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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16, which is dependent from claim 11, recites the limitation "the end section" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17, which is dependent from recites the limitation "the end section" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With respect to claim 19, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
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).
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
476
464
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 an 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
Claim 18 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.
Conclusion
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 January 29, 2026