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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2-5, 13, and 14 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on March 7, 2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group IIIa, claims 1, 6-9, and 12 in the replies filed on July 3, 2025 and February 18, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 1 as amended is now patentable. This is not found persuasive for the reasons in paragraphs 14 and 15 below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10 and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on August 6, 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the lines are not all sufficiently dense and dark and uniformly thick and well-defined (37 C.F.R. 1.84(l)) (spotty lead lines, axis lines, and measurement lines impede legibility). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specifically, (l) Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
( see MPEP 608.02(V)).
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the substitute abstract is not on a separate sheet apart from any other text (37 C.F.R. 1.72(b) and 1.52(b)(4)). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The amendment filed June 13, 2023 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: a) the added incorporation by reference to the international application and the foreign priority document was made subsequent to the filing date of the international application, which is the effective filing date of this national stage application, and therefore constitutes new matter (see MPEP 608.01(p)(I)(B) last paragraph), and b) there is no support in the original disclosure for the added last paragraph.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6-9, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1 to correct a claim rewriting error applicant should restore the period at the end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The structural elongation, elongation at break, and tensile Young’s modulus of the claimed “extensible” metal transverse reinforcing elements and “extensible” metal hooping reinforcing elements are defined in specification paragraphs 0022-0023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 6-9, and 12 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.
In claim 1, to provide proper antecedent basis, applicant should amend the claim such that in line 7 before “comprising” is inserted -- each -- and in line 12 before “comprising” is inserted -- each -- .
In claim 9 lines 8-9, to provide proper antecedent basis, applicant should change “for the crown reinforcement” to -- of the single crown reinforcement -- .
In claim 12, to clarify that in this context “any” means -- every -- (otherwise puncture resistance advantage not achieved, specification paragraph 0040), applicant should amend the claim such that in line 2 “any” is changed to -- every -- and in line 3 “any” is changed to -- every -- .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 6-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 of copending Application No. 18/266,928 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any angle value within the range of copending claims 2 and 4 including the 5° value absent unexpected results and to combine the features of the dependent claims. As to claim 9, the number of possible alternative placements of the 5° layer with respect to the three working layers in copending claim 4 is sufficiently small that one of ordinary skill in the art would have at once envisaged every alternative including the ones where it is not radially outside the three working layers in copending claim 4 (see MPEP 2144.08(II)(A)(4)(a)).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims1, 6-9, and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 8, and 10 of copending Application No. 18/266,928 in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0251497 A1 cited by applicant. It is well known to include the instantly claimed at least one hooping layer as the radially innermost crown layer(s) of such tires in order to improve durability, as evidenced for example by US ‘497 (Fig. 1 (sole), paragraphs 0008-0011, 0025-0030, 0032-0033, 0037-0045, 0049-0052, 0057, 0060-0063, 0065-0066); it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide in the copending claim tire such well-known radially innermost at least one hooping layer in order to improve durability. As to claims 9 and 12, it is also well known to include the instantly claimed outer transverse reinforcing layer as a widest protective radially outermost crown layer of such tires in order to improve durability, as evidenced for example by US ‘497 (see above); it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide in the copending claim tire such well-known widest radially outermost outer transverse reinforcing layer in order to improve durability.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Upon reconsideration, the extensible metal reinforcing elements in US Patent Application Publication 2017/0087939 A1 cited by applicant do not necessarily meet the structural elongation, elongation at break, and Young’s modulus limitations required by instant claim 1. Published PCT Application 2020/161404 A1 discloses a radial tire similar to the claimed tire but the reference is silent as to whether the metal transverse reinforcing elements in working plies 46, 48 are extensible like the metal transverse reinforcing elements in protective layer 42 (the only protective layer required) and the metal hooping reinforcing elements in hooping layers 52 and 54, and US Patent Application Publication 2016/0152082 A1 is an example of the prior art extensible metal tire reinforcing elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrienne C. Johnstone whose telephone number is (571)272-1218. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1PM-5PM.
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.
ADRIENNE C. JOHNSTONE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1749
Adrienne Johnstone /ADRIENNE C. JOHNSTONE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 June 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights