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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaiser (EP 1683656, newly cited).
As best depicted in Figure 1, Kaiser is directed to a tire construction comprising a bead core 6, a single carcass 3 having a main portion and a turnup portion (turnup end 3a), a belt structure 2 having a first belt layer and a second belt layer, a tread 1, and a sidewall gum layer 8 that contacts an outer surface of the carcass main portion and extends from a bead region to a position axially inward of a respective lateral edge of radially innermost belt layer (respective components are located in both first and second tire sides). Also, JP ‘200 states that said gum layer has a Shore hardness as high as 80.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 3, 4, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser.
As detailed above, Kaiser is directed to a tire construction comprising a hard sidewall gum layer. More particularly, said hard rubber has a preferred hardness as large as 80. While Kaiser is silent with respect to the storage modulus values, the claims define a broad range of storage modulus values that are consistent with hard rubber layers in the tire industry. It is emphasized that the claimed modulus range essentially defines (or encompasses) rubber compositions demonstrating high mechanical properties and such would be expected to include the high hardness rubber composition of Kaiser.
With respect to claim 4, the claims define absolute dimensions and it is well taken that a gum layer length is a function of the tire size. It is well taken that such dimensions vary as a function of the tire size (i.e. smaller tires generally have smaller dimensions). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form any number of common tire sizes, including those that would result in a gum layer length between 50 mm and 90 mm.
Claim(s) 6, 8, 10, 14, 15, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser and further in view of Hayashi (JP 2007-131110, of record).
Kaiser teaches a tire construction including a conventional belt structure 2 formed with a plurality of belt plies. While Kaiser fails to depict the presence of wedges and wraparound gum layers, it is extremely well known and conventional to include such rubber layers at belt ends to, for example, mitigate the buildup of stresses and provide a desired spacing between the carcass and the belt, as shown for example by Hayashi (Figure 8). In such an instance, rubber layer 9b is wrapped around an innermost belt layer (corresponds with claimed “wraparound gum layer) and wedge rubber layer 9a is positioned outward of a sidewall gum layer 9m (which itself is in contact with a carcass ply). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include conventional edge rubber layers in the tire of Kaiser for the benefits detailed above.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, the general depiction in Figure 8 of Hayashi would have bee recognized as being consistent with the broad range of the claimed invention between 10 mm and 30 mm. It is further noted that the claims are directed to absolute dimensions and it is well taken that tire dimensions are a function of tire size (e.g. larger tires are generally associated with larger dimensions). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have a cumulative length between 10 mm and 30 mm absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results. It is also noted that the exact length of wraparound gum layers is conventionally disclosed in terms of a range of lengths and is well recognized as not being limited to a single length.
As to claim 14, a tread of Kaiser would be expected to extend radially inwardly from the height of the belt structure (consistent with common tire design) such that the inclusion of a conventional wedge rubber layer, as taught by Hayashi, would result in an outer end (of the wedge layer) being in contact with a tread.
With respect to claim 15, as detailed above, Hayashi teaches the inclusion of wraparound gum layers 9b that are in contact with wedge rubber layers.
With respect to claim 18, while the exact radial extent is not disclosed (in terms of a measurement) in Kaiser, it is well recognized that tire dimensions vary as a function of tire size and ultimately the intended use of the tire. More particularly, the claims include absolute dimensions. Given the extensive radial extent of said sidewall gum layer and the wide range of tire heights, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form a tire in which the sidewall gum layer extends between 50 mm and 90 mm. It is emphasized that standard or common tire heights are on the order of 100 mm-150 mm and such values would suggest radial extents (for the sidewall gum layer) in accordance to the claimed invention.
7. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser and further in view of Cappa (US 3,799,233, newly cited).
As detailed above, Kaiser is directed to a tire construction comprising first and second belt layers. While Kaiser fails to depict the presence of wraparound gum layers, it is extremely well known and conventional to include such gum layers, for example, to mitigate the buildup of stresses at belt ends, as shown for example by Cappa (Figure 5). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include conventional wraparound gum layers in the tire of Kaiser for the benefits detailed above.
8. Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 13, 19-26, 28, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 5548140 (newly cited) and further in view of Sheepwash (US 2022/0203782, newly cited).
As best depicted in Figures 1-10, JP ‘140 is directed to a tire construction comprising carcass layers 71, 72, bead core 60, tread 30, bead apex 65, belt layers 21,22, an additional reinforcement 90, and a sidewall gum layer 110 that is arranged on an axially outside of said carcass layers, wherein said gum layer is formed of the same composition as used in runflat insert 80. JP ‘140 further states that an outer end of said gum layer (in addition to the additional reinforcement) can be located axially inward of said belt layers. In such an instance, though, JP ‘140 is silent with respect to the hardness of said gum layer.
In any event, the claimed hardness values are consistent with those that are conventionally used in runflat inserts, as shown for example by Sheepwash (Paragraph 110). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a conventional rubber composition for runflat insert 80 and gum rubber layer 110 in the tire of JP ‘140 (provides the necessary reinforcement during an underinflated condition).
Regarding claim 3, Sheepwash discloses storage modulus values that are consistent with those required by the claimed invention (Paragraph 112).
As to claims 4 and 28, the claims define absolute dimensions and it is well taken that a gum layer length is a function of the tire size. It is well taken that such dimensions vary as a function of the tire size (i.e. smaller tires generally have smaller dimensions). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form any number of common tire sizes, including those that would result in a gum layer length between 50 mm and 90 mm.
With respect to claims 5 and 29, JP ‘140 discloses a maximum thickness value of gum layer 110 of at least 2 mm.
Regarding claims 23 and 25, Figures 3 and 4 of JP ‘140, for example, depict a first end 92 in accordance to the claimed invention.
As to claim 24, radially outer end 92 can be located axially inward of respective belt ends and such satisfies the claimed arrangement.
9. Claim(s) 6-10, 14-16, 18, 30, 31, 33, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘140 and Sheepwash as applied in claims 1 and 21 above and further in view of Hayashi.
JP ‘140 teaches a tire construction including a conventional belt structure formed with a plurality of belt plies 21,22. While JP ‘140 fails to depict the presence of wedges and wraparound gum layers, it is extremely well known and conventional to include such rubber layers at belt ends to, for example, mitigate the buildup of stresses and provide a desired spacing between the carcass and the belt, as shown for example by Hayashi (Figure 8). In such an instance, rubber layer 9b is wrapped around an innermost belt layer (corresponds with claimed “wraparound gum layer) and wedge rubber layer 9a is positioned outward of a sidewall gum layer 9m (which itself is in contact with a carcass ply). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include conventional edge rubber layers in the tire of JP ‘140 for the benefits detailed above.
With respect to claims 7, 9, and 16, the general disclosure of JP ‘140 appears to encompass a tire construction in which gum layer 110 would be in contact with a carcass ply and a wedge (as taught by Hayashi) and/or a belt. It is emphasized that JP ‘140 broadly teaches that an outer end of gum layer 110 (along with reinforcement 90) can extend axially inward of a belt end and between a belt and a carcass and such would result in the claimed arrangement (when modified by Hayashi).
Regarding claims 8, 10, and 18, the general depiction in Figure 8 of Hayashi would have been recognized as being consistent with the broad range of the claimed invention between 10 mm and 30 mm. It is further noted that the claims are directed to absolute dimensions and it is well taken that tire dimensions are a function of tire size (e.g. larger tires are generally associated with larger dimensions). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have a cumulative length between 10 mm and 30 mm absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results. It is also noted that the exact length of wraparound gum layers is conventionally disclosed in terms of a range of lengths and is well recognized as not being limited to a single length.
As to claim 14, a tread of JP ‘140 would be expected to extend radially inwardly from the height of the belt structure (consistent with common tire design) such that the inclusion of a conventional wedge rubber layer, as taught by Hayashi, would result in an outer end (of the wedge layer) being in contact with a tread.
With respect to claim 15, as detailed above, Hayashi teaches the inclusion of wraparound gum layers 9b that are in contact with wedge rubber layers.
With respect to claim 18, while the exact radial extent is not disclosed (in terms of a measurement) in Kaiser, it is well recognized that tire dimensions vary as a function of tire size and ultimately the intended use of the tire. More particularly, the claims include absolute dimensions. Given the extensive radial extent of said sidewall gum layer and the wide range of tire heights, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form a tire in which the sidewall gum layer extends between 50 mm and 90 mm. It is emphasized that standard or common tire heights are on the order of 100 mm-150 mm and such values would suggest radial extents (for the sidewall gum layer) in accordance to the claimed invention.
As to claim 31 and 35, the claimed thickness values are consistent with those commonly associated with wedge/cushion rubber layers and wraparound layers. Also, the claims are directed to absolute dimensions and it is well taken that said dimensions are highly dependent on the tire size and ultimately the intended use of the tire (smaller tires generally have smaller dimensions).
10. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘140 and Sheepwash as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Cappa.
As detailed above, JP ‘140 is directed to a tire construction comprising first and second belt layers. While JP ‘140 fails to depict the presence of wraparound gum layers, it is extremely well known and conventional to include such gum layers, for example, to mitigate the buildup of stresses at belt ends, as shown for example by Cappa (Figure 5). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include conventional wraparound gum layers in the tire of JP ‘140 for the benefits detailed above.
11. Claim(s) 30 and 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘140 and Sheepwash as applied in claim 21 above and further in view of Bertrand (US 4,062,393, of record).
JP ‘140 teaches a tire construction including a conventional belt structure formed with a plurality of belt plies 21,22. While JP ‘140 fails to depict the wraparound gum layers, it is extremely well known and conventional to include such rubber layers at belt ends to, for example, mitigate the buildup of stresses, as shown for example by Bertrand (Figures 1 and 2). In such an instance, rubber layer 9 is wrapped around an innermost belt layer (corresponds with claimed “wraparound gum layer). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include conventional edge rubber layers in the tire of JP ‘140, as taught by Bertrand, for the benefits detailed above. Furthermore, rubber layer 9 can be viewed as either the claimed wedge or the claimed wraparound gum layer (components are claimed separately and not in combination).
It is further noted that rubber layers 9 of Bertrand (Column 3, Lines 35+) have a Shore A hardness between about 70 and about 80 and a modulus between about 60 and 80 kgf/cm2 (5.9 MPa-7.8 MPa).
12. Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (JP 62-4613, newly cited) and further in view of Kuroda (JP 09039514, newly cited).
As best depicted in Figure 1, Kobayashi is directed to a tire construction comprising at least two carcass plies 4 (exemplary tire depicts the presence of 4 carcass plies), a bead core 5, a bead filler or apex 6, a sidewall 2, a tread 1, a shoulder 8, and a sidewall gum strip 7 arranged on an axially outer side of at least one carcass ply. Kobayashi further states that said sidewall gum strip is formed of a hard rubber having a hardness greater than 50 and such fully encompasses the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a hardness value between 80 and 95 given that the express disclosure to use a hard rubber and the common use of rubber compositions having the claimed hardness range to form hard rubber compositions in the bead and sidewall regions.
Lastly, regarding claim 1, while Kobayashi fails to depict the presence of belt layers, such layers are well recognized as being a fundamental component of tire constructions. These layers are well recognized as providing reinforcement in a region directly beneath the tread ground contacting portion of the tire. Kuroda is provided to evidence the inclusion of conventional tires that are similarly designed for racing applications (see Figures). Kuroda further depicts the presence of conventional belt layers in the shoulder region. When modifying the tire of Kobayashi with Kuroda, a radially outer end of the sidewall gum strip of Kobayashi in the resulting tire construction would overlap with the lateral edges of the belt layer. It is emphasized that Kobayashi states that length L is more than 50% of the tire section height H without limitation. Given the axial extension of the belt into the shoulder and the broad disclosure of Kobayashi noted above, it reasons that the modified tire of Kobayashi would encompass constructions having the claimed axial overlap between the belt edges and the radially outer end of the sidewall gum strip.
As to claim 4, the claims define absolute dimensions and it is well taken that a gum layer length is a function of the tire size. It is well taken that such dimensions vary as a function of the tire size (i.e. smaller tires generally have smaller dimensions). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form any number of common tire sizes, including those that would result in a gum layer length between 50 mm and 90 mm.
With respect to claim 5, Kobayashi teaches a thickness between 1mm and 5 mm.
Regarding claim 12, sidewall gum strip 7 is in contact with bead filler/apex 6.
13. Claim(s) 3, 13, 17-26, 28, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi and Kuroda as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Hong (WO 9105005, newly cited).
As detailed above, Kobayashi teaches a hard rubber composition for rubber filler 6 and rubber reinforcing layer (sidewall gum strip) 7. In such an instance, though, Kobayashi silent with respect to the dynamic modulus. In any event, the claimed dynamic modulus values are consistent with those that are conventionally associated with hard rubber layers arranged in the bead area, as shown for example by Hong (Page 1, Lines 5+ and Examples 1-3 in Table 1). Examples 1-3 have dynamic modulus values that vary between approximately 17 MPa and 39 MPa at 75°C One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a common hard rubber composition for both the bead filler and the sidewall gum strip of Kobayashi and such is seen to correspond with the claimed properties. It is also noted that E* is comprised of both E’ and E’’, with E’ being significantly greater than E” (as evidenced by tan delta values). Thus, dynamic modulus E’ would only be slightly less than dynamic modulus E* and well within the broad range of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 17, sidewall gum strip 7 is in contact with bead filler/apex 6.
With respect to claims 23-25, the general disclosure of length L being at least 50% of a tire section height is seen to encompass the claimed arrangements.
Regarding claim 26, Kobayashi teaches hardness values of at least 50 and such fully encompasses the claimed range. Additionally, Hong includes a plurality of hard rubber compositions designed for the bead and sidewall area that have hardness values in accordance to the claimed invention.
As to claim 29, Kobayashi teaches a thickness between 1mm and 5 mm.
Response to Arguments
14. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-26, and 28-35 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
15. 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.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 August 7, 2025