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 .
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 and 6-15 are pending and the subject of this FINAL Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 - Maintained
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP5275655 (published 10/15/2009).
As to claims 1, 6, 10, JP5275655 teaches a tire with belt package 4 comprising a belt 3 formed by winding a strip of reinforcement cords 6 and 7 (Figs. 1-4), wherein the strip of reinforcement cords is formed from a first reinforcement cord 7 and a second reinforcement cord 6, wherein the first and second reinforcement cords are parallel to one another (Figs 1-4), wherein the first reinforcement cord is formed of a higher tangent modulus material than the second reinforcement cord (“the modulus of elasticity of a cord arranged in the lateral end areas is smaller than that of a cord arranged in the lateral center area” Abstract; ), wherein there are at least two second reinforcement cords 6 in a strip, and each second reinforcement cord 6 is located at each lateral end 2E of the strip (Figs. 1-4). In fact, this configuration has been well-known for many years according to the Background of JP5275655:
In order to ensure wear resistance performance, it is necessary to dispose the inclined belt layer wider than the circumferential belt layer and to increase the in-plane shear rigidity of the tread portion.
In order to solve the above problem, the applicant company previously stated that "the width of the circumferential belt layer is 60% or more of the total width of the tire, and the width of at least one inclined belt layer is that of the circumferential belt layer. It is wider than the width, and further, in the circumferential belt layer, the elastic modulus of the cord arranged on the width direction end portion side is lower than the elastic modulus of the cord arranged on the inner side in the width direction of the cord. "Pneumatic tire" was developed and proposed in Japanese Patent Application No. 2006-349481.
This technique intends to improve the durability of the belt by suppressing the fatigue fracture of the cord by adjusting the elastic modulus in the width direction of the cord embedded in the circumferential belt layer. Furthermore, the width of the inclined belt layer is made wider than the width of the circumferential belt layer to increase the in-plane shear rigidity of the tread portion to ensure wear resistance.
In the pneumatic tire proposed in the above-mentioned Japanese Patent Application No. 2006-349481, the boundary portion between the cord having a high elastic modulus and the cord having a low elastic modulus is compared with the other portions in terms of durability when overcoming a sharp protrusion. The weakness is an improvement point.
Accordingly, an object of the present invention is to improve the pneumatic tire proposed in the above-mentioned Japanese Patent Application No. 2006-349481. By preventing the above problems, the belt durability and wear resistance can be further improved. In addition to improvement of the above, it is an object of the present invention to provide a pneumatic tire with improved overpass performance, particularly a heavy-duty radial tire with a small aspect ratio.
These tires are meant for heavy-duty applications (e.g. aircraft) (first paragraph in Description). Thus, the claimed configuration is clearly anticipated by the prior art.
As to claim 2, “The elastic modulus at a tensile strain of 1.8% of the cord arranged in the end region in the width direction and the cord arranged in the central region in the width direction is [40000 MPa] or more and [100000 MPa] or less and [80000 MPa] or more and [210000 MPa] or less, respectively” (claims).
As to claim 14, the belt can be zigzag (Background; claims).
As to claim 15, the belt can be spirally/helically wound (claims).
Response to Arguments
Applicants do not convince the Examiner that She erred. Applicants’ sole argument is that
JP '655 does not describe a single rubberized strip containing both first (higher-modulus) and second (lower-modulus) reinforcement cords. In contrast, JP '655 is silent on a strip that itself contains a combination of high and low modulus cords. JP '655 uses strips containing cords of one modulus type at a time. Additionally, JP '655 explains a lateral center area and lateral end areas that have cords having different moduli of elasticity, wherein the lateral end areas include cords having a smaller modulus of elasticity relative to the cords of the lateral center area. Instead, the variation in modulus in JP '655 arises from selection of different strips, not mixing within a strip. Consequently, JP '655 also does not explain at least two second cords positioned at each lateral end of the strip JP teaches lateral end regions, not strip edge cords
(Reply, pg. 4). In other words, Applicants contend that the multi-modulus cords in JP5275655 are not within the same “strip.” This is incorrect. JP5275655 clearly states “the circumferential belt layer of the present invention is manufactured by forming a strip material in which one or a plurality of cords 6 and cords 7 are respectively covered with rubber spirally around the crown portion of the carcass. This is preferable because it leads to a reduction in the time required, and consequently the cost can be suppressed.” Thus, Applicants’ argument falls flat.
Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 103 - Maintained
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over JP5275655, in view of ARNOLD (US20120043002), in further view of UEYOKO (US20050056359) and UEYOKO2 (US20120312442).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing to apply familiar aramid and nylon cord configurations to achieve familiar belt characteristics with a reasonable expectation of success.
JP5275655 teaches familiar heavy-duty tires (e.g. aircraft) with familiar tire belts with outer cords having lower tangent modulus than inner cords to achieve improved the durability of the belt by suppressing the fatigue fracture of the cord by adjusting the elastic modulus in the width direction of the cord embedded in the circumferential belt layer.
JP5275655 does not explicitly teach first cords (higher tangent modulus) have aramid or aramid-nylon, whereas second cord (lower tangent modulus) have only nylon (claims 3-4 and 7-9); or strip widths of 0.5 inches (claim 11) and strip epi of 16-18 (claims 12-13).
However, this configuration was well-known, and easily substituted or applied based on the teaching of JP5275655. As an initial matter, ARNOLD makes clear that the location and type of cord in heavy-duty aircraft tires is dependent on where reinforcement is needed.
Conventional pneumatic aircraft tires are a composite of at least two primary materials: elastomer and fibers. The materials are combined to produce rubberized fibers used as reinforcement in the tire. Common fibers are polyester, rayon, nylon, aromatic polyamide, and aramid, all of which are formed into cords prior to being incorporated into elastomers. The rubberized fibers give a tire its shape, size, stability, load carrying capacity, fatigue, bruise resistance, etc.
Fiber cords are used in all the different areas of the tire where reinforcement means are required: in the carcass as a reinforcing ply for the entire carcass or in sidewall regions; in the belt or breaker structures as primary reinforcing plies or as overlays or underlays; in the bead region as flipper or chipper plies. In the different areas of the tire, the fiber cord is relied upon to provide properties specific to that region of the tire. Thus, for each area of the tire, a single type of fiber may be treated or corded in numerous ways to provide different benefits.
Prior to being incorporated into elastomer, the fiber cord is adhesively treated to ensure bonding of the fiber to the elastomer. The selected adhesive is determined so as to be compatible with the fiber being used and to permit the fiber to remain bonded to the elastomer during curing and use of the tire. An adhesive selected for use with nylon fibers will not be compatible with polyester fibers due to the different chemical structure of the adhesive and the fiber.
In treating the fiber, there are three main variables to consider: time, temperature, and tension. Each of these variables is optimized depending upon the type of fiber cord being treated, i.e., nylon versus rayon versus aramid, and the adhesive being used to create bonding between the elastomer and fiber. The time must be sufficient to allow the adhesive to bond with the fiber and set; the temperature must be sufficient to activate the adhesive; and the tension must be sufficient to ensure penetration of the adhesive, permit the fiber to move through the processing unit, and develop the requisite physical properties such as modulus, shrinkage and extensibility that are required.
In selecting a fiber cord for reinforcing a tire, the cord properties are selected to achieve desired goals. When different properties are desired and a single fiber type cannot provide the desired characteristics to the tire, different materials may be combined. A reinforcement ply may use alternating types of parallel cords
(paras. 0007-11). To this end, both UEYOKO and UEYOKO2 make clear that heavy-duty aircraft tires commonly include both higher-modulus aramid cords with lower-modulus nylon cords; strip widths of 0.5 inches, and strip epi of 16-18. UEYOKO teaches a tire with zigzag belt reinforcing structure 43/41/40 comprising a belt 40 formed by winding a strip of reinforcement cords 46 (Figs. 3-8), wherein the strip of reinforcement cords is formed from a first reinforcement cord and a second reinforcement cord (An alternative method of construction permits the cords 46 to be of different size or even of different materials from the zigzag layers 41 and 42 (para. 0053)), wherein the first reinforcement cord 46 is formed of a higher modulus material than the second reinforcement cord 46 (id.). Each outer zigzag belt layer having cords inclined at 5 to 30 degrees relative to the centerplane of the tire extending in alternation to turnaround points at each lateral edge, and at least one spirally wound belt layer having cords wound spirally at an inclination of 5 degrees or less relative to the tire's centerplane and located radially outward of the at least two radially inner zigzag belt layers, and the distance between the lateral edges of the widest belt layer defines the belt width W, and wherein each zigzag belt layer is formed by a continuous strip of two or up to 20 cords (para. 0008). “Bias ply tire” means a tire having a carcass with reinforcing cords in the carcass ply extending diagonally across the tire from bead core to bead core at about a 25°-50° angle with respect to the equatorial plane of the tire. Cords run at opposite angles in alternate layers (para. 0018). “Zigzag belt reinforcing structure” means at least two layers of cords or a ribbon of parallel cords having 2 to 20 cords in each ribbon and laid up in an alternating pattern extending at an angle between 5° and 30° between lateral edges of the belt layers (para. 0036).
As to claims 2-4, the tangent modulus is the same because the same composition as claimed must yield the same result; thus the prior art meets the claimed results because it teaches the same aramid and nylon cord compositions.
As to claims 5-9, there are three reinforcement cords one or more is aramid or aramid-nylon, the others nylon (para. 0053).
As to claims 10-13, the strip of cords in the belt can be 0.5 inches and having plural cords in the range of 2 to 20 cords within each strip (para. 0052).
UEYOKO2 teaches a tire with zigzag belt reinforcing structure 70/92 comprising a belt formed by winding a strip of reinforcement cords 46 (Figs. 2-10; Abstract), wherein the strip of reinforcement cords is formed from a first reinforcement cord and a second reinforcement cord (An alternative method of construction permits the cords 46 to be of different size or even of different materials from the zigzag layers 41 and 42 (para. 0053)), wherein the first reinforcement cord 46 is formed of a higher modulus material than the second reinforcement cord 46 (id.). The cords of the zigzag belt structure cross with each other, typically at a cord angle A of 5 degrees to 30 degrees with respect to the equatorial plane EP of the tire when the strip 43 is reciprocated at least once between both side ends 44 and 45 of the ply within every 360 degrees of the circumference as mentioned above (para. 0030). “Zigzag belt reinforcing structure” means at least two layers of cords or a ribbon of parallel cords having 1 to 20 cords in each ribbon and laid up in an alternating pattern extending at an angle between 5° and 30° between lateral edges of the belt layers. (para. 0013).
In any of the above described embodiments, the cords are preferably continuously wound from one belt structure to the next.
The cords of any of the belt layers described above, eg 50, 55, 60, 61, 70, may comprise any suitable cord, typically nylon cords such as nylon-6,6 cords. Preferably the nylon cords have an 1890 denier/2/2 or 1890 denier/3 construction. One or more of the belt cords may also comprise an aramid and nylon cord structure, for example, a hybrid cord, a high energy cord or a merged cord. Examples of suitable cords are described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,893,665, U.S. Pat. No. 4,155,394 [SHEPHERD] or U.S. Pat. No. 6,799,618. Preferably, the belt cords have a percent elongation at break of 26% or less, and more preferably 20% or less. Preferably, the carcass cords have a greater % elongation at break than the % elongation at break of the belt cords.
The cords of any of the above described carcass, spiral or zigzag belt layers described above may be nylon, nylon 6,6, aramid, or combinations thereof, including merged, hybrid, high energy constructions known to those skilled in the art. One example of a suitable cord construction for the belt cords, carcass cords (or both), may comprise a composite of aramid and nylon, containing two cords of a polyamide (aramid) with construction of 3300 dtex with a 6.7 twist, and one nylon or nylon 6/6 cord having a construction of 1880 dtex, with a 4.5 twist. The overall merged cable twist is 6.7. The composite cords may have an elongation at break greater than 8% and a tensile strength greater than 900 newtons. Optionally, the original linear density may be greater than 8500 dtex. Elongation, break, linear density and tensile strength are determined from cord samples taken after being dipped but prior to vulcanization of the tire
(paras. 0040-42). SHEPHERD is explained above (twisted cords of aramid, nylon and aramid-nylon). This is also taught in US 4,893,665 and US 6,799,618, both incorporated in UEYOKO.
As to claims 2-4, UEYOKO teaches the tangent modulus at 80% of break for each cord can range between “aramid yarn characterized by having a modulus at one percent elongation and at a twist of about one turn per inch, in the range of about 250 to about 600, preferably about 300 to about 550 grams per denier, and one to twelve plies individually selected from polyester or nylon yarns characterized by having a modulus at one percent elongation, and at a twist of about one turn per inch, in the range of about 20 to about 100, preferably 25 to about 60 grams per denier” (col. 2; see also Fig. 2). It is also noted that the same composition as claimed must yield the same result; thus the prior art meets the claimed results because it teaches the same aramid and nylon cord compositions.
As to claims 5-9 and 15, UEYOKO teaches there are three reinforcement cords that form a twist or helical wind, one is aramid or aramid-nylon, the other nylon (Figs. 1-2).
As to claims 10-13, UEYOKO teaches the strip of cords in the belt can have 5-40 cords/inch (col. 4, ll. 5-17).
In sum, the prior art teaches the same cord materials (nylon vs. aramid) as disclosed in the specification here that yield the claimed modulus characteristics (paras. 0025 & 0032-33). To this end, UEYOKO teaches belt layers 41 composed of strips 43 composed of cords 46 of nylon and aramid (Fig. 5, for example). UEYOKO2 teaches belt package 40 composed of zigzag belt reinforcing structures 70/90/92 composed of strips 43 composed of cords of nylon and aramid (Figs. 2-10, for example; paras. 0028-30, for example).
Applicants are reminded of the breadth of their claims. Claim 1 only requires a generic belt structure with rubberized strip of two parallel cords, each with a different tangent modulus. The method of making (“formed by winding”) does not change the scope of the claim. Exemplary belt structures 70, 92 with rubberized strips 41, 44 with cords 46 are shown in Figures 3-5:
PNG
media_image1.png
272
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
148
470
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
106
404
media_image3.png
Greyscale
UEYOKO shows the same structures (Fig. 8):
PNG
media_image4.png
206
510
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As does UEYOKO2 (Fig. 8):
PNG
media_image5.png
148
336
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, UEYOKO explains that the cords 46 of the rubberized layers can be different, such as aramid and nylon (para. 0053). As does UEYOKO2 (paras. 0027 & 0041-42 (citing SHEPHARD, US 4155394, which teaches aramid-nylon mixed cords)).
In conclusion, the prior art as a whole demonstrates that it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing to apply familiar cord configurations and compositions known to yield familiar heavy-duty tire reinforcement characteristics with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicants do not convince the Examiner that She erred. Applicants’ sole argument is that
JP '655 does not describe a single rubberized strip containing both first (higher-modulus) and second (lower-modulus) reinforcement cords. In contrast, JP '655 is silent on a strip that itself contains a combination of high and low modulus cords. JP '655 uses strips containing cords of one modulus type at a time. Additionally, JP '655 explains a lateral center area and lateral end areas that have cords having different moduli of elasticity, wherein the lateral end areas include cords having a smaller modulus of elasticity relative to the cords of the lateral center area. Instead, the variation in modulus in JP '655 arises from selection of different strips, not mixing within a strip. Consequently, JP '655 also does not explain at least two second cords positioned at each lateral end of the strip JP teaches lateral end regions, not strip edge cords
(Reply, pg. 4). In other words, Applicants contend that the multi-modulus cords in JP5275655 are not within the same “strip.” This is incorrect. JP5275655 clearly states “the circumferential belt layer of the present invention is manufactured by forming a strip material in which one or a plurality of cords 6 and cords 7 are respectively covered with rubber spirally around the crown portion of the carcass. This is preferable because it leads to a reduction in the time required, and consequently the cost can be suppressed.” Thus, Applicants’ argument falls flat.
Double Patenting- Obvious Type - Maintained
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Instant claims 1-4 and 6-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over conflicting claims 1-13 of U.S. 11,827,064.
Instant claim 15 is anticipated by the conflicting claims because the conflicting claims teach the same “zigzag belt reinforcing structure” as defined in the instant specification:
1. A pneumatic tire having a carcass and a belt reinforcing structure, the belt reinforcing structure comprising:
a zigzag belt reinforcing structure formed by multiple windings of a strip of reinforcement cords, the strip of reinforcing cords being inclined at 5 to 30 degrees relative to the centerplane of the tire extending in alternation to turnaround points at each lateral end [definition of “zigzag belt” reinforcing structure in Spec., para. 0015], wherein the strip of reinforcement cords is formed of a first reinforcement cord and two second reinforcement cords, wherein the first reinforcement cord is located between the two second reinforcement cords [instant claim 6], and wherein the first reinforcement cord is formed of a higher modulus material than the second reinforcement cords.
2. The pneumatic tire of claim 1 wherein the first reinforcement cord has a tangent modulus at 80% of break greater than 5000 MPA.
3. The pneumatic tire of claim 1 wherein the second reinforcement cords have a tangent modulus at 80% of break less than 5000 MPA.
4. The pneumatic tire of claim 1 wherein the first reinforcement cord has a tangent modulus at 80% of break less than 35000 MPA.
5. The pneumatic tire of claim 1 wherein the second reinforcement cords are located at each lateral end of the strip.
6. The pneumatic tire of claim 1 wherein the first reinforcement cord is formed of a merged cord of aramid and nylon.
7. The pneumatic tire of claim 1 wherein the first reinforcement cord is formed of aramid.
8. The pneumatic tire of claim 1 wherein the second reinforcement cords are formed of nylon.
9. The pneumatic tire of claim 1 wherein the strip has a total of 9 reinforcement cords, so that there are 7 first reinforcement cords located between the two second reinforcement cords.
10. The pneumatic tire of claim 1 wherein the strip has an epi of 16.
11. The pneumatic tire of claim 8 wherein the strip has an epi of 18.
12. The pneumatic tire of claim 1 wherein the belt structure further includes a helically wound belt.
13. The pneumatic tire of claim 1 wherein the strip of reinforcement cords has a width of about 0.5 inches.
Thus, conflicting claim 1 anticipates instant claim 15 which is the same zigzag belt reinforcing structure as claim 15 as defined by the specification.
Response to Arguments
These rejections are maintained because only “objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims” may be held in abeyance. MPEP § 714.02.
New Grounds of Rejection - Double Patenting- Obvious Type
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Instant claims 1-4 and 6-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over conflicting claims 1-3 of U.S. 10,723,177, in view of JP5275655, in view of ARNOLD (US20120043002), in further view of UEYOKO (US20050056359) and UEYOKO2 (US20120312442).
Instant claims 1-4 and 6-15 are obvious over the conflicting claims in light of the very familiar cord configuration in which the outer cords are lower tangent modulus nylon and the inner cords are higher tangent modulus aramid. The conflicting claims teach the same zigzag belt configuration with same EPI, same nylon and aramid cords, same belt width, and same cord numbers:
1. A pneumatic tire having a carcass and a belt reinforcing structure, the belt reinforcing structure comprising:
a low angle belt formed by winding a first strip of reinforcement cords, wherein the width of the first strip is about 0.5 inches;
a zigzag belt reinforcing structure formed by winding a second strip of reinforcement cords, wherein the width of the second strip is about 0.5 inches, wherein the second strip of cords has a lower EPI (ends/inch) than the first strip of cords, wherein the first strip has a thickness of 0.062 inches.
2. A pneumatic tire having a carcass and a belt reinforcing structure, the belt reinforcing structure comprising:
a low angle belt formed by winding a first strip of reinforcement cords, wherein the width of the first strip is about 0.5 inches;
a zigzag belt reinforcing structure formed by winding a second strip of reinforcement cords, wherein the width of the second strip is about 0.5 inches, wherein the second strip of cords has a lower EPI (ends/inch) than the first strip of cords, wherein the second strip has a thickness of 0.065 inches.
3. A pneumatic tire having a carcass and a belt reinforcing structure, the belt reinforcing structure comprising:
a low angle belt formed by winding a first strip of reinforcement cords, wherein the width of the first strip is about 0.5 inches;
a zigzag belt reinforcing structure formed by winding a second strip of reinforcement cords, wherein the width of the second strip is about 0.5 inches, wherein the second strip of cords has a lower EPI (ends/inch) than the first strip of cords, wherein the first strip is formed of one or more reinforcement cords having a merged cord of 3000/2 Aramid and 1680/1 nylon construction.
Although the conflicting claims do not explicitly teach there are at least two second reinforcement cords in a strip, and each second reinforcement cord is located at each lateral end of the strip, yet this is configuration is very well known in the heavy-duty tire art for the benefits explained above (see Anticipation and Obviousness rejections above, explaining JP5275655, ARNOLD (US20120043002), UEYOKO (US20050056359) and UEYOKO2 (US20120312442)). Thus, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply this common cord configuration to the belts of the conflicting claims to achieve familiar reinforcement results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Instant claims 1-4 and 6-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over conflicting claim 1 of U.S. 11,186,122, in view of JP5275655, in view of ARNOLD (US20120043002), in further view of UEYOKO (US20050056359) and UEYOKO2 (US20120312442).
Instant claims 1-4 and 6-15 are obvious over the conflicting claims in light of the very familiar cord configuration in which the outer cords are lower tangent modulus nylon and the inner cords are higher tangent modulus aramid. The conflicting claims teach the same zigzag belt configuration with same nylon and aramid cords:
1. A pneumatic tire having a carcass and a belt reinforcing structure, the belt reinforcing structure comprising:
a low angle belt formed by winding a first strip of reinforcement cords,
a zigzag belt reinforcing structure formed by winding a second strip of reinforcement cords,
wherein the second strip of cords has a lower EPI (ends/inch) than the first strip of cords, and
wherein the first strip is formed of one or more reinforcement cords having a 3000/2 Aramid 1680/1 nylon construction..
Although the conflicting claims do not explicitly teach there are at least two second reinforcement cords in a strip, and each second reinforcement cord is located at each lateral end of the strip, yet this is configuration is very well known in the heavy-duty tire art for the benefits explained above (see Anticipation and Obviousness rejections above, explaining JP5275655, ARNOLD (US20120043002), UEYOKO (US20050056359) and UEYOKO2 (US20120312442)). Although the conflicting claims also do not explicitly teach same EPI, same belt width, and same cord numbers, yet these, too, were well known (see id.). Thus, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply this common cord configuration to the belts of the conflicting claims to achieve familiar reinforcement results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
A promise to submit a terminal disclaimer is not a proper response.
Prior Art
The following prior art also pertinent: (US6799618; textile overlay structure 18, with same cord structure, but not a belt); US20110303336.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELODY TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-1846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/YUNG-SHENG M TSUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743