Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/431,268

PNEUMATIC TIRE

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Feb 02, 2024
Examiner
JOHNSTONE, ADRIENNE C
Art Unit
1749
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
285 granted / 450 resolved
-1.7% vs TC avg
Strong +35% interview lift
Without
With
+34.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
473
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
32.7%
-7.3% vs TC avg
§102
21.0%
-19.0% vs TC avg
§112
35.5%
-4.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 450 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of the species wherein the reinforcing filler does not contain any cord in the reply filed on February 4, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden. This is not found persuasive because serious burden was clearly set forth in paragraph 2 of the species election requirement. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Drawings The drawings were received on February 4, 2026. These drawings are acceptable (change in depiction of d2 consistent with specification paragraph 0028). 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, in Fig. 2 the first tire thickness (d1) between an axially outer surface of the one or each of the bead portions (4b) and the turned up portion (6b) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) (currently d1 is depicted as not extending all the way to the axially outer surface 4b, which is not consistent with original claim 4 and specification paragraph 0027). 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: Specification p. 13 line 2 there is a heading improperly in Japanese instead of English. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. 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. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 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. In claim 1 it is not clear how the objects of the invention including improved cornering performance while maintaining vibration absorbing performance is achieved without the carcass and reinforcing filler arrangement in the claim 3 language; for purposes of this examination claim 1 will be considered to require the tire to further comprise a carcass extending between the bead portions, wherein the carcass includes a main body portion extending between the bead cores of the bead portions and turned up portions each turned up around a respective one of the bead cores from an inside to an outside in the tire axial direction to extend further in the tire radial direction, and in the one or each of the bead portions, the outer portion is located axially outside the turned up portion, and the inner portion is located axially inside the main body portion (thus making claim 3 redundant), but clarification is required. In claim 2, to provide proper antecedent basis consistent with specification paragraph 0015, applicant should rewrite the claim as -- 2. (Currently Amended) The pneumatic tire according to claim 1, wherein in a standard state, the pneumatic tire is mounted on a standard rim having a pair of rim flanges and a pair of rim seats, inflated to a standard inner pressure, and loaded with no tire load, and in the one or each of the bead portions, the radially outer end of the outer portion is located radially inside an outer end in the tire radial direction of the rim flange of the standard rim in a tire meridian section of the pneumatic tire in the standard state. -- In claim 5, to provide proper antecedent basis and to clarify that the cross sectional width is of the bead core consistent with specification paragraph 0028, applicant should rewrite the claim as -- 5. (Currently Amended) The pneumatic tire according to claim 3, wherein each of the bead cores has a cross sectional width in the tire axial direction, each of the bead portions has a bead bottom surface, and in the one or each of the bead portions a second tire thickness, in the bead core cross sectional width, between the turned up portion and the bead bottom surface In claim 6 line 4, to provide proper antecedent basis, applicant should change “the outer end” to -- the radially outer end -- . In claim 9, to provide proper antecedent basis, applicant should amend the claim such that in line 2 “the outer end” is changed to -- the radially outer end -- , in lines 2-3 “the outer end” is changed to -- the radially outer end -- , and in line 5 “the outer end” is changed to -- the radially outer end -- . In claim 11, to provide proper antecedent basis, applicant should amend the claim such that in line 1 “the outer end” is changed to -- the radially outer end -- and in line 2 “an outer end” is changed to -- the outer end -- . In claim 12, to provide proper antecedent basis, applicant should amend the claim such that in line 1 “the outer end” is changed to -- the radially outer end -- and in line 2 “the outer end” is changed to -- the radially outer end -- . In claim 14, to provide proper antecedent basis and to eliminate duplicative language, applicant should rewrite the claim as -- 14. (Currently Amended) The pneumatic tire according to claim 13, wherein in the one or each of the bead portions, the radially outer end of the inner portion is located A third separation distance in the tire axial direction between the radially outer end of the inner portion and the axially outer end of the radially inner belt ply is from 1% to 20% of a tread width. -- In claim 15, to clarify the chafer characteristics consistent with specification paragraph 0025, applicant should amend the claim such that in line 2 after “comprising” is inserted -- in each bead portion -- and “a rim seat” is changed to -- the rim seat -- , and in line 3 “harder” is changed to -- and is harder -- . In claim 20, to provide proper antecedent basis, applicant should rewrite the claim as -- 20. (Currently Amended) The pneumatic tire according to claim 15, further comprising a carcass extending between the bead portions, wherein the carcass includes a main body portion extending between the bead cores of the bead portions and turned up portions each turned up around a respective one of the bead cores from an inside to an outside in the tire axial direction to extend further in the tire radial direction, in the one or each of the bead portions, the outer portion is located axially outside the turned up portion, and the inner portion is located axially inside the main body portion, and the outer portion is disposed between the turned up portion and the chafer in the one or each of the bead portions. -- . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 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, 7, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanno (7,503,364 B2). See the embodiment of Fig. 1 with the alternative auxiliary filler arrangement of Fig. 9, col. 1 line 6 - col. 7 line 9, tan δ decreases with increasing temperature but the mere 10 degree difference would not be expected by one of ordinary skill in the art to significantly change the disclosed values of upper end point 0.25 disclosed with sufficient specificity and the exemplary value of 0.22, JIS-A hardness of lower end point 70 disclosed with sufficient specificity with exemplary values of 81 and 85, elongation at break greater than 200% with exemplary value of 204% and value of 350% disclosed with sufficient specificity. Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakagawa (7,793,695 B2). See the embodiment of Fig. 1 with the alternative chafer ply arrangement of Figs. 2c and 3a, col. 1 line 6 - col. 6 line 31, chafer ply understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to have a rubber matrix unless otherwise specified. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-6, 9, 11-15, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sato (6,305,452 B1, see Fig. 2) and US Patent Application Publication 2012/0073722 A1, see Figs. 2 and 3) anticipate or render obvious at least claim 1 but are considered to be no more pertinent to the instant claims than the prior art already applied by the examiner. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrienne C. Johnstone whose telephone number is (571)272-1218. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1PM-5PM. 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. ADRIENNE C. JOHNSTONE Primary Examiner Art Unit 1749 Adrienne Johnstone /ADRIENNE C. JOHNSTONE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 March 23, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 02, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589617
RUN FLAT TIRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583260
PNEUMATIC TIRE WITH OPTIMIZED CROWN AND BEAD ARCHITECTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576673
TIRE COMPRISING REINFORCING ELEMENTS IN THE FORM OF LAMINATED STRIPS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565064
VEHICLE PNEUMATIC TYRE COMPRISING A SEALANT LAYER, AND METHOD FOR DETECTING A VEHICLE PNEUMATIC TYRE COMPRISING A SEALANT LAYER AND FOR RECYCLING A VEHICLE PNEUMATIC TYRE COMPRISING A SEALANT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12552200
TIRE WITH SPECIFIED PROFILE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+34.7%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 450 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month