DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 2, and 4-20 are pending. Claims 1, 2, 4-20 are amended.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 3, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on November 3, 2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 2, 4-20 have been amended. Thus, claims 1, 2, and 4-20 are presently pending in this application.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome the 35 USC §103 rejections, however, all claims remained rejected utilizing different art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
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 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 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, 2, 4-7, 9, 15, 16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20210370720) in view of Sanders et al. (US 20170361658).
Regarding claim 1, Lee describes a tire (para. 0006), comprising:
a tread rubber (tire formed of rubber, para. 0006); and
a carcass (carcass, para. 0006) comprising a hybrid cord (cord in carcass, para. 0009) of at least one polyamide fiber yarn (first Z-twisted yarn, aramid table 1) and at least one polyester fiber yarn (second Z-twisted yarn, table 1, PET), wherein
the hybrid cord having a twist coefficient K3 of 1800 or more and 2600 or less in final twisting as determined by R3 x(D3)1/2 where R3 is a final twist number [times/10 cm] (46, example 5, table 1, first, second are S twisted together, para. 0015, may be the same twist number, para. 0022) of the hybrid cord and D3 is a total fineness [dtex] of the hybrid cord (first twisted yarn, 1020 denier which is 1133 dtex plus second twisted yarn, 1000 denier which is 1111 dtex for a total of 2020 denier or 2244 dtex, 46 x (2020)1/2 is 2179)
wherein the polyamide fiber yarn is a yarn of twisted polyamide filaments (z twisted aramid, paras. 0015 and 0016) and the polyester fiber yarn is a yarn of twisted polyester filaments (z twisted, paras. 0015 and 0018), and
wherein the hybrid cord is a cord of twisted two yarns consisting of one polyamide fiber yarn (first z twisted yarn) and one polyester fiber yarn (second z twisted yarn) or a cord of twisted three yarns consisting of one polyamide fiber yarn and two polyester fiber yarns, and
wherein the polyamide fiber yarn (first twisted) has a twist coefficient K1 in first twisting as determine by R1 x (D1)1/2 where R1 is a first twist number (times/10 cm) (46) of the polyamide fiber yarn and D1 (1020 denier, 1133 dtex) is a total fineness [dtex] of the polyamide fiber yarn, and the twist coefficient K1 is 1559 or less (46 x (1133)1/2 is 1548).
Lee is silent as to the thickness of the tread rubber and thus does not explicitly describe the twist coefficient K3 and a thickness L [mm] of the tread rubber giving a product (K3 x L) of 15000 or more.
In related art for tires, Sanders describes a tire in which the tread thickness is 6.5 mm to 7.7 mm which produces a range of 14165-16780 which overlaps the range claims and is prima facie obvious (See MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the tread of Lee to include the tread configuration and material of Sanders in order to provide a break in the compromise between dry traction and snow traction (para. 0032, Sanders). By using the traction structure of Sanders the tire the snow traction can be increased without significant loss of dry traction (para. 0011, Sanders).
Regarding claim 2, Lee as modified describes tire according to claim 1, wherein the polyester fiber yarn has a twist coefficient K2 in first twisting as determined by R2 x(D2)i2 where R2 (46) is a first twist number [times/10 cm] of the polyester fiber yarn and D2 (1111) is a total fineness [dtex] of the polyester fiber yarn (46 x (1111)1/2 is 1533), and
wherein a ratio (K1/K2) (1548/1533) of the twist coefficient K1 to the twist coefficient K2 is 1.00 or higher and 1.30 or lower (1.01).
Regarding claim 4, Lee as modified describes the tire according to claim 1, wherein the total fineness D3 of the hybrid cord is 1600 to 5500 dtex (2244).
Regarding claim 5, Lee as modified describes the tire according to claim 1, wherein the final twist number R3 of the hybrid cord is 30.0 to 55.0 times/10 cm (46).
Regarding claim 6, Lee as modified describes the tire according to claim 1, wherein the thickness L of the tread rubber is 6.0 mm or more (6.5 to 7.7 as modified).
Regarding claim 7, Lee as modified describes the tire according to claim 1, but does not explicitly describe wherein the twist coefficient K3 is 2200 or more and 2500 or less.
Lee describes an embodiment in which the K3 value is 2179 with a TPM of 460 (46 t/10cm) and D3 value of 2244 dtex. Lee also describes that the TPM can be from 200 to 500 TPM (para. 0076, 20 to 50 t/10 cm). Furthermore, a TPM of 465 to 500 would produce a K3 value of 2202 to 2368 which overlaps the range claims and is prima facie obvious (See MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the TPM based on the desired strength, tear tenacity, elongation at break and strength retention rate as desired (see table 1).
Regarding claim 9, Lee as modified describes tire according to claim 1, wherein a product (R3 x L) of the final twist number R3 [times/10 cm] (46) of the hybrid cord and the thickness L [mm] (6.5 to 7.7) of the tread rubber is 340.0 or more and 405.0 or less (299 to 354.2 which overlaps the range claims and is prima facie obvious (See MPEP 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 15, Lee as modified describes the tire according to claim 1, wherein the polyamide forming the polyamide fiber is at least one of a semi-aromatic polyamide or a fully aromatic polyamide (is an aramid which is an aromatic polyamide).
Regarding claim 16, Lee as modified describes the tire according to claim 1, wherein the polyester forming the polyester fiber is polyethylene terephthalate (PET).
Regarding claim 18, Lee as modified describes the tire according to claim 1, wherein the tread rubber comprises a center region and a pair of shoulder regions (abstract, Sanders, describing central block and shoulder tread blocks, see also Fig. 1 and 4 depicting center and shoulder regions).
Regarding claim 20, Lee as modified describes the tire according to claim 1, which is a motorcycle tire (is a motorcycle tire inasmuch as claimed, that is, a person could mount this on an unclaimed motorcycle depending on how this unclaimed motorcycle is crafted).
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20210370720) in view of Sanders et al. (US 20170361658) and Mejia et al. (US 20190062537).
Regarding claim 17, Lee as modified describes the tire according to claim 1, but does not explicitly describe wherein the tread rubber comprises a tread rubber composition that contains a rubber component including styrene-butadiene rubber and polybutadiene rubber.
In related art for tires, Mejia describes that the use of styrene-butadiene rubber and polybutadiene rubber are commonly used for tire treads (para. 0002) but also describes utilizing a specific ratio of styrene-butadiene rubber to polybutadiene rubber (para. 0003).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the tire of Lee to use styrene-butadiene rubber and polybutadiene rubber as disclosed in Mejia in order to have a tread that has good rolling resistance and wet traction (para. 0002, Mejia).
Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20210370720) in view of Sanders et al. (US 20170361658) and Fujii (US 20210221177).
Regarding claim 19, Lee as modified describes the tire according to claim 1, but does not explicitly describe wherein the tread rubber comprises a cap rubber layer and a base rubber layer.
In related art, Fujii describes wherein the tread rubber comprises a cap rubber layer (cap tread rubber 16b) and a base rubber layer (undertread rubber 16a, Fujii).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the tread of Lee to include the cap rubber layer and base rubber layer as described in Fujii in order to improve the tire noise, rolling resistance, and steering stability performance in a well-balanced manner (Fujii, para. 0008 describing the benefits of the tread layers).
Claims 1, 8, and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20210370720) in view of Bonnet et al. (US 20200231006).
Regarding claim 1, Lee describes a tire (para. 0006), comprising:
a tread rubber (tire formed of rubber, para. 0006); and
a carcass (carcass, para. 0006) comprising a hybrid cord (cord in carcass, para. 0009) of at least one polyamide fiber yarn (first Z-twisted yarn, aramid table 1) and at least one polyester fiber yarn (second Z-twisted yarn, table 1, PET), wherein
the hybrid cord having a twist coefficient K3 of 1800 or more and 2600 or less in final twisting as determined by R3 x(D3)1/2 where R3 is a final twist number [times/10 cm] (46, example 5, table 1, first, second are S twisted together, para. 0015, may be the same twist number, para. 0022) of the hybrid cord and D3 is a total fineness [dtex] of the hybrid cord (first twisted yarn, 1020 denier which is 1133 dtex plus second twisted yarn, 1000 denier which is 1111 dtex for a total of 2020 denier or 2244 dtex, 46 x 20201/2 is 2179)
wherein the polyamide fiber yarn is a yarn of twisted polyamide filaments (z twisted aramid, paras. 0015 and 0016) and the polyester fiber yarn is a yarn of twisted polyester filaments (z twisted, paras. 0015 and 0018), and
wherein the hybrid cord is a cord of twisted two yarns consisting of one polyamide fiber yarn (first z twisted yarn) and one polyester fiber yarn (second z twisted yarn) or a cord of twisted three yarns consisting of one polyamide fiber yarn and two polyester fiber yarns, and
wherein the polyamide fiber yarn (first twisted) has a twist coefficient K1 in first twisting as determine by R1 x (D1)1/2 where R1 is a first twist number (times/10 cm) (46) of the polyamide fiber yarn and D1 (1020 denier, 1133 dtex) is a total fineness [dtex] of the polyamide fiber yarn, and the twist coefficient K1 is 1559 or less (46 x 11331/2 is 1548).
Lee is silent as to the thickness of the tread rubber and thus does not explicitly describe the twist coefficient K3 and a thickness L [mm] of the tread rubber giving a product (K3 x L) of 15000 or more.
In related art for tires, Bonnet describes a tire in which the tread thickness 9 mm which produces a value of 19613 (para. 0084).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the tread of Lee to include the tread configuration of Bonnet in order to provide tires that are applicable to passenger vehicles (para. 0074). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the thread to be a particular height depending on the intended use of the tire. For example a high performance tire may utilize lower thread height to provide smaller lateral force on the thread (para. 0073) while a higher height may be utilized for passenger vehicles to provide traction in various weather conditions.
Regarding claim 8, Lee as modified describes the tire according to claim 1, wherein the product of K3 (2179) x L (9) is 19000 or more (19613).
Regarding claim 10, Lee as modified describes the tire according to claim 1, wherein the polyester fiber yarn has a twist coefficient K2 in first twisting as determined by R2 x (D2)i2 where R2 (46) is a first twist number [times/10 cm] of the polyester fiber yarn and D2 is a total fineness [dtex] of the polyester fiber yarn (1111), and
a product ((K1/K2) x L) of the ratio K1/K2 (1548/1533) and the thickness L [mm] (9) of the tread rubber is 8.6 or more and 9.7 or less (9.1).
Regarding claim 11, Lee as modified describes the tire according to claim 10, wherein the first twist number R1 (46) of the polyamide fiber yarn is 40.0 to 50.0 times/10 cm.
Regarding claim 12, Lee as modified describes the tire according to claim 10, wherein the first twist number R2 (46) of the polyester fiber yarn is 35.0 to 55.0 times/10 cm.
Regarding claim 13, Lee as modified describes the tire according to claim 10, wherein the twist coefficient K1 of the polyamide fiber yarn in first twisting is 1200 or more and 1559 or less (1548).
Regarding claim 14, Lee as modified describes the tire according to claim 10, wherein the twist coefficient K2 of the polyester fiber yarn in first twisting is 1100 or more and 2000 or less (1548).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-1145. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, Alt F: 8:00 AM-5:00 PM ET.
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, Clint Ostrup can be reached on 571-272-5559. 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.
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732