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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/9/26 has been entered.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not disclose the rubber layer is not interwoven with the knit.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamontia et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0108225.
Lamontia discloses a knitted fabric which is bonded to a side wall of a tire, wherein the side wall of the tire can be rubber. See abstract. The knitted fabric can include a cut resistant fiber and an inorganic fiber. See paragraphs 0014-0017. The inorganic fiber can be a metal fiber. See paragraph 0046. The cut resistant yarn and the yarn including the inorganic fiber can be knitted together, have a coating applied to the resulting fabric, and then bonded to the sidewall of a rubber tire. See paragraphs 0066-0069. The layers are independently formed and combined by an adhesive and are not interwoven with each other.
Lamontia does not disclose the increase in modulus of the rubber layer plus the knitted layer relative to the modulus of the rubber layer alone.
However, it would have been obvious to have selected the materials and structure of the knit layer in order to provide the desired degree of reinforcement to the rubber layer.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamontia as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of FR 3033285, machine translation attached.
Lamontia discloses a structure as set forth above.
Lamontia differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose that the rubber is unvulcanized.
However, FR ‘285 discloses a tire assembly comprising an elastic knit including a plurality of reinforcing element which form a part of the knit which is bonded to a tire assembly such as a rubber layer. The knit comprises a nonconductive element such as an elastomeric material which can be mixed with other polymeric or natural fibers and a reinforcing element which can be a metal monofilament. The metal monofilament reinforcing element holds the knit column elements together and the knit columns hold the reinforcing elements together. The knit structure is bonded to a surface of an elastomeric material such as rubber used as a tire. See abstract and page 2, second half of the page and page 4, lines 51 and following. The rubber can include a vulcanization system which means that the rubber can be initially unvulcanized. See page 5, lines 72. Note that a knitted material will have some properties of stretchability inherent to the knit structure and FR ‘285 teaches elastomeric yarns can be incorporated to form the loop columns. See page 2, second half of the page.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have bonded the knit of Lamontia to an unvulcanized rubber as taught by FR ‘285 in order to provide an integral structure having a strong bond.
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 6/9/26 have been carefully considered and are sufficient to overcome the previous rejection. A new rejection is set forth above in view of the amendments to the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights