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 .
This action is in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 08/27/2025. Claims 1-13 are currently pending for examination on the merits.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikehara (JP 2012071679 with English Machine Translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Ikehara discloses a tire (title) provided with a carcass (2) forming tire skeleton, and a pair of crossing belts (3a, 3b) provided in a tire radial direction outside of the carcass (2) and having intersecting cords (23a, 23b) (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0026]-[0028]), comprising: an outside reinforcing belt (6) outside the crossing belts (3a, 3b) in the tire radial direction and covered with a plurality of reinforcing cords (26) extending along a tire width direction and a tire radial direction and arranged at a predetermined distance from each other (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0029]); and an inside reinforcing belt (5) covered with a plurality of reinforcing cords (25) extending along the tire width direction and the tire radial direction and arranged at a predetermined distance from each other (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0014]; [0020]-[0021]). In the embodiment shown in Figs. 1 and 2, the inside reinforcing belt (5) is provided between the two layers (2a, 2b) of the carcass (2); however, Ikehara explicitly discloses that the inside reinforcing belt (5) can be located inside of the innermost member (2a) of the carcass (2) in the tire radial direction ([0022]). Thus, Ikehara reads on all of the limitations in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Ikehara discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Ikehara further discloses that the reinforcing cords (26) of the outside reinforcing belt (6) are formed of an organic fiber ([0029]). Examiner notes that organic fibers inherently have a certain strength value. Thus, the organic fibers disclosed by Ikehara necessarily read on the limitation: “having a strength greater than a predetermined value.”
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Ikehara discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 1 and 3, respectively. Ikehara further discloses that a width of the outside reinforcing belt (6) is wider than a width of the inside reinforcing belt (5) (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 5-6, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikehara (JP 2012071679 with English Machine Translation) (of record) in view of Ishiyama et al. (US 2010/0282391) (Ishiyama) (of record).
Regarding claim 2, Ikehara discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Ikehara fails to disclose, however, that a cap belt having a cord wound in a tire circumferential direction is provided between the crossing belts (3a, 3b) and the outside reinforcing belt (6).
Ishiyama teaches a similar tire (title) comprising a carcass (18), a pair of crossing belts (24, 25) provided in a tire radial direction outside of the carcass (18) and having intersecting cords (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0024]-[0026]), and an outside reinforcing belt (43) provided in the tire radial direction outside rather than the crossing belts (24, 25) and covered with a plurality of reinforcing cords (41) extending along a tire width direction and a tire radial direction and arranged at a predetermined distance from each other (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0035]-[0040]). Ishiyama further teaches that a cap belt (31) having a cord (33) wound in a tire circumferential direction is provided between the crossing belts (24, 25) and the outside reinforcing belt (43) (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0031]-[0035]). Ishiyama further teaches that configuring the tire with this cap belt (31) increases the tire’s durability while maintaining driving stability ([0007]; [0031]-[0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tire disclosed by Ikehara to have the cap belt taught by Ishiyama because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would increase the tire’s durability while maintaining driving stability.
Regarding claim 5, modified Ikehara discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Ishiyama further teaches that an outside end portion (Ishiyama: 48) of the cap belt (Ishiyama: 31) in the tire width direction is folded back to the tire radial direction outside (Ishiyama: see Fig. 1; [0047]). Therefore, since modified Ikehara includes the teachings from Ishiyama regarding the cap belt (Ishiyama: 31), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Ikehara to have satisfied all of the limitations in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, modified Ikehara discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Ishiyama further teaches that a position in the tire radial direction of an outside end portion (Ishiyama: 48) in the tire width direction of the cap belt (Ishiyama: 31) coincides with a position in the tire radial direction of the outside reinforcing belt (Ishiyama: 43) (Ishiyama: see Fig. 1; [0047]). Therefore, since modified Ikehara includes the teachings from Ishiyama regarding the cap belt (Ishiyama: 31), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Ikehara to have satisfied all of the limitations in claim 6.
Regarding claim 10, modified Ikehara discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Modified Ikehara further discloses all of the limitations in claim 10 as set forth above for claim 3, which has the same subject matter as claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, modified Ikehara discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Modified Ikehara further discloses all of the limitations in claim 11 as set forth above for claim 4, which has the same subject matter as claim 11.
Claims 7-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiyama et al. (US 2010/0282391) (Ishiyama) (of record) in view of Hara (JP H05131810 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 7, Ishiyama discloses a tire (title) provided with a carcass (18) forming tire skeleton (see Fig. 1; [0024]), and a pair of crossing belts (24, 25) provided in a tire radial direction outside of the carcass (18) and having intersecting cords (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0024]-[0026]), comprising: a first reinforcing belt (43) outside the crossing belts (24, 25) in the tire radial direction and covering a plurality of first reinforcing cords (41) extending along a tire width direction and the tire radial direction and arranged at a predetermined distance from each other (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0035]-[0040]); a cap belt (31) provided between the crossing belts (24, 25) and the first reinforcing belt (43) and having a cord (33) wound in a tire circumferential direction (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0031]-[0035]), wherein an outside end portion (48) of the cap belt (31) in the tire width direction is folded back to an outside in the tire radial direction (see Fig. 1; [0047]), wherein a position in the tire radial direction of an outside end portion (48) in the tire width direction of the cap belt (31) coincides with a position in the tire radial direction of the first reinforcing belt (43) (see Fig. 1; [0047]). Ishiyama fails to disclose, however, the claimed second reinforcing belt provided between an outermost member of the carcass (18) in the tire radial direction and the crossing belts (24, 25) and covering a plurality of second reinforcing cords extending along the tire width direction and the tire radial direction and arranged at a predetermined distance from each other.
Hara teaches a similar tire (title) comprising a carcass (1) and a pair of crossing belts (2) provided in a tire radial direction outside of the carcass (1) and having intersecting cords (see Fig. 2; [0002]; [0008]), wherein the tire comprises a reinforcing belt (4) provided between an outermost member of the carcass (1) in the tire radial direction and the crossing belts (2) and covering a plurality of reinforcing cords extending along the tire width direction and the tire radial direction and arranged at a predetermined distance from each other (see Fig. 2; [0005]-[0008]). Hara further teaches that providing the tire with this reinforcing layer (4) improves the tire’s resistance to buckling and improves the tire’s cornering performance ([0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tire disclosed by Ishiyama such that it has the claimed second reinforcing belt, as taught by Hara, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would improve the tire’s resistance to buckling and improve the tire’s cornering performance.
Regarding claim 8, modified Ishiyama discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 7. Hara teaches that the second reinforcing belt (Hara: 4) has a width (Hara: W1) of 150 mm (Hara: [0008]). Furthermore, Ishiyama discloses that the width (Ishiyama: G) of the first reinforcing belt (Ishiyama: 43) can also be 150 mm, or 67% of the tread width (Ishiyama: H) (Ishiyama: [0053]). However, Ishiyama discloses that the width (Ishiyama: G) of the first reinforcing belt (Ishiyama: 43) can be as high as 95% of the tread width (Ishiyama: H) (Ishiyama: [0042]), which would be greater than the width (Hara: W1) of the second reinforcing belt (Hara: 4) taught by Hara. Ishiyama further discloses that configuring the first reinforcing belt (Ishiyama: 43) to have a width (Ishiyama: G) within a range between 30% and 95% of the tread width (Ishiyama: H) makes it possible to sufficiently suppress tensile strain generated in the cap belt (Ishiyama: 31) (Ishiyama: [0042]). Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the first reinforcing belt (Ishiyama: 43) in modified Ishiyama to have a width wider than a width of the second reinforcing belt (Hara: 4) because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would make it possible to sufficiently suppress tensile strain generated in the cap belt (Ishiyama: 31). Thus, modified Ishiyama satisfies all of the limitations in claim 8.
Regarding claims 9 and 13, modified Ishiyama discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 7 and 8, respectively. Hara further teaches that the second reinforcing cords are formed of Kevlar (Hara: [0008]), suggesting the claimed limitation of a predetermined organic fiber. Therefore, since modified Ishiyama includes the teachings from Hara regarding the second reinforcing cords, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Ishiyama to have satisfied all of the limitations in claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 06/23/2025.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments related to amended independent claim 1, examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant specifically argues that the amended limitation in claim 1 requiring that the inside reinforcing belt be “provided inside of an innermost member of the carcass in the tire radial direction” overcomes the Ikehara reference. However, while Ikehara does discloses that the reinforcing layer (5) is located between the carcass ply (2a) and the carcass ply (2b) in the embodiment shown in Figure 1, Ikehara is also clear that this embodiment is not limiting. Indeed, Ikehara also explicitly discloses that the reinforcing layer (5) can be located in a position that is radially inside both the carcass ply (2a) and the carcass ply (2b) (see [0022] of Ikehara), which reads on the amended claim language. Thus, since Ikehara still reads on all of the limitations in claim 1, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended independent claim 7 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.
As such, claims 1-13 stand rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, 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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749 /KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights