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 § 102
2. 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.
3. Claim(s) 13, 15-19, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feijen (EP 0201114, newly cited).
Feijen is directed to a PET (polyethylene terephthalate) tire cord (and associated tire) comprising first and second yarns, wherein respective yarns are multifilament yarns including between 15 and 1,000 PET filaments (Column 6, Lines 25+ and Column 7, Lines 9+). Additionally, respective yarns in Feigen can be broadly viewed as including a mixture of first filaments (any arbitrary combination of filaments) and second filaments (remaining filaments) and thus define “texturized yarns”. It is emphasized that the claims are directed to a tire article as opposed to a method of manufacturing a tire. More particularly, the term “recycled PET” refers to the method in which the PET fibers are provided and as such fails to further define the structure of the claimed tire article. In essence, a final tire cord comprises first and second yarns, wherein respective yarns include a plurality of PET filaments- this is identical to the final tire cord of Feijen. It is emphasized that the mere characterization of filaments as “recycled PET” fails to positively require that the first and second filaments of the claimed invention are different from one another.
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 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
5. 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 JP 2018-521239 (newly cited), JP 6303487 (newly cited), and Feijen.
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). Thus, a single tire cord comprises first and second materials. While Hazama fails to expressly describe what constitutes a tire cord comprising first and second fibers, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized such language as encompassing tire yarns in which first and second fibers or filaments are mixed (multifilament yarns), as shown for example by JP ‘487 (Figure 6) and JP ‘239 (blended yarns). These yarns (that depicted by JP ‘487 and described by JP ‘289) are commonly referred to as composite yarns, mixed yarns, blended yarns, commingled yarns, and entangled yarns are consistent with well-known and conventional textile arrangements in tire cords. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the disclosure of Hazama as including any well-known and conventional textile arrangement in which first and second fibers are included and as evidenced by JP ‘487 and JP ‘239 (both of which are directed to tires cords), such would include individual yarns comprising first and second fibers.
Additionally, it is well recognized that such 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 with a structure in accordance to the claimed invention.
Lastly, regarding claim 13, the term “texturized yarn” simply requires that first and second fibers or filaments are mixed (claims are directed to a tire article as opposed to a method of manufacturing a tire) and as stated above, the general disclosure of a tire cord composed of first and second fibers by Hazama is seen to encompass a yarn comprising a mixture of first and second fibers (depicted by JP ‘487 and described by JP ‘239).
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 Feijen and JP ‘487, 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+).
6. Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hazama, JP ‘239, JP ‘487, and Feijen as applied in claim 13 above and further in view of Ueda (JP 2006-256565, newly cited).
As detailed above, the modified tire cord of Hazama includes a plurality of multifilament yarns, wherein each of said yarns includes a mixture or blend of virgin PET (fossil-based) and recycled PET. In such an instance, though, the yarns do not include straight portions spaced apart from curls.
Ueda (Figure 3) is similarly directed to tire cords defined by multifilament yarns, wherein said yarns include straight portions or non-entangled portions 7b and entangled portions or curled portions 7a. Ueda states that the inclusion of entangled portions provides a converging property similar to that of a twisted yarn and contributes to benefits (e.g. improved adhesive) when included in specific tire components. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include entangled portions (curls) in the multifilament yarns of Hazama for the benefits detailed above.
7. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feijen.
As detailed above, Feijen is directed to a tire cord formed by twisting first and second PET multifilament yarns (Column 6, Lines 25+ and Column 20, Lines 1+). Feijen further states that a twisting amount is a few hundred turns per meter, with an exemplary twisting amount of 393 turns per meter. While Feijen fails to expressly teach twisting amounts equal to or less than 350 turns per meter, the language “few hundred turns per meter” would have been recognized as encompassing twisting amounts equal to or less than 350 turns per meter. It is further noted that the claimed twisting amounts are consistent with those that are conventionally used in tire cords. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to twist the first and second PET multifilament yarns of Feijen in accordance to the claimed invention absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
8. Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feijen and further in view of Ueda.
As detailed above, Feijen teaches a tire cord comprising a plurality of multifilament yarns, wherein each of said yarns includes a plurality of PET filaments. In such an instance, though, the yarns do not include straight portions spaced apart from curls.
Ueda (Figure 3) is similarly directed to tire cords defined by multifilament yarns, wherein said yarns include straight portions or non-entangled portions 7b and entangled portions or curled portions 7a. Ueda states that the inclusion of entangled portions provides a converging property similar to that of a twisted yarn and contributes to benefits (e.g. improved adhesive) when included in specific tire components. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include entangled portions (curls) in the multifilament yarns of Feijen for the benefits detailed above.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 5-11, filed March 13, 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 Feijen, JP ‘239, and JP ‘487.
Conclusion
10. 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 April 22, 2026