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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase “the predefined clear distances between the strength members” in lines 2-3 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 8 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP 2514330, see machine translation) (of record), Sanada (JP 07237271, see machine translation) (of record), and Sklar (CS 199345, see machine translation) (of record).
Regarding claims 8 and 17-18, Tanaka discloses a method of embedding steel strength members into a rubber mixture web, the method comprising: (a) providing a device comprising: (iii) a roller calender (Fig. 3: 6) having a press nip for embedding the strength members in the rubber mixture web (Page 3 lines 3-6), and (iv) a grooved roller (Figs. 3-4: 8), which is mounted so as to be able to rotate about its roller axis, and which is located upstream of the roller calender (Fig. 3: 6) and necessarily downstream of other components (e.g., aligning elements) as it is directly adjacent to the roller calendar (Page 3 lines 3-6); wherein the strength members (Fig. 3: 9) are of flattened cross section and have, in cross section, a first diameter (Fig. 1: A) and, perpendicular thereto, a second diameter (Fig. 1: B), wherein the second diameter is smaller than the first diameter (Fig. 1) (Page 2 lines 11-18), wherein the first diameter is determined at a maximum width of the flattened cross section (Fig. 1: A), and wherein the second diameter is determined at a maximum width of the flattened cross section measured in a direction perpendicular to a direction in which the first diameter is measured (Fig. 1: B), wherein the grooved roller (Figs. 3-4: 8) has a multiplicity of guide grooves (Figs. 3-4: 7) which run parallel to one another and in encircling fashion over a circumference of said grooved roller and which serve for guiding the strength members of flattened cross section before they enter the roller calender (Page 3 lines 3-6), wherein the guide grooves each have a U-shaped cross section with a groove base and with two groove walls extending upward from the groove base (Fig. 4: 7) (Page 3 lines 3-6), the groove walls being perpendicular to the groove base or having an outward inclination at an angle of up to 3° in relation to the groove base (Page 3 lines 3-6: wherein the groove has a substantially rectangular cross section and thereby walls that are perpendicular to the groove base with an outward inclination angle of approximately 0° in relation to the groove base), wherein the groove base has a planar base surface portion extending parallel to the roller axis between opposite edges at which the groove walls rise from the groove base (Fig. 4: 7) (Page 3 lines 3-6), and wherein a width of the groove base is a distance between the opposite edges measured along the planar base surface portion (Fig. 4: 7), (b) using the device to embed the steel strength members into the rubber mixture web (Page 3 lines 3-6), including: (iii) running the strength members (Fig. 3: 9) into the guide grooves (Figs. 3-4: 7) of the groove roller (Figs. 3-4: 8), wherein the configuration of the U-shaped cross section of the guide grooves causes the strength members of flattened cross section to orient themselves to lie flat in the guide grooves with the first diameter of the strength member oriented laterally to correspond with the width of the guide groove (Figs. 1, 3-4) (Page 3 lines 3-11), and (iv) running the oriented strength members (Fig. 3: 9) into the press nip of the roller calender (Fig. 3: 6) and embedding the oriented strength members into the rubber mixture web (Page 3 lines 3-6).
However, Tanaka does not expressly recite the width of the groove base at least corresponds to, and is up to 5% greater than or up to 3% greater than, the first diameter of the strength member, and wherein the groove walls have a height which is 50% to 90% or at least 75% of the second diameter of the strength member.
Sanada also discloses a method of embedding steel strength members into a rubber mixture web, the method comprising: (a) providing a device (Figs. 1, 7: 1) comprising: (iii) a roller calender (Figs. 1, 7: 3, 4) having a press nip for embedding the strength members (Figs. 1, 7: 10) in the rubber mixture web (Figs. 1, 7: 7, 8) ([0008], [0018]), and (iv) a grooved roller (Figs. 1-2: 9; Figs. 7-8: 12) ([0009], [0012]-[0014]), which is mounted so as to be able to rotate about its roller axis, and which is located upstream of the roller calender (Figs. 1, 7: 3, 4) and necessarily downstream of other components (e.g., aligning elements) as it is directly adjacent to the roller calendar: wherein the strength members (Figs. 1, 5-6: 10) are of flattened cross section and have, in cross section, a first diameter (Fig. 5: a) and, perpendicular thereto, a second diameter (Fig. 5: b), wherein the second diameter is smaller than the first diameter (Fig. 5) ([0011]), and the first and second diameters are each determined at points with greatest widths (Fig. 5), wherein the grooved roller (Figs. 1-2: 9; Figs. 7-8: 12) has a multiplicity of guide grooves (Fig. 2: 17; Fig. 8: 16) which run parallel to one another and in encircling fashion over a circumference of said grooved roller and which serve for guiding the strength members of flattened cross section before they enter the roller calender ([0009], [0014]), wherein the guide grooves each have a U-shaped cross section with a groove base extending parallel to the roller axis and with two groove walls extending perpendicularly to the groove base (Figs. 3, 4, 9, 10) ([0011]), wherein the groove base has a width (Fig. 4: f; Fig. 10: p) which at least corresponds to, and is up to 3% or 5% greater than, the first diameter (Fig. 5: a) of the strength member ([0011]: wherein the first diameter a is 0.96 mm and the groove base may have width f or p of 1.00 mm), and wherein the groove walls have a height (Fig. 4: k) which is 82% of the second diameter (Fig. 5: b) of the strength member (Fig. 5: 10) ([0011]: wherein second diameter b is 0.67 mm and groove wall height k is 0.55 mm), which falls within the claimed ranges of 50% to 90% and at least 75%. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the ratio of the groove wall height to the second diameter. In this manner, the cross section of the groove is substantially the same as the cross section of the flat steel cord ([0011]). Although Sanada discloses embodiments wherein the grooves are elliptical rather than rectangular, Sanada discloses that the first diameter of the strength member is approximately the maximum width of the groove/corresponds to the maximum width of the groove, and the second diameter is within a certain range of the height of the groove so as to provide a groove having substantially the same cross section as the cord. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Tanaka in order to provide the first diameter of the strength member to correspond approximately to the width of the groove base and to provide the second diameter in the aforementioned range so that the cross section of the rectangular groove is substantially the same as the cross section of the rectangular flat steel cord of Tanaka (Figs. 1, 4).
However, Tanaka does not expressly recite: (i) at least one creel having a multiplicity of steel strength members wound up on spools, or (ii) aligning elements for aligning the strength members in parallel in a plane at predefined distances from one another. Tanaka also does not expressly recite: (i) unwinding the strength members from the spools, or (ii) passing the strength members through the aligning elements so the strength members are in parallel in the plane at the predefined distances from one another.
Sklar discloses an apparatus for production of rubber coated steel cords, comprising at least one creel (Fig. 1: 1) having a multiplicity of steel strength members (Fig. 1: L) wound up on spools (Fig. 1: 2, 3), aligning elements (Figs. 1, 3, 6: 6, 15) for aligning the strength members (Figs. 1, 3: L) in parallel in a plane at predefined distances from one another, a roller calender (Fig. 1: 12) having a press nip for embedding the strength members in the rubber mixture web (Fig. 1), and a grooved roller (Figs. 1, 3, 7: 10), which is mounted so as to be able to rotate about its roller axis, and which is located upstream of the roller calender (Fig. 1: 12) and downstream of the aligning elements (Fig. 1: 6, 15). Sklar also discloses unwinding the strength members (Fig. 1: L) from the spools (Fig. 1: 2, 3), passing the strength members (Fig. 1: L) through the aligning elements (Figs. 1, 3: 6, 15) so the strength members (Figs. 1, 3: L) are in parallel in the plane at the predefined distances from one another, and running the strength members (Figs. 1, 3, 7: L) into the guide grooves of the groove roller (Figs. 3, 7: 10). In this manner, there is easy introduction of the steel cables (i.e., strength members) to the calendering rubber slot, and together with the cable ducts and the downcomer creates the conditions for completely rubberizing the steel cords by completely pumping the creel from coils of the same length ([0007], [0020]). Moreover, conditions are created for cost savings and, in particular, on the expensive material of the steel cables by their residual processing ([0021]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Tanaka in order to provide the steel strength members to the grooved roller in a generally known manner as taught by the substantially similar art of Sklar for the advantages as discussed above, especially because Tanaka is silent as to how the steel strength members are provided to the grooved roller and the other upstream processes prior to the grooved roller.
Regarding claim 15, Tanaka further discloses a ratio between the second diameter (Fig. 1: B) and the first diameter (Fig. 1: A) is 0.4 to 0.7 (Page 2 lines 6-7), and thereby discloses a ratio between the first diameter and the second diameter of 1.4 to 2.5, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.10 to 3.00. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a ratio between the first diameter and the second diameter.
Regarding claim 16, Tanaka further discloses using the rubber mixture web with the embedded strength members as a carcass for a pneumatic vehicle tire (Page 2 lines 11-12).
Regarding claim 19, Tanaka further discloses the guide grooves (Figs. 3-4: 7) of the groove roller (Figs. 3-4: 8) have clear distances in relation to one another which correspond to predefined clear distances (Fig. 1: W) between the strength members (Fig. 3: 9).
Regarding claim 20, Tanaka further discloses for each guide groove, the width of the groove base is greater than the height of the groove walls (Fig. 4) (Page 3 lines 3-6: wherein the groove has a substantially rectangular cross section).
Claim(s) 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP 2514330, see machine translation) (of record), Sanada (JP 07237271, see machine translation) (of record), and Sklar (CS 199345, see machine translation) (of record) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 20240239140) (of record) and optionally Lee (KR 20100006070, see machine translation) (of record).
Regarding claims 9-13, Tanaka further discloses that the steel cord having an elliptical cross section (i.e., flattened steel cord) is manufactured, for example, by rolling and pressing a conventional circular cross section cord having a twisted structure with a roller or the like (Page 2 lines 22-24). Moreover, while Tanaka discloses embodiments of 3+10 and 2+8 twisted structures (Fig. 1) (Page 2 lines 6-21), these are merely preferable examples and do not explicitly limit the disclosure to such limitations. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. It is also well settled that an applied reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one of the ordinary skill in the art, including not only preferred embodiments, but less preferred and even non-preferred. See MPEP 2123.
Tanaka does not expressly recite the strength members are steel cords consisting of 3 to 9 steel filaments, the steel cords consist of 4 to 6 steel filaments twisted together, or the steel cords consist of 5 steel filaments twisted together. Tanaka also does not expressly recite: that the strength members are steel cords comprising flattened steel filaments, the flattened steel filaments each having a larger filament diameter and, perpendicular thereto, a smaller filament diameter, wherein the larger filament diameter is determined at a maximum width of the flattened steel filament, and wherein the smaller filament diameter is determined at a maximum width of the flattened steel filament measured in a direction perpendicular to a direction in which the larger filament diameter is measured; or that a ratio of the smaller filament diameter to the larger filament diameter is from 0.80 to 0.98.
Park discloses a steel cord for a tire belt ply, wherein the steel cords consist of 5 steel filaments twisted together (Fig. 5: Embodiments 1-3), wherein flattened strength members are steel cords comprising flattened steel filaments (Fig. 5: Embodiments 1-3), the flattened steel filaments each having a larger filament diameter and, perpendicular thereto, a smaller filament diameter, wherein the larger filament diameter is determined at a maximum width of the flattened steel filament, and wherein the smaller filament diameter is determined at a maximum width of the flattened steel filament measured in a direction perpendicular to a direction in which the larger filament diameter is measured (Fig. 5: see ratio d2/d1 of Embodiments 1-3), and wherein a ratio of the smaller filament diameter to the larger filament diameter is 0.85 or 0. 95 (Fig. 5: Embodiments 2-3), which falls within the claimed range of from 0.80 to 0.98. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a ratio of the smaller filament diameter to the larger filament diameter. A flattened strength member with having steel cords arranged in this manner has improved properties as compared to conventional structures (Fig. 5). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the flattened strength members having twisted steel cords of Tanaka with the flattened strength member comprising the twisted steel cord structure of Park so as to improve various properties (i.e., stiffness coefficient, initial adhesion strength, fatigue cycle, etc.).
Optionally, Lee discloses a steel cord for a tire belt ply, wherein the steel cords consist of 5 steel filaments twisted together (Fig. 8: Embodiments 1-2 on further right 2 columns of the table), wherein flattened strength members are steel cords comprising flattened steel filaments (Fig. 8: Embodiments 1-2) (Page 1), the flattened steel filaments each having a larger filament diameter and, perpendicular thereto, a smaller filament diameter, wherein the larger filament diameter is determined at a maximum width of the flattened steel filament, and wherein the smaller filament diameter is determined at a maximum width of the flattened steel filament measured in a direction perpendicular to a direction in which the larger filament diameter is measured (Fig. 8) (Page 7 lines 3-9). A flattened strength member with having steel cords arranged in this manner has improved properties as compared to conventional structures (Fig. 8). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the flattened strength members having twisted steel cords of Tanaka with the flattened strength member comprising the twisted steel cord structure of Lee for the various advantages as discussed above.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8-13 and 15-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues Sanada does not provide a U-shaped groove and instead teaches grooves with arcuate bottoms and not planar bottoms. The examiner notes that Sanada is merely relied upon to teach groove cross section dimensions in order to modify Tanaka, which does disclose grooves with planar bottoms, as discussed in the detailed rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEDEF PAQUETTE (née AYALP) whose telephone number is (571) 272-5031. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST - 4:00 PM EST.
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 (née 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. The fax phone number for the examiner is (571) 273-5031.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749