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Claims 16, 18, and 20-27 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 17, 2025 (see paragraph 2 of the Office action mailed August 14, 2025).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Application 2000-301913 A in view of Pneumatic Tire and optionally further in view of Published PCT Application WO 2017/103515 A1 (equivalent to US Patent Application Publication 2020/0290401 A1).
The only differences between the claimed tire and the JP ‘913 tire are the reference being silent as to the elastomer composition being based on at least one elastomer, a reinforcing filling, and a crosslinking system and the reinforced fabric being disclosed as a carcass ply (embodiments of Figs. 1-5, translation, Example 6: T=0.42 mm, W=0.85 mm, a = W/T so 1/a = 0.49 within the claimed range of 0.45-0.65, cross-sectional area = WxT = 0.36 mm2, RF=3,400 MPa (N/mm2) so breaking force = 3,400x0.36 = 1,200 N; end count = 0.75/mm so Rn=900 N/mm and p=1/end count = 1.3 mm; 0.8x(3,400/900)x1.8x(0.42)2 = 0.96 mm and 1.1x(3,400/900)x1.8x(0.42)2 = 1.3 mm, rubber is an elastomer), however it is notoriously well known to use such an elastomer composition in tires to obtain properties suitable for tires, as evidenced for example by Pneumatic Tire (pp. 29-30); it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such notoriously well-known elastomer composition as the elastomer composition in the above tire carcass ply and to also use the reinforced fabric as the clearly depicted belt plies in order to simplify manufacturing (no definition of what makes a belt ply a “working” ply in the original disclosure and so no further structure required in the claims for a belt ply to be a “working” ply). This is especially true in view of WO ‘515 which uses such a reinforced fabric as belt plies as well as the carcass (US ‘401 embodiment of Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 0001-0087, also in carcass in paragraph 0087).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Application 2000-301913 A in view of Pneumatic Tire and optionally further in view of Published PCT Application WO 2017/103515 A1 (equivalent to US Patent Application Publication 2020/0290401 A1) as applied to claims 28-29 above, and further in view of Snyder (3,850,219).
It is notoriously well known to provide the claimed hooping ply in order to improve uniformity, as evidenced for example by Snyder (embodiment of Fig. 1); it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide such a notoriously well-known hooping ply in the above tire in order to improve uniformity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 28-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Japanese Patent Application 2017-48351 A and German Patent Application 10 2013 109 360 A1 disclose tires similar to the claimed tire but are silent as to the breaking strength of the metal reinforcing elements.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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 March 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights