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 .
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-10, 13-18 are pending.
Claims 5-6, 8, 11-12 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 9, 10, 18 are amended.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “cords inclined with respect to the equatorial plane” (described in specification paragraph 30, included in claims 1 and 18 limits, not shown in any drawing) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “Paragraph 31 recites “the modulus of rigidity G’ 1%”, a notation having unknown meaning (Para 31 recites this as “shear modulus or modulus of rigidity”, but notation but offers not further description as to the significance of the “’ 1% notation” following the G, from which to ascertain its meaning (claim 16 recites the same notation). While amendments to specification Para 31 removed the “RPA”, the “1%” notation remains.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1-4, 7, 9-10, and 16 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 16 recites “ a shear modulus G’ 1%” which is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by it. The specification in paragraph 31 recites “the modulus of rigidity G’ 1%”, a notation having unknown meaning (Para 31 recites this as “shear modulus or modulus of rigidity”, but offers not further description as to the significance of the “’G’ 1% notation” following the G, from which to ascertain its meaning. While amendments to specification Para 31, and claim 16 removed the “RPA”, the “’ 1%” notation remains. For the purposes of examination, Examiner interprets the recitation as “a shear modulus G”. Additionally, Examiner suggests the notation of G’ 1%, may related to specific a RPA method and device used to dynamic measure the elasto-viscosity of rubber material, (see NPL U and V in Notice of References cited), and as such are considered as “product by process”[ i.e. method limits in a product claim] , thus not limiting per MEPE 2113.1. It is notable that a RPA method or device is not disclosed in the specification to give context and meaning to this notation. Examiner suggests the limit “a shear modulus G’ 1%” be changed to “ a shear modulus G “, and the recited notation will appear stricken through in this document.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 13-15, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by EP-4108474-A1 to Misaki (“Misaki”).
Regarding Claim 13, Misaki discloses a shear band (including: ”belt layer”: 6a of carcass formed of aromatic polyamide, Para 29; and 7 with two plies: 7a ,7b each formed of a single steel cord and elastomer composition 7g; and 9 “band layer” of one ply 9a, Para 33, 34, 36, Fig 1, 2 ) for a non-pneumatic tire (Para 17, 23) comprising a plurality of oblong cords comprising a plurality of oblong cords (9a of heat shrinkable organic fiber/ aliphatic polyamides (nylon) Para 58, 59 , 7a, and 7b have a “flattened cross-section” Para 39, Fig 2, 9a, and are embedded in a “elastomer composition” [i.e. elastomeric compound] 9G of 9a, and 7G of 7a, 7b, Para 37, 54, Fig 3 showing cords embedded in 7b, 9G ) arranged in parallel layers (Fig 1, 2), each of the oblong cords having a cross section (Fig 2) defining a greater lateral width (Ld) than a radial height (Sd, d2, aspect ratio is between 1.05 and 1.25, Para 39, 46, 47, for 9a: Para 56, 58 Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 14, Misaki discloses the shear band of claim 13, wherein the oblong cords include either a nylon material, polyester material and/or a plurality of elongated glass, carbon fiber and/or aromatic polyamide filaments embedded in a resin matrix. Specifically a nylon material as described in paragraph 9 of this document).
Regarding Claim 15, Misaki discloses the shear band of claim 14, wherein the oblong cords are embedded within an elastomeric compound (9G, 7G as described in paragraph 9 of this document).
Regarding Claim 17, Misaki discloses the shear band of claim 13, further comprising a lower belt layer (Misaki 7b, Fig 2) disposed radially inward of the plurality of oblong cords (Misaki 7a, Fig 2) and an upper belt layer (Misaki 9a, Fig 2) disposed radially outward of the plurality of oblong cords.
Regarding Claim 18, Misaki discloses the shear band of claim 17, wherein the lower belt layer comprises at least one of elongated steel wire cords (7a, 7b) and/or aromatic polyamide cords inclined between about ±25 degrees (Misaki 7a “inclined at angle of 10 to 30 degrees, [thus having overlap with range -25 to 25 degrees] ”, Para, 39, Fig) with respect to an equatorial plane (BRI: circumferential plane of tire in radial direction “a”) of the shear band.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9-10, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP-4108474-A1 to Misaki (“Misaki”), and further in view US-20230173845-A1 King (“King”).
Regarding Claim 1, Misaki discloses a non-pneumatic tire (Para 17, 23) comprising: a central rim (“normal rim”, Para 17) for coupling the tire to a vehicle wheel (Para 20); a connecting web including a plurality of spokes coupled to the central rim and extending radially outward therefrom (italicized limits: are known in the art to connect rim to axle of vehicle); and a shear band (including: ”belt layer”: 6a of carcass formed of aromatic polyamide, Para 29; and 7 with two plies: 7a ,7b each formed of a single steel cord and elastomer composition 7g; and 9 “band layer” of one ply 9a, Para 33, 34, 36, Fig 1, 2 ) circumscribing (Fig 2) the connecting web and coupled thereto, the shear band comprising a plurality of oblong cords (9a of heat shrinkable organic fiber/ aliphatic polyamides (nylon) Para 58, 59 , 7a, and 7b have a “flattened cross-section” Para 39, Fig 2, 9a ) arranged in parallel layers (Fig 1,2), each of the oblong cords having a cross section (Fig 2) defining a greater lateral width (Ld) than a radial height (Sd, d2, aspect ratio is between 1.05 and 1.25, Para 39, 46, 47, for 9a: Para 56, 58 Fig 2), at least one outer belt disposed radially outwardly of the plurality of oblong cords, at least one inner belt layer disposed radially between the connecting web and the plurality of oblong cords, a pair of end belts overlying lateral outer edges of the outer belt layer, an elastic compound (“elastomer composition” 9G of 9a, and 7G of 7a, 7b, Para 37, 54, Fig 3 showing cords embedded in 7b, 9G) wherein the at least one inner belt layer includes a plurality of elongated cords inclined between about -25 to about 25 degrees (7a “inclined at angle of 10 to 30 degrees, [thus having overlap range -25 to 25 degrees] ”, Para, 39, Fig 3).
Misaki does not disclose and the elastomeric compound having a shear modulus Gfor strikeout font see paragraph 7 of this document).
King discloses a non-pneumatic tire (100) wherein the elastomeric compound (302 “elastomeric matrix material/rubber”, Para 57, has a shear modulus G MPa (Para 108 “shear modulus G of “ “at least 3 MPa”- Para 108, “at least 5 MPa or at least 8 MPa”-Para 107 [thus in range of 0.5 to 15 MPa]”; Para 42 “referring to rubber, shear modulus measured by dynamic shear testing; Para 108).
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the non-pneumatic tire and the elastomeric compound having a shear modulus G MPa, in a single combined apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the non-pneumatic tire of Misaki and teaching of the elastomeric compound having a shear modulus G MPa of King, to modify the elastomeric compound of Misaki such that has a shear modulus G MPa (like King), with the motivation to ensure the cords of shear band are protected from buckling (King, para 96-107), having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Misaki and King discloses the non-pneumatic tire of claim 1, wherein each of the oblong cords are multifilament cords comprising a plurality of elongated glass, carbon fiber and/or aromatic polyamide filaments embedded in a resin matrix. Specifically Misaki discloses nylon, as described in paragraph 18 of this document .
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Misaki and King discloses the non-pneumatic tire of claim 2, wherein the resin matrix includes at least one of an epoxy, nylon, polyurethane, polyester, vinyl ester, phenolic resin, resorcinol/formaldehyde/latex (RFL) resin. Specifically Misaki discloses nylon, as described in paragraph 18 of this document).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Misaki and King discloses the non-pneumatic tire of claim 1, wherein each of the oblong cords (9a) are monofilament cords constructed of a nylon or polyester material (“heat shrinkable organic fiber: nylon etc., Para 58, 59).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Misaki and King discloses the non-pneumatic tire of claim 1, wherein the oblong cords in each of the parallel layers (9a) are laterally staggered (9a are laterally staggered from 7a and 7b, Fig 2) from the oblong cords in adjacent layers (7a, 7b) .
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Misaki and King discloses the non-pneumatic tire of claim 8, wherein the plurality of elongated cords are steel wire cords (7a, 7b are two steel wire cords, as described in paragraph 18 of this document).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Misaki and King discloses the non-pneumatic tire of claim 18, wherein the plurality elongated cords are of aromatic polyamide cords (6a as described in paragraph 7 of this document), are inclined between about -25 to about 25 degrees with respect to an editorial plane of the non-pneumatic tire (7a, 7b as described in paragraph 15 of this document).
Regarding Claim 16, Misaki discloses the shear band of claim 15, but does not disclose wherein the elastomeric compound exhibits a shear modulus G’ (for strikeout font see paragraph 7 of this document).
King discloses a non-pneumatic tire (100) wherein the elastomeric compound (302 “elastomeric matrix material/rubber”, Para 57, has a shear modulus G MPa (Para 108 “shear modulus G of “ “at least 3 MPa”- Para 108, “at least 5 MPa or at least 8 MPa”-Para 107 [thus in range of 0.5 to 15 MPa]”; Para 42 “referring to rubber, shear modulus measured by dynamic shear testing; Para 108).
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the non-pneumatic tire and the elastomeric compound having a shear modulus G G MPa, in a single combined apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the non-pneumatic tire of Misaki and teaching of the elastomeric compound having a shear modulus G MPa of King, to modify the elastomeric compound of Misaki such that has a shear modulus G MPa (like King), with the motivation to ensure the cords of shear band are protected from buckling (King, para 96-107), having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks , filed 05/12/2026, with respect to: minor objections to claims 3, 9, 10, 18 and the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered, in light of amendments and are persuasive. The minor objections to claims 3, 9, 10, 18 and the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments see Remarks , filed 05/12/2026 regarding: the objection to specification Para 31; rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been fully considered, in light of amendments but they are not persuasive (see paragraphs 4 and 7 of this document), the objection to specification and rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) remains, and a similar rejection to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in now included.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Cress (US 20170253085 A1) discloses tire including a plurality of cords, some being aromatic polyamide filaments inclined between -25 and 25 degrees from the equatorial line,
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 EVA LYNN COMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Joe 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.
/EVA L COMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights