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 .
1) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1-29-26 has been entered.
2) 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.
3) 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 13
4) Claims 13, 17, 19 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 113 (JP 2013-177113) in view of Poque et al (US 4,284,117), Caretta (US 4,819,705), Miyazaki et al (US 2002/0017351) and Kikuchi et al (US 2009/0277558).
Japan 113 discloses a pneumatic tire (passenger size 195/65/R15) comprising a tread (cap tread 11 and base tread 12), belt 14, band 13 and radial carcass [FIGURES 1-3, machine translation]. The tread comprises circumferential main grooves P [FIGURES 1-2]. The belt 14 comprises two layers wherein the lower layer is the widest layer [FIGURES 1-2]. The tire has a tire size of 195/65R15 (section width SW = 195 mm, aspect ratio = section height SH / section width SW = 65%, and rim diameter D = 15 inches). See machine translation. This tire has an outer diameter OD = 634 mm [D = 15 inches → D = 381 mm; SH/SW = 0.65 → SH = 0.65x195 mm = 126.75 mm; tire radius R = 1/2xD + SH → R = 1/2x381 mm + 126.75 mm = 317 mm; OD = 2R → 2x317 = 634 mm]. Thus, Japan 113’s tire having a tire size of 195/65R17 has a section width SW = 195 mm and an outer diameter OD = 634 mm. The value 195 falls within the claimed range of 100-400. The value 634 falls within the claimed range of 200-660. Japan 113 teaches that the tread thickness A = 7.5 mm [EXAMPLE 1, TABLE 5]. Distance TCE = tread thickness + thickness of band 13 + thickness of upper belt layer of belt 14. Japan 113 is silent as to thickness of band 13 and thickness of upper belt layer of belt 14 and is thereby silent as to TCE/OD.
As to claim 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 113’s pneumatic tire having tire size 195/65R15, tread thickness = 7.5 mm, band 13 and belt 14 comprising narrow upper belt layer and wide lower belt layer such that TCE = 0.008 to 0.130 OD since (1) Poque et al teaches that it is known to provide a pneumatic tire with a cap ply (band) having a thickness of 0.4 mm to improve operating characteristic and service life and (2) Caretta teaches that it is known to provide a pneumatic tire (passenger size 185/65-13) with a belt having two layers wherein each belt layer has a thickness less than or equal to 1.0 mm (FIGURE 2,
h < 1.0 mm) to reduce horse power absorption. When Japan 113’s band 13 (cap ply) has a thickness = 0.7 mm (as per Poque et al) and Japan 113’s upper belt layer has a thickness = 1.0 mm (as per Caretta), then distance TCE = 9.2 mm [TCE = 7.5 mm + 0.7 mm + 1.0 mm = 9.2 mm]. Therefore, the ratio TCE/OD for the resulting tire is 0.0145 [9.2 mm / 634 mm = 0.0145]. The value 0.0145 falls within the claimed range of 0.008 to 0.130.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 113’s pneumatic tire (passenger size 195/65R15) such that a strength Tcs (N/50mm) per a width of 50 mm of a carcass ply constituting the carcass layer is in a range of 17 < Tcs/OD < 120 with respect to the tire outer diameter OD (mm) since (1) Japan 113 discloses a pneumatic tire having a tire size of 195/65R15 (outer diameter OD = 634 mm) and comprising a radial carcass and (2) Miyazaki et al teaches providing a pneumatic tire (passenger size 165/70R13) comprising a radial carcass such that the carcass comprises aliphatic polyketone cords (1500/2) having total denier d = 3000, tensile strength = 16.8 g/d and cord count = 40 cords/5 cm [EXAMPLE B1] to improve high speed durability, steering stability and ride comfort while achieving weight reduction and cost reduction [paragraph 61]. In EXAMPLE B1, tensile strength of a cord = 494 N [16.8g/d x 3000d = 50400 gram-force = 494 N]. Therefore, strength Tcs = 19760 N/50mm [494 N x 40 cords/50 mm = 19760 N/50mm]. When strength Tcs = 19760 N/50mm (as per Miyazaki et al) and outer diameter OD = 634 mm (as per Japan 113), then strength Tcs/outer diameter OD = 31 [19760/634 = 31]. This value of 31 falls within the claimed range of 17 to 120.
Japan 113 does not recite a strength Tbd (N) of each of the bead cores is in a range 45 < Tbd/OD < 120 with respect to the tire outer diameter OD (mm).
Kikuchi et al teaches a steel wire for forming a bead core of a pneumatic tire for a passenger car [0005],[0031]. Kikuchi et al discloses the bead wire being wound 5 to 10 times and the diameter of the bead wire being about 1.5-3.5 mm [0062],[0063] In TABLE 1, EXAMPLE #1 teaches a bead wire having a tensile strength = 1280 MPa. Thus, Kikuchi et al teaches:
tensile strength of a bead wire = 1280 MPa =1280 N/mm2
diameter of a bead wire = 2 mm
area of the bead wire = (π x (2 mm/2))2 ≈ 3.14 mm2
bead core has 10 windings
tensile strength (Tbd) ≈ 1280 x 3.14 x 10 ≈ 40,192 N
total cross sectional area (σbd) of the bead wire ≈ 10 x 3.14 ≈ 31.4 mm2
Kikuchi et al teaches that the bead wire achieves weight reduction and high ductility without reducing strength [abstract].
As to claims 13 and 25, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 113’s pneumatic passenger tire with a bead core which satisfies
45 ≤ Tbd/OD ≤ 120 [claim 13] and 0.025 ≤ σbd/OD ≤ 0.075 [claim 25] since (1) Japan 113 discloses a pneumatic passenger tire having a size of 195/65R15, which has an outer diameter OD = 634 mm and (2) Kikuchi et al teaches providing an automobile tire with bead core wherein the bead core comprises steel wire being wound 5-10 times and having diameter being about 1.5-3.5 mm wherein, for example, bead wire has tensile strength = 1280 MPa to achieve weight reduction and high ductility without reducing strength. When Tbd = 40,192 N [as per Kikuchi] and OD = 634 mm [as per Japan 113], then Tbd/OD = 63 [Tbd/OD = 40,192/634 = 63]. This value of 63 falls within the claimed range of 45 to 120 [claim 13]. When σbd ≈ 31.4 mm2 [Kikuchi et al] and OD = 634 mm [Japan 113], then σbd/OD = 0.0495 [σbd/OD = 31.4/634 = 0.0495]. This value of 0.0495 falls within the claimed range 0.025 to 0.075 [claim 25].
No unexpected results have been shown. The claimed invention has not been compared with Japan 113.
As to claim 17, note illustration of rubber gauge of cap tread 11 and rubber gauge of base tread 12 (under tread) shown in FIGURES 1-2 and Japan 113’s teaching to provide the tread such that volume of base tread is 15% to 50% total tread volume [machine translation].
As to claim 19, FIGURES 1-2 and 4-6 illustrate the circumferential grooves having a depth less than tread thickness.
5) Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 113 (JP 2013-177113) in view of Poque et al (US 4,284,117), Caretta (US 4,819,705), Miyazaki et al (US 2002/0017351) and Kikuchi et al (US 2009/0277558) as applied above and further in view of Japan 143 (JP 2015-145143).
As to claims 14-15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 113’s pneumatic tire such that TSH = 60-170% TCE [claim 14], TSH = 101-155% TCE [claim 15] since Japan 143 teaches providing a pneumatic tire (light truck tire 205/70R16) such that DSH = 100-170% DCC to ensure riding comfort and tire durability [FIGURE 3, machine translation].
6) Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 113 (JP 2013-177113) in view of Poque et al (US 4,284,117), Caretta (US 4,819,705), Miyazaki et al (US 2002/0017351) and Kikuchi et al (US 2009/0277558) as applied above and further in view of Japan 902 (JP 62-152902).
As to claim 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 113’s pneumatic tire such that ratio between a maximum value and a minimum value of a rubber gauge of the tread rubber is 0% or more and 40% or less since Japan 902 teaches providing a pneumatic tire (tire size 205/60R17.5) such that thickness TB = 85-95% thickness TA [FIGURE 1] to improve wandering performance [machine translation].
7) Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 113 (JP 2013-177113) in view of Poque et al (US 4,284,117), Caretta (US 4,819,705), Miyazaki et al (US 2002/0017351) and Kikuchi et al (US 2009/0277558) as applied above and further in view of Japan 143 (JP 2015-145143) and Isobe (US 2010/0116402).
As to claim 18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 113’s pneumatic tire such that TSH = 1.50-6.90 TU since (1) Japan 113 teaches that the tire has a tire size of 195/65R15 (section height SH equals 126.75 mm as explained above) and tread thickness (tread gauge) = 7.5 mm [EXAMPLE 1, TABLE 5], (2) Japan 143 teaches providing a pneumatic tire (light truck tire 205/70R16) such that DSH = 100-170% tread rubber gauge DCC to ensure riding comfort and tire durability [FIGURE 3, machine translation] and (3) Isobe teaches providing a pneumatic tire such that A = 5-7% E (nominal tire height / section height) and B = 2-4% E (nominal tire height / section height) [FIGURE 2] to prevent diameter growth of the outermost grooves so biased wear is effectively prevented in the shoulder portions of the tire.
8) Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 113 (JP 2013-177113) in view of Poque et al (US 4,284,117), Caretta (US 4,819,705), Miyazaki et al (US 2002/0017351) and Kikuchi et al (US 2009/0277558) as applied above and further in view of China 138 (CN 204915138 U).
As to claim 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 113’s pneumatic tire such that a circumferential groove closest to the tire equatorial plane has a deepest groove depth since (1) Japan 113 teaches providing two circumferential grooves on each side of the tread [FIGURES 1-2] and (2) China 138 teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising two circumferential grooves on each side of the tread such that the circumferential groove 41 closest to the tire equatorial has depth H1 = 133-178% of depth H2 of the shoulder circumferential groove to improve wet drainage performance [FIGURE 1, machine translation].
9) Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 113 (JP 2013-177113) in view of Poque et al (US 4,284,117), Caretta (US 4,819,705), Miyazaki et al (US 2002/0017351) and Kikuchi et al (US 2009/0277558) as applied above and further in view of Shibata (US 5,803,999).
As to claim 21, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 113’s pneumatic tire such that shoulder drop DA = 0.08-6% tread width TW since Shibata teaches providing a pneumatic tire (passenger size 195/65R15) having a tread such that shoulder drop T1 = 3.8-5% tread width TW to minimize variation of tire diameter in ground contacting region to prevent wear and noise [FIGURE 1].
10) Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 113 (JP 2013-177113) in view of Poque et al (US 4,284,117), Caretta (US 4,819,705), Miyazaki et al (US 2002/0017351) and Kikuchi et al (US 2009/0277558) as applied above and further in view of Canada 376 (CA 488,376).
As to claims 22-24, it would have been obvious to provide Japan 113’s pneumatic tire with the claimed radius / radii since (1) Japan 113 teaches that the tire has a tire size of 195/65R15 (section width = 195 mm) and (2) Canada 376 teaches providing a pneumatic tire such that tread radius C = 145-175% section width A to improve riding qualities in that the ride is softer while at the same time the tire is exceptionally stable on turns and so that the tire runs cooler to give increase mileage wherein FIGURE 1 illustrates the curvature of the carcass being smaller than the curvature of the tread. As to claim 23, this claims reads on the tread having a single radius since claim 23 reads on TRw = 100% TRc.
claim 26
11) Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 113 (JP 2013-177113) in view of Poque et al (US 4,284,117), Caretta (US 4,819,705) and Miyazaki et al (US 2002/0017351).
Japan 113 discloses a pneumatic tire (passenger size 195/65/R15) comprising a tread (cap tread 11 and base tread 12), belt 14, band 13 and radial carcass [FIGURES 1-3, machine translation]. The tread comprises circumferential main grooves P [FIGURES 1-2]. The belt 14 comprises two layers wherein the lower layer is the widest layer [FIGURES 1-2]. The tire has a tire size of 195/65R15 (section width SW = 195 mm, aspect ratio = section height SH / section width SW = 65%, and rim diameter D = 15 inches). See machine translation. This tire has an outer diameter OD = 634 mm [D = 15 inches → D = 381 mm; SH/SW = 0.65 → SH = 0.65x195 mm = 126.75 mm; tire radius R = 1/2xD + SH → R = 1/2x381 mm + 126.75 mm = 317 mm; OD = 2R → 2x317 = 634 mm]. Thus, Japan 113’s tire having a tire size of 195/65R17 has a section width SW = 195 mm and an outer diameter OD = 634 mm. The value 195 falls within the claimed range of 100-400. The value 634 falls within the claimed range of 200-660. Japan 113 teaches that the tread thickness A = 7.5 mm [EXAMPLE 1, TABLE 5]. Distance TCE = tread thickness + thickness of band 13 + thickness of upper belt layer of belt 14. Japan 113 is silent as to thickness of band 13 and thickness of upper belt layer of belt 14 and is thereby silent as to TCE/OD.
As to claim 26, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 113’s pneumatic tire having tire size 195/65R15, tread thickness = 7.5 mm, band 13 and belt 14 comprising narrow upper belt layer and wide lower belt layer such that TCE = 0.008 to 0.130 since (1) Poque et al teaches that it is known to provide a pneumatic tire with a cap ply (band) having a thickness of 0.4 mm to improve operating characteristic and service life and (2) Caretta teaches that it is known to provide a pneumatic tire (passenger size 185/65-13) with a belt having two layers wherein each belt layer has a thickness less than or equal to 1.0 mm (FIGURE 2,
h < 1.0 mm) to reduce horse power absorption. When Japan 113’s band 13 (cap ply) has a thickness = 0.7 mm (as per Poque et al) and Japan 113’s upper belt layer has a thickness = 1.0 mm (as per Caretta), then distance TCE = 9.2 mm [TCE = 7.5 mm + 0.7 mm + 1.0 mm = 9.2 mm]. Therefore, the ratio TCE/OD for the resulting tire is 0.0145 [9.2 mm / 634 mm = 0.0145]. The value 0.0145 falls within the claimed range of 0.008 to 0.130.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 113’s pneumatic tire (passenger size 195/65R15) such that a strength Tcs (N/50mm) per a width of 50 mm of a carcass ply constituting the carcass layer is in a range of 40 < Tcs/OD < 120 with respect to the tire outer diameter OD (mm) since (1) Japan 113 discloses a pneumatic tire having a tire size of 195/65R15 (outer diameter OD = 634 mm) and comprising a radial carcass and (2) Miyazaki et al teaches providing a pneumatic tire (passenger size 165/70R13) comprising a radial carcass such that the carcass comprises cords wherein tensile strength of cord is at least 15.0 g/d [paragraph 10] and total denier d is 2000 to 4500 [paragraph 32] to improve high speed durability, steering stability and ride comfort while achieving weight reduction and cost reduction [paragraph 61] wherein for example, aliphatic polyketone cords (1500/2) have total denier d = 3000, tensile strength = 16.8 g/d and cord count = 40 cords/5 cm [EXAMPLE B1].
As to Tcs/OD, the following additional comments are made. FIRST: In EXAMPLE B1, tensile strength of a cord = 494 N [16.8g/d x 3000d = 50400 gram-force = 494 N. Therefore, strength Tcs = 19760 N/50mm [494 N x 40 cords/50 mm = 19760 N/50mm]. When strength Tcs = 19760 N/50mm (as per Miyazaki et al) and outer diameter OD = 634 mm (as per Japan 113), then strength Tcs/outer diameter OD
= 31 [19760/634 = 31]. SECOND: When total denier = 4500 [Miyazaki et al, paragraph 32] and aliphatic polyketone cords tensile strength = 16.8 g/d and cord count = 40 cords/5 cm [EXAMPLE B1], then tensile strength of a cord = 741 N [16.8g/d x 4500d = 75600 gram-force = 741 N. Therefore, strength Tcs = 29640 N/50mm [741 N x 40 cords/50 mm = 29640 N/50mm]. When strength Tcs = 29640 N/50mm (Miyazaki et al) and outer diameter OD = 634 mm (as per Japan 113), then strength Tcs/outer diameter OD= 47 [29640/634 = 47]. This value of 47 falls within the claimed range of 40 to 120 [claim 26].
No unexpected results have been shown. The claimed invention has not been compared with Japan 113.
Remarks
12) Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 13-26 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection and the reasons presented therein.
13) No claim is allowed.
14) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN D MAKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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 B Smith (Whatley) can be reached on 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.
/STEVEN D MAKI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
March 19, 2026