DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 4-6, and 12-14 are pending. Claims 1 and 5 are amended. Claims 3, 9, and 11 are cancelled.
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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on December 10, 2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1 and 5 have been amended, claims 3, 9, and 11 have been cancelled, and claims 14 has been added. Thus, claims 1, 4-6, and 12-14 are presently pending in this application.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome the double patenting rejections.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome the claim objections.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome the 35 USC §112(b) rejections.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has not overcome the 35 USC §103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to combination of references (rationale for combining, combination and functionality, principle of operation, identified problem others did not) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Park and thus does not rely on a combination. Furthermore, Applicant argues regarding MEP which was not previously present in the claims and is addressed below.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, and 12-14 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the dipped and heat-set cord exhibits a modulus enhancement potential (MEP) of at least 110%”. MEP is defined by applicant as stress increase after heat-setting under specific conditions. Applicant provides a table showing the increase on page 5 of the application. The table shows a stress at 5% LASE greige and 5% LASE heat. The percentage change is considered the MEP. Therefore, the claim is attempting to recite a manufacturing step or method of making which results in a particular increase. The claim is for a “tire cord cap ply reinforcement” and not a method of manufacturing. What the qualities of the cord were prior to the cord being considered a “tire cord cap ply reinforcement” is of no significance and does not further limit the claim. Furthermore, one who possibly would be infringing would be required to know the properties of the cord prior to it being formed. One in possession of a potentially infringing product would not know if they were infringing, nor would they be able to test to do so as they would only have the finished product. Therefore, it is unclear as to the scope of the claim. Claim 14 has the same issues and is rejected for the same reasons.
The dependent claims inherit(s) the deficiency by nature of dependency.
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 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 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.
Claims 1, 4-6, and 12-14 is/are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20200369086).
Regarding claim 1, Lee describes tire cord cap ply reinforcement (PET dip cord, heat set), comprising:
a dipped and heat-set cord (dipped, abstract, heat treatment para. 0027);
wherein the dipped and heat-set cord comprises cord plies and each cord ply comprises polyethylene terephthalate (PET) yarn having a linear density between 300 dtex and 3500 dtex (example 2, 1300 denier, 1443 dtex).
wherein stress at 5% elongation (5% SASE) of the dipped and heat-set cord is minimum 2.5 g/dtex and maximum 3.5 g/dtex (strength of 2.5-3.0 g/d at 5% elongation, abstract).
With regards to requirements the particular properties of the drawn PET, such as the stress at 5% elongation it is the position of the Office that the claimed resultant properties as desired in the aforesaid claims, would be inherent if not obvious to the composite of Lee. It is reasonable to presume so, as support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials (i.e. 90 mol % PET) and properties during manufacturing (0.9 to 1.20 intrinsic viscosity in Lee versus 0.96 to 1.20 in the present application) and temperatures (240°C to 260°C during extrusion and 250°C to 400°C in a cooling zone thereafter in Lee, compared to 260°C to 330°C followed by quenching at 180°C to 400°C in the present application). The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594 (MPEP 2112(V)). In addition, the presently claimed properties as set forth above, it would obviously have been present once the Lee product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
With regards to requirements the shrinkforce of the dipped and heat-set cord, it is the position of the Office that the claimed resultant properties as desired in the aforesaid claims, would be inherent if not obvious to the composite of Lee. It is reasonable to presume so, as support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials (i.e. 90 mol % PET) and properties during manufacturing (multiple drawing zones in both Lee and the present application, drawing ratio of 1.8 to 2.5 total in Lee, final drawing ratio of 1.4 to 5.0 in the present application, wind speed of 5000 to 6000 m/min in Lee, wind speed of 3500 to 6500 in the present application). The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties as set forth above, it would obviously have been present once the Lee product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
With regards to the requirements of modulus enhancement potential (MEP) it is the position of the Office that the claimed resultant properties as desired in the aforesaid claims, would be inherent if not obvious to the composite of Lee. It is reasonable to presume so, as support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials (i.e. 90 mol % PET) and properties during manufacturing (multiple drawing zones in both Lee and the present application, drawing ratio of 1.8 to 2.5 total in Lee, final drawing ratio of 1.4 to 5.0 in the present application, wind speed of 5000 to 6000 m/min in Lee, wind speed of 3500 to 6500 in the present application) and properties during manufacturing (0.9 to 1.20 intrinsic viscosity in Lee versus 0.96 to 1.20 in the present application) and temperatures (240°C to 260°C during extrusion and 250°C to 400°C in a cooling zone thereafter in Lee, compared to 260°C to 330°C followed by quenching at 180°C to 400°C in the present application). The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties as set forth above, it would obviously have been present once the Lee product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Regarding claim 4, Lee as modified describes the tire cord cap ply reinforcement according to claim 1, wherein a twist multiplier of the dipped and heat-set cord is between 10 and 30 (1300 denier * 1.11 = 1443 dtex, sqrt(1443) is 37.98, 37.98/1000 is 0.03798, 0.03798*410 TPM is 15.5).
Regarding claim 5, Lee as modified describes the tire cord cap ply reinforcement according to claim 4, wherein the twist multiplier of the dipped and heat-set cord is between 15 and 25 (1300 denier * 1.11 = 1443 dtex, sqrt(1443) is 37.98, 37.98/1000 is 0.03798, 0.03798*410 TPM is 15.5).
Regarding claim 6, Lee as modified describes the tire cord cap ply reinforcement according to claim 1, wherein the dipped and heat-set polyethylene terephthalate (PET) cord is used as (what follows is a recitation of intended use) cap ply in pneumatic radial tires (fully capable of being utilized as a cap ply, furthermore, described as utilized in a cap ply, abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Lee as modified describes the tire cord cap ply reinforcement according to claim 4, wherein the dipped and heat-set polyethylene terephthalate (PET) cord is used as (what follows is a recitation of intended use) cap ply in pneumatic radial tires (fully capable of being utilized as a cap ply, furthermore, described as utilized in a cap ply, abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Lee as modified describes the tire cord cap ply reinforcement according to claim 5, wherein the dipped and heat-set polyethylene terephthalate (PET) cord is used as (what follows is a recitation of intended use) cap ply in pneumatic radial tires (fully capable of being utilized as a cap ply, furthermore, described as utilized in a cap ply, abstract).
Regarding claim 14, Lee as modified describes the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly describe wherein the dipped and heat-set cord has an MEP of 118%.
With regards to the requirements of modulus enhancement potential (MEP) it is the position of the Office that the claimed resultant properties as desired in the aforesaid claims, would be inherent if not obvious to the composite of Lee. It is reasonable to presume so, as support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials (i.e. 90 mol % PET) and properties during manufacturing (multiple drawing zones in both Lee and the present application, drawing ratio of 1.8 to 2.5 total in Lee, final drawing ratio of 1.4 to 5.0 in the present application, wind speed of 5000 to 6000 m/min in Lee, wind speed of 3500 to 6500 in the present application) and properties during manufacturing (0.9 to 1.20 intrinsic viscosity in Lee versus 0.96 to 1.20 in the present application) and temperatures (240°C to 260°C during extrusion and 250°C to 400°C in a cooling zone thereafter in Lee, compared to 260°C to 330°C followed by quenching at 180°C to 400°C in the present application). The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties as set forth above, it would obviously have been present once the Lee product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-1145. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, Alt F: 8:00 AM-5:00 PM ET.
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, Clint Ostrup can be reached on 571-272-5559. 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.
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732