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 and Application This non-final action on the merits is in response to the election of invention received by the office on 03 December 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 14-20 are withdrawn as non-elected. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 03 December 2025 is acknowledged. 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, 2, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0189165 to Mulder et al. (‘165 hereafter) . Regarding claim 1, ‘165 teaches A method of manufacturing a cord-reinforced elastomer composition band, the method comprising steps of: Providing multiple parallel cords ( Fig 5 item 91 ) ; Starting extruding at least one elastomer composition onto the parallel cords in a first zone to form a first end portion of the cord-reinforced elastomer composition band ( Fig. 5 item 92 ) ; Further extruding the elastomer composition onto the parallel cords in the first zone while moving the first end portion of the cord-reinforced elastomer composition band in parallel to the cords and away from the first zone ( Fig. 5 item 93 ) ; and Holding the parallel cords at a constant distance relative to one another in a second zone which is adjacent and downstream the first end portion and which moves with the first end portion of the cord-reinforced elastomer composition band in parallel to the cords and away from the first zone ( Fig 5 item 93 ) . Regarding claim 2, ‘165 teaches t he method wherein the parallel cords are arranged in a plane and wherein the elastomer composition is extruded onto each side of said plane (Fig 5 items 91 and 93) . Regarding claim 5, ‘165 teaches t he method wherein the cords move through and along a channel and wherein the elastomer composition is extruded onto the cords and into the channel in the first zone to define an outer shape of the band (Fig 5 item F) . 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 ( 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 3, 4, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘165 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0134481 to David G. Abdallah Jr. (‘481 hereafter) . Regarding claim 3, ‘165 does not teach that the cords are arranged in two parallel planes. In the same field of endeavor, tire reinforcement molding, ‘481 teaches t he method wherein the parallel cords are arranged in at least two parallel planes (Fig. 3 items 32, 32a and 32b) for the benefit of producing a double layer of reinforcement in a single body . One possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have been motivated to combine the teachings of ‘165 with those of ‘481 for the benefit of forming a double layer of reinforcement in a single body. Regarding claim 4, ‘165 does not teach transversely displaced parallel planes. In the same field of endeavor, tire reinforcement molding, ‘481 teaches t he method wherein the at least two parallel planes comprise a first plane and second plane, which are transversely displaced with respect to each other, and wherein cords of the first plane are arranged between the cords of the second plane, viewed in a cross section perpendicular to the parallel cords (Fig. 3 items 32, 32a and 32b) for the benefit of producing a double layer of reinforcement in a single body. One possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have been motivated to combine the teachings of ‘165 with those of ‘481 for the benefit of forming a double layer of reinforcement in a single body. Regarding claim 9, ‘165 does not teach the composition of the cords. In the same field of endeavor, tire reinforcement molding, ‘481 teaches t he method wherein the elastomer composition is a rubber composition and wherein the cords are selected from one or more of textile cords, steel cords, glass fiber cords, and carbon material cords (paragraph 0022) for the benefit of forming durable reinforcement elements. One possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have been motivated to combine the teachings of ‘165 with those of ‘481 for the benefit of forming durable reinforcement elements. Regarding claim 10, ‘165 does not teach the size of the manufactured strip or the dimension of the cords. In the same field of endeavor, tire reinforcement molding, ‘481 teaches t he method wherein the band has one or more of i ) a thickness within a range of 0.5 mm to 10 mm, ii) a width within a range of 4 mm to 400 mm, iii) cords having a diameter within a range of 0.3 mm to 2 mm, and iv) an essentially rectangular cross-section perpendicular to the cords (paragraph 0022) for the benefit of forming durable reinforcement elements. One possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have been motivated to combine the teachings of ‘165 with those of ‘481 for the benefit of forming durable reinforcement elements. Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘165 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019 / 0105870 to Kitagawa et al. (‘870 hereafter). Regarding claim 6, ‘165 does not teach cord guiding means in the second zone. In the related field of endeavor, extrusion molding reinforcing elements, ‘870 teaches t he method wherein the parallel cords are held at a constant distance relative to one another in the second zone by at least one cord guiding means moving with the first end portion away from the first zone ( Fig 5 items 56, paragraph 0094) for the benefit of forming a reinforcing element . It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘165 with those of ‘870 for the benefit of forming a reinforcing element. Regarding claim 7, ‘165 teaches t he method wherein the cords move through and along a channel and wherein the elastomer composition is extruded onto the cords and into the channel in the first zone to define an outer shape of the band (Fig 5 items, F, 91, 92, 93). ‘165 does not teach the moving guide means. In the related field of endeavor, extrusion molding reinforcing elements, ‘870 teaches the method wherein the cord guiding means slidingly moves through the channel together with and downstream of the first end portion (Fig 5 items 56, paragraph 0094) for the benefit of forming a reinforcing element. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘165 with those of ‘870 for the benefit of forming a reinforcing element. Regarding claim 8, ‘165 does not teach the removal of the cord guiding means. In the related field of endeavor, extrusion molding reinforcing elements, ‘870 teaches t he method wherein the cord guiding means is removed after the first end portion has moved out of an end of the channel which is essentially opposite to the first zone (Fig 5 items 56, paragraph 0094) for the benefit of forming a reinforcing element. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘165 with those of ‘870 for the benefit of forming a reinforcing element. Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘165 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0070105 to Benzig et al. (‘105 hereafter) . Regarding claim 11, ‘165 does not teach the particulars of a tire manufacturing process. In the related art of tire manufacture, ‘105 teaches a method of manufacturing a tire comprising multiple tire components including the step of applying at least one band structurally similar to the band claimed and the band taught by ‘165 (Fig 3 item 300, paragraph 0026) for the benefit of forming a durable tire . It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of ‘165 with those of ‘105 for the benefit of forming a durable tire. Regarding claim 12, ‘165 does not specifically recite the use of the reinforcing element formed. In the related art of tire manufacture, ‘105 teaches t he method wherein the band is applied as at least one of a belt ply, an overlay ply, an overlay ply strip, a carcass ply, and a layer of a shearband (paragraph 0026) for the benefit of forming a durable tire. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of ‘165 with those of ‘105 for the benefit of forming a durable tire. Regarding claim 13, ‘ 165 does not teach the particulars of the tire formed. In the related art of tire manufacture, ‘105 teaches t he method wherein the tire is a non-pneumatic tire comprising a tread band having a circumferential tread portion and a circumferential shearband carrying the tread portion, a hub portion, and a supporting portion supporting the tread band on the hub portion, and wherein the shearband comprises a plurality of stacked circumferential layers and wherein at least one of the layers consists of the band (Fig 4 items 200, 300, 402, 506, 504, paragraph 0026) for the benefit of forming a durable tire. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of ‘165 with those of ‘105 for the benefit of forming a durable tire. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT John P Robitaille whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7006 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:00PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Galen Hauth can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /JPR/ Examiner, Art Unit 1743 /GALEN H HAUTH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743