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 .
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) 11-17 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gohara (US 2019/0009621, of record) and further in view of Kishi (JP 6-206408, of record).
Gohara is directed to a tire construction, such as a heavy-duty tire construction (corresponds with claimed “commercial tire”), having regions as detailed in modified Figure 2 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
387
377
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In terms of the claimed angles, (a) an included angle between segments S2 and S3 (corresponds with claimed β2) is between 165.5 degrees and 175.5 degrees (as a function of angle γ being 4.5-14.5 degrees- see Figure 3 and Paragraph 59) and (b) an included angle between segments S3 and S4 is slightly less than a range between 207 degrees and 213 degrees (as a function of angle θ2 being 27-33 degrees and S4 being ever so slightly inclined with respect to an axial direction- Figure 3). As to an included angle between S1 and S2, said angle is greater than 180 degrees and less than 270 degrees and such fully encompasses the claimed range between 190 degrees and 225 degrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the tire of Gohara with a combination of angles as required by the claimed invention given the general ranges detailed above and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for said combination.
In such an instance, though, Gohara fails to quantitatively disclose a relationship between the width of S4 and a combined width of segments S2, S3, and S4. Kishi is similarly directed to a tire construction comprising a bead seat defined by an inclined region 9c and a substantially axial section 9t adjacent a bead toe. Kishi further teaches a ratio equal to or greater than 0.2 between width w of section 9t and width W of the entire bead seat (combination of 9t and 9c) in order to optimize bead toe rigidity and prevent toe breakage during assembly (Paragraphs 10-12). This range fully encompasses the claimed range between 0.20 and 0.35. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form segment S4 of Gohara with a width in accordance to the claimed invention, as taught by Kishi, for the benefits detailed above.
Lastly, regarding claim 11, Kishi teaches exemplary tire constructions having an overall width W (corresponds with claimed B) of 28 mm or 32 mm (Table 1) and such falls with the claimed range between 20 mm and 45 mm.
Regarding claim 12, a distance between N and H (defines segment S2) is between 8 mm and 18 mm (Paragraph 58). Using the overall widths taught by Kishi (28 mm or 32 mm), it reasons that a wide variety of tire constructions taught by Gohara, as modified by Kishi, would have a quantitative relationship in accordance to the claimed invention (e.g. using a distance of 13 mm (middle of disclosed range by Gohara) and the exemplary widths W, ratios of approximately 0.40 and 0.46 result).
With respect to claims 13 and 14, the modified tire of Gohara has essentially the same contour as that of the claimed invention and as such, it is seen to satisfy the claimed arrangement.
Regarding claim 15, an angle at toe 28 is approximately 90 degrees.
As to claim 16, a portion of surface 50 on an inside of the tire that extends up to a height that corresponds with a radially inner edge of the bead core constitutes the claimed end section.
With respect to claim 17, based on the curvature of inner surface 50 (convex in reference to a tire inner cavity), angles between the tangents and the fourth segment (S4 in figure above) would decrease when moving radially outward from a bead toe 28.
As to claim 19, straight intersections (non-rounded) and smooth or rounded intersections of adjacent segments are extensively used in tire constructions in general and either conventional arrangement would have been well within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect rounded corners to demonstrate an extremely small radius of curvature as claimed since they constitute a small transition region between adjacent segments.
Regarding claim 20, bead core 21 of Gohara is formed with steel wires (Paragraph 30).
With respect to claim 21, the claims are directed to a tire construction and limitations pertaining to the rim design fail to further define the structure of the claimed tire article.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 18 and 22-30 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed April 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the external angle at a junction between two adjoining segments (measured on the outside of the contour) corresponds geometrically to 180 degrees plus the angular deviation at the junction, not to the deviation angle itself. Additionally, Applicant states that the external angle at Gohara’s inflection point N would be approximately 184.5 degrees to 194.5 degrees and such a range does not overlap with Applicant’s claimed range of 165 degrees and 175 degrees. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. An angle between portion S2 and portion S3 is in fact defined by the following equation: 180°-angle γ. This is particularly evident when looking at modified Figure 3 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
572
670
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This is identical to angle β2 in the claimed invention in which it is measured on an external surface of the tire and thus, the combination of angle β2 and angle γ in the tire of Gohara equals 180 degrees. Again, the term “external” appears to correspond with an external surface of the tire in Applicant’s claimed invention and as such, the angle identified above is seen to satisfy the claimed invention.
As to the distance W, Applicant contends that the measurement bases differ fundamentally and the threshold condition for that framework is not satisfied and no prima facie case exists. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As depicted in the modified figure in paragraph 3 above, an inner bead surface of the tire includes a substantially flat surface at a bead toe. This region corresponds with region S4 of the claimed invention. In terms of an axial width of such a flat region at the bead toe, Kishi teaches a similar tire construction in which the bead base has a multitude of angles, including a substantially flat portion at the bead toe. Kishi further states that such a substantially flat portion has a width w greater than 0.2 times a total width W of the bead base in order to optimize bead toe rigidity and prevent toe breakage during assembly. It is emphasized that width w in Kishi is directly analogous to the flat portion at the bead toe in Gohara. Additionally, distance B in Applicant’s claimed invention is described as corresponding with portions that are in contact with the bead seat surface and such directly corresponds to the width W in Kishi (described as being the total width of the bead base).
Conclusion
6. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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 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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 May 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights