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 Objections
Claims 1, 6, 11, and 20-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 16-17 and claim 20, lines 14-15 and claim 21, lines 18-19 recites “the outer diameter Dt is 622 or more, and 640 mm or less,”. The first comma occurrence is an obvious punctuation error and is required to be corrected to recite: --the outer diameter Dt is 622 or more and 640 mm or less,--.
Claim 6, lines 2-4 is already defined in claim 1 and is redundant; deletion is required.
Claim 11, lines 3-8 is already defined in claim 1 and is redundant; deletion is required.
Formula 1 of claim 20 and Formula 7 of claim 21 recite “Dt2” which is a typographical error and is required to be corrected to --Dt2--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13-14, 16, 22-24, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The last line of claims 1 and 26-27 recites “tan δ/E* is 0.010 or less” contains new matter because the original specification dated 06/23/2023 fails to reasonably support the entire range of 0.010 or less. For example: where is the support for tan δ/E* = 0.001. [0030] of the original specification states (tan δ/E*) is preferably 0.002 or more and 0.017 or less. [0181] recites “(tan δ/E*) is 0.002 or more and 0.017 or less”. The instant application discloses a lower limit for (tan δ/E*) of 0.002.
Claims 23 and 28 recites “the cross-sectional width Wt is 175 mm or less” which contains new matter because the original specification dated 06/23/2023 fails to reasonably support the entire range of 175 mm or less. For example: where is the support for Wt = 75 mm ? [0048] of the original specification states a specific cross-sectional width Wt (mm) is, for example, preferably 115 mm or more. The instant application discloses a lower limit for Wt of 115 mm.
The remaining claims are rejected because they are dependent claims of a rejected claim applied above.
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 1, 3-6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoemaker (US 4,811,771) in view of Assaad (US 5,858,137) and Miyazaki (US 2014/0124113).
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 8, FIG. 3 of Shoemaker teaches a passenger car tire comprising a tread and pair of belt layers 14 and having an aerodynamic profile (AP) with:
a low aspect ratio of 40 to 45 (abstract),
a bead heel diameter of 18 to 20 inches (abstract),
and a maximum cross-sectional tire width of about 7.2 inches (see claims of Shoemaker et al.),
a tire size of P185/45R18 (col. 2, lines 15+) has an outer diameter of about 624 mm and a cross-sectional width of 185 mm
(Dt2 x π/4)/ Wt ≈ 1653.05.
Shoemaker is silent to a reinforcing cord and the coating rubber which forms a belt layer. However, Assaad teaches a pneumatic radial tire comprising at least two belt plies reinforced with steel monofilaments wherein the steel monofilaments are arranged to have about 25-60 ends per inch, which is 49 ends/5 cm to 118 ends/5 cm (abstract) and Miyazaki teaches a rubber composition used to coat steel cords forming belt plies in a pneumatic tire for a passenger car [0152], [0174], TABLE 3. TABLE 3 of Miyazaki discloses a rubber composition for steel cord topping with E* target is 6.0-9.0 MPa and tan δ ≤ 0.110 ; such as, 0.081 (example 29).
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 Shoemaker with a belt layer comprising:
reinforcing cords that are monofilament cords arranged in 50 cords/5 cm or more,
coated with a rubber composition having an E* within a range of 10.5 MPa or less,
tan δ/E* is 0.002-0.010 (claims 1 and 8), and
[(tanδ/E*)/e] x 1000 ≤ 0.12 (claim 6)
because Assaad teaches each belt ply includes steel monofilaments embedded in rubber that are arranged to have about 25-60 ends per inch, which is 49 ends/5 cm to 118 ends/5 cm and Miyazaki teaches a rubber composition for steel cord topping of a belt layer of pneumatic tire having an E* target within a range of 6.0-9.0 MPa and tan δ ≤ 0.110 ; such as, 0.081 (example 29) to obtain good cord adhesion.
For example:
tan δ/E* = 0.081 / 9.0 = 0.009.
[(tanδ/E*)/e] x 1000 ≈ [(0.081 / 9.0)/118] x 1000 ≈ 0.076.
Regarding claim 3, the tire of Shoemaker satisfying 1700 ≤ (Dt2 x π/4)/Wt would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because
a low aspect ratio of 40 to 45,
a bead heel diameter of 18 to 20 inches, and
a maximum cross-sectional tire width of about 7.2 inches with a cross section width of 185 mm (185/45R18).
For example:
a tire size of 185/40R20 has a Dt = 656 mm and Wt = 185 mm
(Dt2 x π/4)/ Wt ≈ 1826.95
Regarding claim 4, providing the tire of Shoemaker with the claimed monofilament diameter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since Assaad et al. teaches the monofilaments having a diameter of from 0.25 to 0.40 mm (abstract) and providing known dimensions of steel cords for the belt layer yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, providing the tire of Shoemaker with the claimed number e of the monofilament cord would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Assad teaches in TABLE 1: Example tire A that EPI for the monofilament is 44 which is 86 ends/5 cm.
Regarding claim 10, Shoemaker teaches two belt layers but is silent to angles of the cords in each belt layer. However, 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 Shoemaker with the angle formed by the cords in each belt layer in the tread portion at the tire circumferential direction is 65° or less because Assaad teaches the belt layer includes two belt plies reinforced with steel monofilaments inclined at an angle of 10-30° with respect to the equatorial plane.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoemaker (US 4,811,771) in view of Assaad (US 5,858,137) and Miyazaki (US 2014/0124113), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Astaix et al. (US 2016/0193879).
Regarding claim 9, while Shoemaker is silent to the claimed average thickness, Astaix et al. teaches in FIG. 2 a belt structure having a thickness Ez2(1) between 0.35 and 0.60 mm [0061]. 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 passenger car tire of Shoemaker with at least two belt layers wherein the average distance D between cords in each belt layer in the tread portion is 0.6 mm or less because Astaix et al., directed to the same field of endeavor of pneumatic radial tire for a passenger car, teaches a belt structure including at least two belt layers wherein thickness Ez2(1) is between 0.35 and 0.60 mm and providing a belt structure for the same type of tire yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, providing the tire of Shoemaker with the claimed formula would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Assaad et al. teaches the steel monofilaments are arranged to have about 25-60 ends per inch, which is 49 ends/5 cm to 118 ends/5 cm (abstract), Miyazaki teaches a rubber composition used to coat steel cords forming belt plies in a pneumatic tire for a passenger car wherein TABLE 3 discloses the rubber composition has E* target is 6.0-9.0 MPa and tan δ ≤ 0.110 ; such as, 0.081 (example 29), and Astaix et al., directed to the same field of endeavor of pneumatic radial tire for a passenger car, teaches a belt structure including at least two belt layers wherein thickness Ez2(1) is between 0.35 and 0.60 mm. For Example: (tanδ/E*) x D x 1000 ≈ (0.081 / 9.0) x 0.60 x 1000 ≈ 5.4
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoemaker (US 4,811,771) in view of Assaad (US 5,858,137) and Miyazaki (US 2014/0124113), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Asano (US 5,591,280) and Cortes (US 2002/0092591).
Regarding claim 13, Shoemaker does not recite the claimed ratio (L80/L0) is 0.2 to 0.7. However, providing a tread pattern comprising a circumferential groove satisfying the claimed ratio in the tire of Shoemaker would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since Asano teaches a tire of passenger car wherein the groove width GW1 of circumferential groove is not less than 6 mm and not more than 0.12 times the tread width at the groove top and a groove depth GD1 is not less than 10 mm and not more than 0.16 times the tread width (col. 3, lines 14-27) and Cortes teaches a tire comprising a circumferential groove with an angle of the groove wall with respect to the tread surface is greater than 90 degrees and less than 135 degrees (figure 2-4, [0015]) to minimize mud, snow, small rocks, and other debris trapped in the grooves.
Claims 14 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoemaker (US 4,811,771) in view of Assaad (US 5,858,137) and Miyazaki (US 2014/0124113), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Asano (US 5,591,280), Cortes (US 2002/0092591), and Kakumu et al. (US 5,309,963).
Regarding claims 14 and 22, Assaad is silent to a tread pattern. However, providing the tire Shoemaker with a tread pattern satisfying “the total cross-sectional area of the plurality of circumferential grooves is 10% or more to 30% or less of the cross-sectional area of the tread portion” (claim 14) and “the total volume of the plurality of lateral grooves is 2.0% or more to 5.0% or less of the volume of the tread portion” (claim 22) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since a tire tread comprising circumferential grooves and lateral grooves wherein the depth of the circumferential grooves and the lateral grooves are less than the thickness of the tread and the width of the circumferential grooves and the lateral grooves decreases gradually along the depth of the respective groove are well-known in the tire art as evidenced by Asano (col. 3, lines 14-27 and FIG. 1) and Cortes ([0014]-[0018] and FIG. 1-FIG. 5) and Kakumu et al. teaches a pneumatic tire comprising a tread pattern including circumferential grooves and lateral grooves and discloses ST/S = 0.15-0.25, Sg/SG = 0.33 to 0.53 and TABLE 2 discloses a known circumferential groove area rate is 0.143 (14.3%) for the benefits of optimal tire performance in wet resistance, riding comfort, noise, and steering stability (col. 3, lines 20-55); accordingly, the expected total cross-sectional area of the plurality of circumferential grooves is less than 14.3% and the expected total volume of the plurality of lateral groove is less than a range of about 4.7% to 7.6% (NOTE: 4.7% = 14.3% x 0.33 and 7.6% = 14.3% x 0.53).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoemaker (US 4,811,771) in view of Assaad (US 5,858,137) and Miyazaki (US 2014/0124113), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Tsuda et al. (US 5,293,918).
Regarding claim 16, Shoemaker is silent to at least one of the lateral grooves is a lateral groove in which groove width/groove depth is 0.50 to 0.80. However, Tsuda et al. directed to the same field of endeavor of pneumatic passenger car tire teaches lateral groove have a width of 4 mm and the depth of 7 mm (column 10, lines 10-21). Accordingly, 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 Shoemaker with at least one of the lateral grooves is a lateral groove having a groove width/groove depth ratio of 0.50 to 0.80 since Tsuda et al. teaches a passenger car tire having a tread with lateral grooves having a width of 4 mm and a depth of 7 mm (4/7 ≈ 0.57) and providing known numerical dimensions of lateral grooves of the same type of tire yields predictable results.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwayama (US 2014/0138003, of record) in view of Assaad (US 5,858,137) and Miyazaki (US 2014/0124113).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6, 8, and 23-24, Kuwayama teaches a pneumatic radial tire for a passenger car comprising a tread and belt. TABLE 1 lists exemplary tire sizes and SW/OD ratio (cross-sectional width/outer diameter ratio).
TABLE 1: Example tire 2 lists 155/65R18 with SW/OD = 0.24.
Wt = 155 mm (claim 23)
Dt = 155/0.24 ≈ 646 mm
(Dt2 x ϖ/4)/ Wt ≈ 2114 (claims 1, 3, and 24)
While Kuwayama teaches a tire includes a belt structure ([0058]), it does not specify a belt layer including reinforcing cords composed of monofilament cords arranged in a tire width direction at 50 cords/5 cm or more in a cross section of the belt layer in the tire radial direction. However, Assaad teaches a pneumatic radial tire comprising at least two belt plies reinforced with steel monofilaments wherein the steel monofilaments are arranged to have about 25-60 ends per inch, which is 49 ends/5 cm to 118 ends/5 cm (abstract) and Miyazaki teaches a rubber composition used to coat steel cords forming belt plies in a pneumatic tire for a passenger car [0152], [0174], TABLE 3. TABLE 3 of Miyazaki discloses a rubber composition for steel cord topping with E* target is 6.0-9.0 MPa and tan δ ≤ 0.110 ; such as, 0.081 (example 29).
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 Kuwayama with a belt layer comprising:
reinforcing cords that are monofilament cords, arranged in 50 cords/5 cm or more,
coated with a rubber composition having an E* within a range of 10.5 MPa or less,
tan δ/E* is 0.002-0.010 (claims 1 and 8), and
[(tanδ/E*)/e] x 1000 ≤ 0.12 (claim 6)
because Assaad teaches each belt ply includes steel monofilaments embedded in rubber that are arranged to have about 25-60 ends per inch, which is 49 ends/5 cm to 118 ends/5 cm and Miyazaki teaches a rubber composition for steel cord topping of a belt layer of pneumatic tire having an E* target within a range of 6.0-9.0 MPa and tan δ ≤ 0.110 ; such as, 0.081 (example 29) to obtain good cord adhesion.
For Example:
tan δ/E* = 0.081 / 9.0 = 0.009.
[(tanδ/E*)/e] x 1000 ≈ [(0.081 / 9.0)/118] x 1000 ≈ 0.076.
Regarding claim 4, providing the tire of Kuwayama with the claimed monofilament diameter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since Assaad et al. teaches the monofilaments having a diameter of from 0.25 to 0.40 mm (abstract) and providing known dimensions of steel cords for the belt layer yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, providing the tire of Kuwayama with the claimed number e of the monofilament cord would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Assad teaches in TABLE 1: Example tire A that EPI for the monofilament is 44 which is 86 ends/5 cm.
Regarding claim 10, Kuwayama teaches two belt layers but is silent to angles of the cords in each belt layer. However, 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 Shoemaker with the angle formed by the cords in each belt layer in the tread portion at the tire circumferential direction is 65° or less because Assaad teaches the belt layer includes two belt plies reinforced with steel monofilaments inclined at an angle of 10-30° with respect to the equatorial plane.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 20-21, and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwayama’706 (US 2022/0001706) in view of Miyazaki (US 2014/0124113).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 8, 20-21, and 23-28, Kuwayama’706 teaches a pneumatic radial tire for a passenger car comprising a tread portion and a belt layer having reinforcing cords (FIG. 2 and [0057], [0064]-[0067]). [0071] teaches the cord of the circumferential belt layer may be monofilament cord and the number of ends in the circumferential belt layer is in a range from 20-60/50 mm (20-60/5 cm) which overlaps with the claimed range of 50 cords/5 cm. [0064] and [0071] teaches the belt layers and the circumferential belt layers each include a cord layer coated with rubber.
While Kuwayama’706 does not recite:
1500 ≤ (Dt2 x ϖ/4)/ Wt (claim 1),
1700 ≤ (Dt2 x ϖ/4)/ Wt (claim 3),
2075 ≤ (Dt2 x ϖ/4)/ Wt (claims 21 and 24-25),
A cross-sectional width Wt is at least 115 mm and less than 210, the aspect ratio is at least 40% and at most 50%, and the outer diameter Dt is 622 mm or more and 640 mm or less (claims 1 and 21), and
The cross-sectional width Wt is at least 115 mm and less than 175 mm, the aspect ratio is at least 40% and at most 50%, and the outer diameter Dt is 622 or more, and 640 mm or less (claims 20, 23, and 28),
these claimed features in a tire of Kuwayama’706 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Kuwayama’706 teaches in [0041] a tire cross-sectional width SW of less than 165 mm and a ratio of SW/OD ≤ 0.26, [0043] teaches the sectional width SW in a range of 105 mm-155 mm (renders obvious a SW = 155 mm), outer diameter, OD in a range of 500 mm–800 mm, a rim diameter in a range of 18 inches-22 inches (renders obvious a rim diameter of 19 inches), and an aspect ratio in a range of 45 to 65 (renders obvious an aspect ratio of 50); [0044] discloses example tire sizes such as 155/55R19 and states the disclosed tire sizes are not limited (renders obvious changing the aspect ratio to 50 to arrive 155/50R19, which is same tire size used by the instant application thereby satisfying all the claimed features identified above.
And, 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 Kuwayama with a belt layer comprising reinforcing cords coated with
a rubber composition having an E* within a range of 10.5 MPa or less (claims 1 and 21),
tan δ/E* is 0.002-0.010 (claims 1, 8, and 26-27),
a rubber composition containing 55 parts by mass or less of carbon black with respect to 100 parts by mass of the rubber component (claims 20-21)
because and Miyazaki teaches a rubber composition for steel cord topping of a belt layer of pneumatic tire having an E* target within a range of 6.0-9.0 MPa and tan δ ≤ 0.110 ; such as, 0.081 (example 29) to obtain good cord adhesion and TABLE 3 of Miyazaki teaches several examples where the loading amount of carbon black is within the claimed range.
tan δ/E* = 0.081 / 9.0 = 0.009.
Regarding claim 10, 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 Kuwayama’706 with an angle formed by the cords in a belt layer in the tread portion at the tire circumferential direction is 65° or less because [0066] of Kuwayama’706 teaches an inclination angle of the belt cord of each of the belt layers 4a 4b is preferably 10° or more with respect to the tire circumferential direction, particularly preferably in a range form 55° to 85° with respect to the tire circumferential direction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented in this office action.
Conclusion
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 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