pirotte et al. yields predictable results.
Continental teaches HL (HIGH LOAD CAPACITY) tire size 245/40R19 101 Y which satisfies Pirotte et al.’s load rating and OD/SW relationship; H = 245 x 40/ 100 = 98 and H/LI = 98/101 = 0.97,
Murata teaches a tire size of 255/40R20 having SW = 255 mm, OD = 711 mm, and OD/SW = 711/255 ≈ 2.8. Pirotte et al. teaches for a load capacity of LI =104, OD/SW > 2.6. Murata teaches a tire size for a passenger vehicle which satisfies Pirotte et al. requirement of OD/SW. H = 255 x 40 / 100 = 102. H/LI = 102/104 = 0.98.
Yukawa teaches a tire size of 245/35R20 having SW = 245 mm, OD = 681 mm, and OD/SW = 681/245 ≈ 2.8. Pirotte et al. teaches for a load capacity of LI = 105, OD/SW > 2.5. Yukawa teaches a tire size for a passenger vehicle which satisfies Pirotte et al. requirement of OD/SW. H = 245 x 35 / 100 = 85.75. H/LI = 85.75/105 ≈ 0.82.
As to the claimed ratio of T2/A, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tire of Pirotte et al. with 0.90 ≤ T2/A ≤ 1.00 and 0.93 ≤ T2/A ≤ 1.00 because FIG. 3 of Pirotte et al. illustrates the narrowest working layer 90 and a bead portion, FIG. 6 of Pirotte et al. shows the tire mounted on the rim; such that, Pirotte et al.’s tire should necessarily satisfy the claimed relationship.
FIG. 3 of Pirotte et al. teaches a single carcass layer but is silent to the claimed reinforcing elements of the single carcass layer. Yoshimi, directed to the same field of endeavor of passenger car tires, teaches a carcass including one or more carcass plies [0012] reinforced with polyester cords (i.e. organic fiber/textile fiber) wherein TABLE 1 teaches several examples of the thickness of the carcass cord (diameter) being 0.77 mm, 0.78 mm, 0.80 mm, and 0.81 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tire of Pirotte et al. with carcass cords having a diameter ≤ 1.10 mm because Yoshimi teaches carcass cords having a diameter value; such as, 0.77 mm, 0.78 mm, 0.80 mm, and 0.81 mm and providing a suitable diameter for the same tire constituent of the same type of tire yields predictable results.
As to the claimed SW and T2 relationship (last two lines of claim 16), this claimed relationship would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because FIG. 3 of Pirotte et al. illustrates a proportional relationship between the narrowest working layer 90 (T2) and tire width (SW) and Continental, Murata, and Yukawa each teaches a known tire size having a tire width.
Regarding claim 21, Pirotte et al. is silent to the inflation pressure being from 200 kPa to 350 kPa; however, this inflation pressure in the passenger vehicle tire of Pirotte et al. would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because [0036] of Pirotte teaches the conditions of use of the tire is defined by the ETRTO standard including the inflation pressure, Murata teaches a tire for a passenger car mounted on a rim under an inner pressure of 230 kPa [0083]; alternatively, Yukawa teaches a tire for passenger car mounted on a rim and inflated to an internal pressure of 200 kPa [0037].
Regarding claims 22-24 and 30, see [0038] of Pirotte et al. The reinforcing elements orientated circumferentially and spirally wound render obvious an angle of less than or equal to 10 degrees.
Regarding claim 25, Pirotte et al. teaches a radial carcass and refer to [0060] of Yukawa.
Regarding claim 27, see FIG. 3 of Pirotte et al.
Regarding claims 31-32, refer to the rejection of claim 16. Pirotte et al. does not recite: a carcass reinforcement comprising first and second carcass layers, each first and second carcass layer being delimited axially by two axial edges of each first and second carcass layer, and textile carcass filamentary reinforcement element of each first and second carcass layer, each textile carcass filamentary reinforcing element of each first and second carcass layer having a diameter D1 and D2 respectively such that D1 and D2 ≤ 0.90 mm. However, Yoshimi, directed to the same field of endeavor of passenger car tires, teaches a carcass including one or more carcass plies [0012] reinforced with polyester cords (i.e. organic fiber/textile fiber) wherein TABLE 1 teaches several examples of the thickness of the carcass cord (claimed diameter) being 0.77 mm, 0.78 mm, 0.80 mm, and 0.81 mm. Yoshimi explicitly contemplates two or more carcasses [0020]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide first and second carcass layers in the tire of Pirotte et al. wherein the carcass cords of each layer has a diameter of D1 and D2 ≤ 0.90 mm because Yoshimi teaches two carcass layers and carcass cords having a diameter value; such as, 0.77 mm, 0.78 mm, 0.80 mm, and 0.81 mm and providing known carcass configuration and a suitable diameter for the same tire constituent of the same type of tire yields predictable results.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirotte et al. (US 2015/0202924) in view of Narahara (US 5,505,242), at least one of: Continental (https://www.continental.com/en/press/press-releases/2021-01-21-load-index-code/), Murata (US 2010/0212795), and Yukawa (US 2009/0277551), and Yoshimi (US 2012/0247639), as applied to claim 16, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0324582).
Regarding claim 32, Pirotte et al. is silent to each axial end of the single carcass layer arranged radially on an inside of each radially outer end of each circumferential reinforcing element of each bead. However, providing this claimed feature in the tire of Pirotte et al. would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Kim et al. demonstrates a pneumatic radial tire for a passenger car comprising a carcass layer with turn up portions each terminating within a height of a bead core is well-known (FIG. 4, reference character 31, and [0017]) and providing known carcass configuration for the same type of tires yields predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are moot the new ground of rejection applied in this office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENDRA LY whose telephone number is (571)270-7060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-5:00PM.
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 B 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.
/KENDRA LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749