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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 16, 18-21, and 24-33 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 16, 18-21, and 24-33 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 16, 18-21, and 24-33 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 16, 18-21, and 24-33 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. 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 each of the copending applications renders obvious a tire being a HIGH LOAD CAPACITY type required in claim 16 of 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 16, 18-20, and 24-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirotte et al. (US 2015/0202924) in view of 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 et al. (US 2014/0238571), and Iwamura (US 5,529,107).
Regarding claims 16, 18, 24, and 30, Pirotte et al. teaches a 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]).
For claim 16, the limitation: “the tire is inflated to a pressure from 200 kPa to 350 kPa” relates to intended use because claim 16 is directed to a tire and does not require a tire mounted on a rim or a tire-rim assembly. Claim 16 merely requires the tire having the capability to be inflated to a pressure from 200 kPa to 350 kPa.
FIG. 6 teaches the tire of Pirotte et al. mounted on a rim but is silent to the inflation pressure being from 200 kPa to 350 kPa; however, this inflation pressure in the passenger vehicle tire of Pirotte 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 et al. teaches a tire for passenger car mounted on a rim and inflated to an internal pressure of 220 kPa [0093].
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 known passenger car tire size being 255/40R20 [0082]. Yukawa et al. discloses a known passenger car tire size being 245/40R19 [0088]. 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. as a HIGH LOAD CAPACITY type tire with the claimed tire size/dimension because (1) Pirotte et al. teaches a tire for 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 et al. each teaches a known tire size for passenger car vehicle, and (3) providing a known and suitable tire size for a passenger car vehicle for 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,
Yukawa et al. teaches a tire size of 245/40R19. For said tire size: SW = 245 mm, OD = 678 mm, and OD/SW = 678/245 ≈ 2.8. ETRTO Standard states said tire size for HL designation has a load index of LI = 101 which falls within the load index range of Pirotte et al. Pirotte et al. teaches OD/SW > -.00082641 LI2 + 0.11266 LI – 0.185 which means when LI =101, OD/SW > 2.7. Yukawa et al. teaches a tire size for a passenger vehicle which satisfies Pirotte et al. requirement of OD/SW. Pirotte et al. teaches a tire size which satisfies the OD/SW inequality should have a load capacity between 65 and 105.
Murata teaches a tire size of 255/40R20. For said tire size: SW = 255 mm, OD = 711 mm, and OD/SW = 711/255 ≈ 2.8. ETRTO Standard states said tire size for HL designation has a load index of LI = 104 which falls within the load index range of Pirotte et al. Pirotte et al. teaches OD/SW > -.00082641 LI2 + 0.11266 LI – 0.185 which means when LI =104, OD/SW > 2.6. Murata teaches a tire size for a passenger vehicle which satisfies Pirotte et al. requirement of OD/SW. And Pirotte et al. teaches a tire size which satisfies the OD/SW inequality should have a load capacity between 65 and 105.
The tire size 245/40R19 disclosed by Continental and Yukawa et al. has a corresponding claimed H = 245 x 40 / 100 = 98 wherein H/LI = 98/101 = 0.97. And the tire size 255/40R20 disclosed by Murata has a corresponding claimed H = 255 x 40 / 100 = 102 wherein H/LI = 102/104 = 0.98.
Pirotte et al. does not recite: “the carcass reinforcement comprises first and second carcass layers, the first carcass layer forming a winding around a circumferential reinforcing element of each bead such that an axially inner portion of the first carcass layer is arranged axially on an inside of an axially outer portion of the first carcass layer and such that each axial end of the first carcass layer is arranged radially on an outside of each circumferential reinforcing element, and each axially end of the second carcass layer is arranged radially on an inside of each axial end of the first carcass layer and is arranged axially between the axially inner portion and axially outer portion of the first carcass layer, and each first and second carcass layer extends in each sidewall and in the crown radially on an inside of the crown reinforcement, wherein in the first carcass layer and the second carcass layer each have carcass textile filamentary reinforcing elements, and each carcass textile filamentary reinforcing element of each of the first carcass layer and the second carcass layer comprises an assembly of at least two multifilament plies, the at least two multifilament plies having a thread count configured such that a total thread count of the assembly of the at least two multifilament plies is less than or equal to 475 tex”, 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. 1 of Iwamura demonstrates a pneumatic tire comprising two carcass plies wherein TABLE 1 teaches a suitable carcass cord (carcass textile filamentary reinforcing element) includes 1000 d/2 of multifilament polyester cords which has a total denier of 2000 deniers (222.2 tex) for tire weight reductions and carcass strength and the two carcass plies have turn up ends which are staggered in the tire radial direction and satisfying the claimed limitations. In other words, the claimed first carcass layer reads on the inner carcass ply 7a and the claimed second carcass layer reads on the outer carcass ply 7b of FIG. 1 of Iwamura and providing this carcass structure in the tire of Pirotte et al. would predictably yield an operable tire having a carcass structure with strength and reduction in tire weight.
Regarding claim 19, Pirotte et al. teaches a radial carcass reinforcement [0043] and Iwamura teaches a radial tire having carcass cord arranged radially is at an angle from 85-90 degrees with respect to the tire equator (col. 2, lines 35-40).
Regarding claim 20, FIG. 1 of Iwamura satisfies the claimed limitation.
Regarding claims 25-29, 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 required by claim 29.
Regarding claim 31, 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. FIG. 1 of Yukawa et al. also shows the claimed relationship.
Regarding claims 32-33, 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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirotte et al. (US 2015/0202924) in view of 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 et al. (US 2014/0238571), and Iwamura (US 5,529,107) as applied to claim 20, and further in view of JP’868 (JP 2005-193868).
Regarding claim 21, the tire of Pirotte et al. satisfying the claimed radial distance relationship would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date because Iwamura teaches a known carcass configuration suitable for passenger car tires and JP’868 teaches a known bead core for passenger car tires having a height b = 3-8 mm and providing known and suitable tire constituents for the same class of tires yield predictable results.
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