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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
3. Claim(s) 13 and 15-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hazama (JP 2006-22436, of record) and further in view of Schwarz (GB 2321651, newly cited) and Feijen (EP 0201114, of record).
Hazama is directed to a textile product, such as a tire cord, composed of first fibers (fibers or filaments A) and second fibers (fibers or filaments B), where said first fibers are recycled PET and said second fibers are virgin polyester or fossil origin (e.g. PET) (Page 5, 3rd paragraph from the bottom). Hazama further states that fibers A and fibers B may be “combined, twisted, or the like” (Page 6 of the machine translation- 2nd Paragraph). In such an instance, though, Hazama fails to specifically disclose the configuration when respective fibers are “combined”.
In any event, it is well recognized that “combining” fibers, when used as an alternative to twisting, to form tire reinforcing elements includes mixing fibers using air interlacing, as shown for example by Schwarz (Page 1, Liknes 6+). More particularly, Schwarz states that air interlacing creates straight portions 31 (claimed substantially straight portions) and interlaced portions 32 (claimed curls) (Figure 2) and improves cohesion of the filaments (Page 1, Lines 6+). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use air interlacing to “combine” the fibers of Hazama (and thus form a texturized yarn) for the benefits detailed above. It is emphasized that Hazama states that fibers A and fibers B are “combined, twisted, or the like”- this language would have been well recognized as including conventional air interlacing.
Lastly, regarding claim 13, it is well recognized that such cords or yarns are commonly used individually or a plurality of such yarns are twisted together to form a tire cord, as shown for example by Feijen. Feijen is similarly directed to a tire construction and recognizes the conventional manufacture of PET multifilament yarns (plurality of fibers or filaments) and the subsequent twisting of two or more multifilament yarns to form a tire cord (Column 6, Lines 25+ and Column 7, Lines 9+). It is emphasized that the formation of a tire cord by twisting a plurality of multifilament yarns corresponds with the common manner of forming tire cords. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the tire cord of Hazama, as modified by Schwarz, with a structure in accordance to the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 16, Hazama teaches a loading of at least 50% by weight for the recycled fibers.
Regarding claim 17, the claimed linear densities are consistent with those that are commonly associated with yarns, as shown for example by Feijen (Column 6, Lines 30+).
As to claim 18, Hazama teaches first and second fibers having a strength of at least 5.5 cN/dtex.
With respect to claim 19, Feijen provides the general order of elongations associated with tire cords formed with PET (Column 6, Lines 35+).
Regarding claim 20, the claimed twisting amounts are consistent with those that are conventionally used in the manufacture of tire cords. Feijen, for example, teaches twists of a few hundred turns per meter (Column 20, Lines 1+) and such is seen to encompass the claimed twisting amounts. Also, the exemplary disclosure of 393 turns per meter fails to teach away from the claimed twisting amounts (the broader disclosure of a few hundred turns per meter is seen to encompass the claimed twisting amounts).
As to claim 21, Feijen provides the general order of shrinkage values (Column 6, Lines 40+). Also, given that Hazama, as modified by Schwarz and Feijen, is directed to a cord construction that substantially mimics that required by the claimed invention, it reasons that such a tire cord would demonstrate properties in accordance to the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 22, as detailed above, tire cords are conventionally formed by twisting first and second yarns together.
Regarding claim 23, the general disclosure of “tire cords” by Hazama would have been recognized as including al fundamental tire components including reinforcing cords, such as a carcass. Feijen provides one example of PET cords being used in the carcass structure (Column 20, Lines 11+).
4. Claim(s) 13 and 15-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feijen and further in view of Hazama and Schwarz.
Feijen is directed to a PET (polyethylene terephthalate) tire cord (and associated tire) comprising first and second yarns twisted together, wherein respective yarns are multifilament yarns including between 15 and 1,000 PET fibers or filaments (Column 6, Lines 25+ and Column 7, Lines 9+). In such an instance, though, the yarns of Feijen are not disclosed as including a combination of recycled PET fibers or filaments and non-recycled PET fibers or filaments.
Hazama is similarly directed to tire cords and teaches the inclusion of recycled PET fibers or filaments and non-recycled PET fibers or filaments to provide environmental benefits and high flame retardancy. Hazama states that an element (yarn or cord) can be formed by using the aforementioned combination of fibers or filaments and “combining, twisting, or the like”. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use recycled and non-recycled PET fibers or filaments in respective yarns of Feijen for the benefits detailed above.
Lastly, regarding claim 13, it is well recognized that “combining” fibers, when used as an alternative to twisting, to form tire reinforcing elements includes mixing fibers using air interlacing, as shown for example by Schwarz (Page 1, Liknes 6+). More particularly, Schwarz states that air interlacing creates straight portions (claimed substantially straight portions) and interlaced portions (claimed curls) (Figure 2) and improves cohesion of the filaments (Page 1, Lines 6+). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use air interlacing to “combine” the fibers or filaments of Feijen, as modified by Hazama (and thus form a texturized yarn), for the benefits detailed above. It is emphasized that Feijen as modified by Hazama includes fibers A and fibers B that are “combined, twisted, or the like”- this language would have been well recognized as including conventional air interlacing.
Regarding claim 16, any arbitrary combination of filaments can be viewed as the claimed first filaments.
With respect to claim 17, Feijen teaches yarn fineness values between 300 and 2,500 dtex (Column 5, Lines 30+).
Regarding claim 18, given the presence of 15-1,000 filaments and a yarn tenacity between 500 and 1,000 cN/dtex (500-1,000 mN/dtex), individual filaments would necessarily have a tenacity equal to or greater than 5cN/dtex when 15-100 filaments are included (results in filament tenacities between 5 cN/dtex and 100 cN/dtex).
As to claim 19, Feijen teaches elongation at breaks as large as 20% (Column 6, Lines 39+).
Regarding claim 20, the claimed twisting amounts are consistent with those that are conventionally used in the manufacture of tire cords. Feijen, for example, teaches twists of a few hundred turns per meter (Column 20, Lines 1+) and such is seen to encompass the claimed twisting amounts. Also, the exemplary disclosure of 393 turns per meter fails to teach away from the claimed twisting amounts (the broader disclosure of a few hundred turns per meter is seen to encompass the claimed twisting amounts).
Regarding claim 21, Feijen teaches thermal shrinkage values as small as 0.5% (Column 6, Lines 40+).
With respect to claim 22, respective yarns in Feijen are identical to one another.
As to claim 23, Feijen describes a carcass ply and/or a belt layer (Column 20, Lines 10-20).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 5-19, filed July 7, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 13 and 15-24 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Schwarz (GB 2321651).
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 September 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights