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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 15-16, 18, 20, 23, and 25-32 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 15-16, 18, 20, 23, and 25-32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-16, 20-28, and 30-32 of copending Application No. 18/030,661 (reference application).
Claims 15-16, 18, 20, 23, and 25-32 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 15-16, 18, 20, 23, and 25-32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-18, 21, 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 15, 18, 20, 23, and 25-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirotte et al. (US 2015/0202924) in view of Yukawa (US 2009/0277551) and Miyazaki et al. (US 2002/0017351).
Regarding claims 15 and 23, Pirotte et al. teaches a tire for a passenger vehicle comprising a crown, two beads, two sidewalls, a single carcass reinforcement, a crown reinforcement [0038], and a tread (FIG.3 and [0002]).
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 specific tire size and load. However, 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 Pirotte et al. with the claimed tire size, dimensions, and load capacity because 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, Yukawa discloses a known tire size of 245/35R20 [0022] and providing a known and suitable tire size for a passenger car vehicle tire of Pirotte et al. yields predictable results.
Pirotte et al. teaches OD/SW > -.00082641 LI2 + 0.11266 LI – 0.185 where LI may be up to 105 and OD/SW > 2.5.
Yukawa et al. teaches a tire size of 245/35R20. SW = 245 mm, OD = 681 mm, and OD/SW = 681/245 ≈ 2.8. H = 245 x 35 / 100 = 85.75 mm.
Pirotte et al. teaches a tire size which satisfies the OD/SW inequality should have a load capacity between 65 and 105. H/LI = 85.75/105 ≈ 0.82
Providing the tire of Pirotte with a tire size of 245/35R20 and a load capacity of up to 105 would inherently satisfy a load index of 98 required by claim 23 and the claimed formula LI ≥ LI’ + 1. LI’ for 245/35R20 = 95
Pirotte et al. is silent to the single carcass layer having:
Each axial end of the single carcass layer is situated with respect each respective circumferential reinforcing element such that each axial end of the single carcass layer is both radially spaced apart from each respective circumferential reinforcing element and arranged at a radial distance less than or equal to 30 mm from a radially inner end of each respective circumferential reinforcing element and
carcass textile filamentary reinforcing element comprise an assembly of at least two multifilament plies, the at least two multifilament plies have a thread count configured such that a total thread count of the assembly of the at least two multifilament plies is greater than or equal to 475 tex.
However, providing the claimed carcass reinforcement 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 FIG. 3 of Pirotte et al. teaches a tire cross section having a section height and a height of the axial ends of the carcass layer being sufficiently short, Yukawa teaches a tire size of 245/35R20 wherein the section height of the tire is 85.75 mm, and Miyazaki teaches a pneumatic tire comprising a carcass ply [0019] wherein the carcass ply is reinforced with organic fiber cords [0037] with a total denier number D of 2,000 to 4,500 deniers (222.2-500 tex) [0045] and discloses an exemplary cord construction of 1500d/2 (TABLE 1 and TABLE 2) (means two multifilament yarns wound together) and providing known carcass configuration and dimensions for the same type of tire yields predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, see FIG. 3 of Pirotte et al.
Regarding claim 20, Pirotte et al. teaches a radial carcass and refer to [0060] of Yukawa.
Regarding claims 25-28, 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 29, see FIG. 6 of Pirotte et al.
Regarding claim 30, 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 a ratio 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.
Regarding claims 31-32, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the mounted assembly of Pirotte et al. to a passenger vehicle since Pirotte et al. teaches a tire for a passenger vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: LI’ for Yukawa’s tire size of 245/35R20 = 95. When LI = LI’ + 1 = 95 +1 = 96, Pirotte et al. requires OD/SW > 3.0. When LI’ + 4 = 95 + 4 = 99, Pirotte et al. requires OD/SW > 2.9. However, Yukawa’s tire has OD/SW = 681/245 ≈ 2.8 which fails to satisfy Pirotte et al.’s teaching.
Accordingly, the prior art of record fails to render obvious LI’+1 ≤ LI ≤ LI+4 in combination with all the limitation of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented 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