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
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-11 and 20 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 20, there is insufficient basis for “the majority of the yarns” in each of these claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-3, 9, 12, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 2023/0061674 A1; hereinafter “Miller”) in view of Beck et al. (US 2018/0001706 A1; hereinafter “Beck”).
Regarding claim 1, Miller discloses a non-pneumatic tire 100 comprising a rubber component 300 (paragraph [0015]) comprising at least one textile cord (“reinforcing cords” described in paragraph [0016]), wherein the cord comprises yarns (“monofilaments” described in paragraph [0016]), and wherein the yarns are chosen from one or more of aramid, polyamide, polyester, polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene naphthalate, glass fiber and carbon fiber yarns (“aramid” per paragraph [0016]).
Although Miller, in paragraph [0016], further discloses the reinforcing cords “may be suitable tire belt reinforcements”, Miller fails to expressly disclose the majority of the yarns are fused together in the cord.
Beck, however, teaches a suitable tire belt reinforcement which comprises textile cords having the majority of the yarns (paragraphs [0012] and [0018]) fused together in the textile cord “to render it relatively stiff and fret resistant” (paragraph [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one textile cord of Miller by fusing the majority of the yarns together in the cord, such as taught by Beck, with a reasonable expectation of success in rendering the cord relatively stiff and fret resistant.
Regarding claim 2, Beck further discloses the cord further comprises isocyanate and wherein the majority of the yarns are fused together by the isocyanate (paragraph [0018]; claim 21).
Regarding claim 3, Beck further discloses the cord further comprises an RFL adhesive at least partially on a surface of the cord (paragraph [0024]; claim 24).
Regarding claim 9, although Miller further discloses that the yarns can be of “other high modulus textiles” (paragraph [00116]), Miller fails to expressly disclose the other high modulus textile yarns being polyethylene terephthalate yarns.
Beck, however, teaches the use of polyethylene terephthalate yarns for the reinforcing cords (paragraph [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one textile cord of Miller by forming it of polyethylene terephthalate yarns, such as taught by Beck, as a well-known type of high modulus textiles that would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing the cords with desired and predictable material and physical properties such as high strength and durability.
Regarding claim 12, Miller discloses a non-pneumatic tire 100 comprising a circumferential tread portion 200 and a circumferential shearband 300 supporting the tread portion (Fig. 2; paragraph [0014]), wherein the shearband comprises multiple circumferential layers 320, 330, 350, 360, 370, 380, 390 and wherein at least one of said layers (e.g., 330, 360) comprises a rubber composition (paragraph [0015]) reinforced by textile cords (“reinforcing cords” described in paragraph [0016]) comprising yarns (“monofilaments” described in paragraph [0016]), wherein the yarns are chosen from one or more of aramid, polyamide, polyester, polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene naphthalate, glass fiber and carbon fiber yarns (“aramid” per paragraph [0016]).
Although Miller, in paragraph [0016], further discloses the reinforcing cords “may be suitable tire belt reinforcements”, Miller fails to expressly disclose the yarns are at least partially fused together to form the cords.
Beck, however, teaches a suitable tire belt reinforcement which comprises multiple circumferential layers 16a, 16b, 16c, 16d, wherein at least one of the layers (note layer 16d in Fig. 2) comprises a rubber composition 20 reinforced by textile cords 18 comprising yarns (paragraphs [0012] and [0018]) that are at least partially fused to together to form the textile cords “to render it relatively stiff and fret resistant” (paragraph [0014])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the textile cords of Miller by at least partially fusing together the yarns, such as taught by Beck, with a reasonable expectation of success in rendering the cord relatively stiff and fret resistant.
Regarding claim 16, Miller further discloses the shearband comprises at least two layers 320, 330, 360, 380, 390 comprising the textile cords (Fig. 2; paragraphs [0015] and [0019]).
Regarding claim 17, Miller further discloses the shearband comprises: at least one radially inner belt layer 320 comprising metal cords (“cords of steel” per paragraph [0016]) having an angle with a circumferential direction of the tire which is smaller than 2° (paragraph [0016]); at least one radially outer belt layer 390 comprising metal cords having an angle with the circumferential direction of the tire which is within a range of 10° and 40° (paragraph [0019]); and wherein the at least one of said layers comprising the textile cords is arranged between the at least one radially inner belt layer and the at least one radially outer belt layer (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Miller further discloses the shearband comprises at least two layers 330, 360 comprising the textile cords, and wherein the at least two layers are arranged between the at least one radially inner belt layer and the at least one radially outer belt layer (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Miller discloses a non-pneumatic tire 100 comprising a circumferential tread portion 200 and a circumferential shearband 300 supporting the tread portion (Fig. 2; paragraph [0014]), wherein the shearband comprises multiple circumferential layers 320, 330, 350, 360, 370, 380, 390, wherein at least one of said layers comprises a rubber composition (paragraph [0015]) reinforced by textile cords (“reinforcing cords” described in paragraph [0016]) comprising yarns (“monofilaments” described in paragraph [0016]), and wherein the yarns are chosen from one or more of polyester, polyethylene terephthalate, and polyethylene naphthalate yarns (“aramid” per paragraph [0016]).
Although Miller, in paragraph [0016], further discloses the reinforcing cords “may be suitable tire belt reinforcements”, Miller fails to expressly disclose the yarns are at least partially fused together to form the cords, wherein the cords further comprise isocyanate and wherein the majority of the yarns are fused together by the isocyanate.
Beck, however, teaches a suitable tire belt reinforcement which comprises multiple circumferential layers 16a, 16b, 16c, 16d, wherein at least one of the layers (note layer 16d in Fig. 2) comprises a rubber composition 20 reinforced by textile cords 18 comprising yarns (paragraphs [0012] and [0018]) that are at least partially fused to together to form the textile cords “to render it relatively stiff and fret resistant” (paragraph [0014]), wherein the cords further comprise isocyanate and wherein the majority of the yarns are fused together by the isocyanate (paragraph [0018]; claim 21).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the textile cords of Miller by at least partially fusing together the yarns wherein the majority of the yarns are fused together by an isocyanate of the cords, such as taught by Beck, with a reasonable expectation of success in rendering the cord relatively stiff and fret resistant.
8. Claims 4, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Beck, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reiter et al. (US 2021/0323354 A1; hereinafter “Reiter”).
Regarding claim 4, Miller, as modified by Beck, fails to expressly disclose the linear density of the yarns.
Reiter, however, teaches a reinforcement cord comprising yarns (i.e., “monofilaments”) having a linear density within a range of 800 dtex to 2200 dtex (paragraph [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cord of Miller, as modified by Beck, so that each yarn has a linear density within a range of 800 dtex to 2200 dtex, such as taught by Reiter, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing desired and predictable material and physical properties for the cord such as high durability and good strength.
Regarding claim 5, Miller, as modified by Beck, fails to expressly disclose the cord being
formed by 8 to 10 yarns twisted together to form the cord.
Reiter, however, teaches a reinforcement cord formed by 8 to 10 yarns twisted together (“1100/9 dtex” per paragraph [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cord of Miller, as modified by Beck, so that it formed by 8 to 10 yarns twisted together, such as taught by Reiter, as a well-known cord construction that would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing desired and predictable material and physical properties for the cord such as high durability and good strength.
Regarding claim 8, Miller, as modified by Beck, fails to expressly disclose the cord having a 1100/9 construction.
Reiter, however, teaches a reinforcement cord having a 1100/9 construction (“1100/9 dtex” per paragraph [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cord of Miller, as modified by Beck, so that it has a 1100/9 construction, such as taught by Reiter, as a well-known cord construction that would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing desired and predictable material and physical properties for the cord such as high durability and good strength.
9. Claims 6, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Beck, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Celik et al. (US 2021/0178818 A1; hereinafter “Celik”).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Miller, as modified by Beck, fails to expressly disclose the cord has a twist factor within a range of 1 TPI to 4 TPI.
Celik, however, teaches a reinforcement cord 31 that can have a twist factor within a range of 1 TPI to 4 TPI (i.e., 150 turns per meter per paragraph [0112]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cord of Miller, as modified by Beck, so that it has a twist factor within a range of 1 TPI to 4 TPI, such as taught by Celik, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing the cord with a desired strength and durability.
Regarding claim 13, although Miller further discloses the textile cords being arranged essentially in parallel to one another in said at least one of the layers (Abstract), Miller, as modified by Beck, fails to expressly disclose the textile cords with 1.5 EPI to 20 EPI.
Celik, however, teaches a reinforcement cord 31 that can have 1.5 EPI to 20 EPI (paragraph [0112]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cord of Miller, as modified by Beck, so that is has 1.5 EPI to 20 EPI, such as taught by Celik, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing the cord with a desired strength and durability.
10. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Beck, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reiter and Celik.
Regarding claim 7, Miller, as modified by Beck, fails to expressly disclose the cord being formed by 8 to 10 yarns twisted together and the linear density of the yarns.
Reiter, however, teaches a reinforcement cord formed by 8 to 10 yarns twisted together (“1100/9 dtex” per paragraph [0040]) and the linear density of the yarns being within a range of 800 dtex to 2200 dtex (paragraph [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cord of Miller, as modified by Beck, so that it formed by 8 to 10 yarns twisted together and each yarn has a linear density within a range of 800 dtex to 2200 dtex, such as taught by Reiter, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing desired and predictable material and physical properties for the cord such as high durability and good strength.
Miller, as modified by Beck, further fails to expressly disclose the cord has a twist factor within a range of 1 TPI to 4 TPI.
Celik, however, teaches a reinforcement cord 31 that can have a twist factor within a range of 1 TPI to 4 TPI (i.e., 150 turns per meter per paragraph [0112]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cord of Miller, as modified by Beck, so that it has a twist factor within a range of 1 TPI to 4 TPI, such as taught by Celik, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing the cord with a desired strength and durability.
11. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Beck, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakano et al. (JP 2006-192914 A; hereinafter “Nakano”).
Regarding claim 10, Miller, as modified by Beck, fails to expressly disclose the stiffness of the cord.
Nakano, however, teaches a reinforcing cord that can have a stiffness within a range of 3000 mg to 15000 mg (Abstract). Note the method by which the stiffness is determined is not afforded full patentable weight in a product claim (See MPEP 2113).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cord of Miller, as modified by Beck, so that it has a stiffness within a range of 3000 mg to 15000 mg, such as taught by Nakano, with a reasonable expectation of success in ensuring the cord provides a desired load capacity and structural stability for the tire.
12. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Beck, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fry et al. (US 2006/0005903 A1; hereinafter “Fry”).
Regarding claim 11, Miller, as modified by Beck, fails to expressly disclose the maximum diameter of the cord.
Fry, however, teaches a reinforcing cord for a non-pneumatic tire that can have a maximum diameter within a range of 1 mm to 2 mm (claim 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cord of Miller, as modified by Beck, so that it has a maximum diameter within a range of 1 mm to 2 mm, such as taught by Fry, with a reasonable expectation of success in ensuring the cord provides a desired strength and durability for the tire.
13. Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Beck, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kon et al. (US 2020/0101794 A1; hereinafter “Kon”).
Regarding claims 15 and 18, Miller, as modified by Beck, fails to expressly disclose the radial thickness of each of the layers.
Kon, however, teaches a reinforced tire belt layer 12 having a radial thickness BG within a range of 1 mm to 3 mm (paragraph [0037]; Fig. 2A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified each of the reinforced circumferential layers of Miller, as modified by Beck, to have a thickness within a range of 1 mm to 3mm, such as taught by Kon, with a reasonable expectation of success in ensuring a desired strength, load capacity and durability for the tire.
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIP T KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7953. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Samuel (Joe) J Morano can be reached at (571)272-6684. 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.
/Kip T Kotter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615