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 Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the ribbon, and a thickness” in line 6 should be written as —the ribbon, a thickness— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the ribbon, and a thickness” in line 6 should be written as —the ribbon, a thickness— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a final end portion inclined so as to face” in lines 1-2 should be written as –a final end portion is inclined so as to face— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-6, 10-18, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breny (US 5437321) (of record), [any one of Losey (US 6352093) (of record), Seitz et al. (US 4325423) (of record), and/or Trzepaez (FR 2361230, see machine translation) (of record)], and Nakagawa (JP 2011245766, see machine translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Breny discloses a method of manufacturing a raw tire, the method comprising: winding a strip-shaped body (Figs. 7-9: 23) on a forming drum (Figs. 7-9: 70) in a circumferential direction; and layering a ribbon (Figs. 8-9: 27) on the strip-shaped body (Figs. 8-9: 23) by winding the ribbon on the strip-shaped body in the circumferential direction (Figs. 8-9).
Breny does not expressly recite how the strip-shaped body is provided on the forming drum, such as overlapping and joining together respective end portions of the strip-shaped body in a winding direction so as to form a joined portion. However, the ends can only be joined in one of three options: overlapping, butt-joined, or spaced apart. In other words, there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions that a skilled artisan may choose from with a reasonable expectation of success. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that when there is a finite number of identified and predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options with his or her technical grasp. See MPEP 2144.04(II}(B). Accordingly, as these are the only three options for the formation of the ends of the belt, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize, or alternatively find obvious, that the joint portion may be overlapped.
Additionally, Losey discloses a strip-shaped body belt having a splice (i.e., joint) portion (Fig. 7), wherein the strip-shaped body overlaps and joins together respective end portions of the strip-shaped body in a winding direction so as to form a joined portion (Fig. 7). The overlap portion of the belt ends is done in a manner which reduces the labor involved in making belt splices, does not need extra material thickness in making the belt, and maintains strength and adhesion in the splice (Col. 4 lines 46-67; Col. 5 lines 1-5). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Breny in order to form the belt in a known manner in the art, such as the belt formation disclosed by Losey for the advantages as discussed above.
Additionally or alternatively, Seitz discloses a reinforcing insert having a strip-shaped body (Figs. 1-4: 7), wherein the strip-shaped body overlaps and joins together respective end portions of the strip-shaped body in a winding direction so as to form a joined portion (Figs. 2-4: 10). In this manner, the ends of the ply are joined by attaining a gradual stiffening transition as well as a distortion-free loading of or stress on the connecting area (Col. 1 lines 38-40). Although Seitz discloses an insert on top of a belt layer, rather than being part of the belt layer itself, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize, or alternatively find obvious, that joining the belt ends of Breny in a similar manner as the reinforcing insert would yield the same advantages as disclosed by Seitz. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Breny in order to form the belt in a known manner in the art, such as the reinforcing ply formation disclosed by Seitz for the advantages as discussed above.
Additionally or alternatively, Trzepaez discloses a belt structure comprising a strip-shaped body (Figs. 1-2, 5-6, 7-8: A) having a ribbon (Figs. 1-2, 5-6: B) wound thereon, wherein the strip-shaped body (Figs. 7-8: A) overlaps and joins together respective end portions (Fig. 7: 23A, 23B; Fig. 8: 24A, 24B) of the strip-shaped body in a winding direction so as to form a joined portion ([0003]-[0004]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Breny in order to form the belt in a known manner in the substantially similar tire belt art, such as the belt formation disclosed by Trzepaez.
Accordingly, modified Breny discloses winding the ribbon on the strip-shaped body in a direction in which the ribbon runs up onto a step of an end portion that is positioned at a radial direction outer side among the respective end portions configuring the joined portion because the prior art discloses providing an inner layer with an overlapping joint portion and then winding a ribbon thereupon, thereby necessarily winding the ribbon on the joint portion and the step that is formed at the joint portion.
Furthermore, Nakagawa discloses pressure bonding tire ply components to one another. Accordingly, it is generally known in the tire building art to pressure bond tire ply components. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Breny in order to pressure bond the ribbon to the strip-shaped band as is generally known in the art, as taught by Nakagawa. Accordingly, modified Breny discloses that an overlapping portion of the ribbon is pressed toward a direction of running up onto the step as the entire circumferential surface of the ribbon being applied to the band is pressure bonded, including the step portion.
The examiner notes that the claim limitations “a direction in which the ribbon runs up onto a step of an end portion” and “a direction of running up onto the step” are broad and do not expressly require a specific direction of running up on to the step because the step will exist as radially protruding from all directions, and so running up onto the step may also occur from all directions.
Regarding claim 2, Breny further discloses a width of the ribbon along an axial direction of the forming drum is 5 to 25 mm (Col. 3 lines 49-51), which overlaps with the claimed range of from 15 mm to 24 mm. 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 width of the ribbon.
Regarding claim 3, Breny further discloses an example wherein half of the strip’s width may be overlapped over an adjacent convolution (Fig. 6) (Col. 4 lines 26-30). In other words, the ribbon (Fig. 6: 67) is wound onto the strip-shaped body (Fig. 6: 63) while, at portions of the ribbon that are adjacent to one another in an axial direction of the forming drum, overlapping width direction end portions of the ribbon is about 50% of a width of the ribbon, which falls within the claimed range of from 10% to 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 overlapping width of the ribbon.
Regarding claim 4, Breny further discloses a thickness of the ribbon along a radial direction of the forming drum is about 1 mm (Col. 3 lines 49-51), which overlaps with the claimed range of from 1.0 mm to 1.8 mm. 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 thickness of the ribbon.
Regarding claim 5, Breny further discloses a thickness of the ribbon along a radial direction of the forming drum is about 1 mm (Col. 3 lines 49-51). Breny also illustrates that the thickness of the band layer is larger than the thickness of the ribbon layer, and thereby larger than 1 mm, and is illustrated as approximately 1.5 times the thickness of the ribbon (Fig. 6), and thereby the thickness of the band layer is approximately 1.5 mm. While Breny does not state whether the figure is drawn to scale, one of ordinary skill in the art would have nonetheless found it obvious that the Breny would be reasonably in the range of 1.5 times the thickness of the ribbon. Accordingly, a height of a step along a radial direction of the forming drum of the band layer will also be a thickness of the band layer, and thereby be larger than 1.0 mm, and approximately 1.5 mm, which overlaps with the claimed range of from 1.0 mm to 6.0 mm. 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 height of the step along a radial direction of the forming drum.
Regarding claim 6, Breny does not expressly recite that the ribbon is layered onto the strip-shaped body under a pressing pressure along a radial direction of the forming drum of from 0.1 MPa to 0.6 MPa.
Nakagawa discloses pressure bonding tire ply components to one another at a pressure of 0.01 MPa to 1.0 MPa ([0013], [0034], [0042]), which overlaps with the claimed range of from 0.1 MPa to 0.6 MPa. 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 pressing pressure of the ribbon layered on the strip-shaped body. Accordingly, it is generally known in the tire building art to pressure bond tire ply components at pressure as discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Breny in order to pressure bond the ribbon to the strip-shaped band as is generally known in the art using a pressure known in the art as well, as taught by Nakagawa.
Regarding claim 10, Breny further discloses a width of the ribbon along an axial direction of the forming drum is 5 to 25 mm (Col. 3 lines 49-51), which overlaps with the claimed range of from 15 mm to 24 mm. 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 width of the ribbon.
Breny further discloses an example wherein half of the strip’s width may be overlapped over an adjacent convolution (Fig. 6) (Col. 4 lines 26-30). In other words, the ribbon (Fig. 6: 67) is wound onto the strip-shaped body (Fig. 6: 63) while, at portions of the ribbon that are adjacent to one another in an axial direction of the forming drum, overlapping width direction end portions of the ribbon is about 50% of a width of the ribbon, which falls within the claimed range of from 10% to 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 overlapping width of the ribbon.
Regarding claim 11, Breny further discloses a width of the ribbon along an axial direction of the forming drum is 5 to 25 mm (Col. 3 lines 49-51), which overlaps with the claimed range of from 15 mm to 24 mm. 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 width of the ribbon.
Breny further discloses a thickness of the ribbon along a radial direction of the forming drum is about 1 mm (Col. 3 lines 49-51), which overlaps with the claimed range of from 1.0 mm to 1.8 mm. 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 thickness of the ribbon.
Regarding claim 12, Breny further discloses a width of the ribbon along an axial direction of the forming drum is 5 to 25 mm (Col. 3 lines 49-51), which overlaps with the claimed range of from 15 mm to 24 mm. 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 width of the ribbon.
Breny further discloses a thickness of the ribbon along a radial direction of the forming drum is about 1 mm (Col. 3 lines 49-51), which overlaps with the claimed range of from 1.0 mm to 1.8 mm. 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 thickness of the ribbon.
Breny further discloses an example wherein half of the strip’s width may be overlapped over an adjacent convolution (Fig. 6) (Col. 4 lines 26-30). In other words, the ribbon (Fig. 6: 67) is wound onto the strip-shaped body (Fig. 6: 63) while, at portions of the ribbon that are adjacent to one another in an axial direction of the forming drum, overlapping width direction end portions of the ribbon is about 50% of a width of the ribbon, which falls within the claimed range of from 10% to 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 overlapping width of the ribbon.
Regarding claim 13, Breny further discloses a width of the ribbon along an axial direction of the forming drum is 5 to 25 mm (Col. 3 lines 49-51), which overlaps with the claimed range of from 15 mm to 24 mm. 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 width of the ribbon.
Breny further discloses a thickness of the ribbon along a radial direction of the forming drum is about 1 mm (Col. 3 lines 49-51). Breny also illustrates that the thickness of the band layer is larger than the thickness of the ribbon layer, and thereby larger than 1 mm, and is illustrated as approximately 1.5 times the thickness of the ribbon (Fig. 6), and thereby the thickness of the band layer is approximately 1.5 mm. While Breny does not state whether the figure is drawn to scale, one of ordinary skill in the art would have nonetheless found it obvious that the Breny would be reasonably in the range of 1.5 times the thickness of the ribbon. Accordingly, a height of a step along a radial direction of the forming drum of the band layer will also be a thickness of the band layer, and thereby be larger than 1.0 mm, and approximately 1.5 mm, which overlaps with the claimed range of from 1.0 mm to 6.0 mm. 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 height of the step along a radial direction of the forming drum.
Regarding claim 14, Breny further discloses a width of the ribbon along an axial direction of the forming drum is 5 to 25 mm (Col. 3 lines 49-51), which overlaps with the claimed range of from 15 mm to 24 mm. 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 width of the ribbon.
Breny further discloses an example wherein half of the strip’s width may be overlapped over an adjacent convolution (Fig. 6) (Col. 4 lines 26-30). In other words, the ribbon (Fig. 6: 67) is wound onto the strip-shaped body (Fig. 6: 63) while, at portions of the ribbon that are adjacent to one another in an axial direction of the forming drum, overlapping width direction end portions of the ribbon is about 50% of a width of the ribbon, which falls within the claimed range of from 10% to 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 overlapping width of the ribbon.
Breny further discloses a thickness of the ribbon along a radial direction of the forming drum is about 1 mm (Col. 3 lines 49-51). Breny also illustrates that the thickness of the band layer is larger than the thickness of the ribbon layer, and thereby larger than 1 mm, and is illustrated as approximately 1.5 times the thickness of the ribbon (Fig. 6), and thereby the thickness of the band layer is approximately 1.5 mm. While Breny does not state whether the figure is drawn to scale, one of ordinary skill in the art would have nonetheless found it obvious that the Breny would be reasonably in the range of 1.5 times the thickness of the ribbon. Accordingly, a height of a step along a radial direction of the forming drum of the band layer will also be a thickness of the band layer, and thereby be larger than 1.0 mm, and approximately 1.5 mm, which overlaps with the claimed range of from 1.0 mm to 6.0 mm. 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 height of the step along a radial direction of the forming drum.
Regarding claim 15, Breny further discloses a width of the ribbon along an axial direction of the forming drum is 5 to 25 mm (Col. 3 lines 49-51), which overlaps with the claimed range of from 15 mm to 24 mm. 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 width of the ribbon.
Breny further discloses a thickness of the ribbon along a radial direction of the forming drum is about 1 mm (Col. 3 lines 49-51), which overlaps with the claimed range of from 1.0 mm to 1.8 mm. 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 thickness of the ribbon.
Breny further discloses an example wherein half of the strip’s width may be overlapped over an adjacent convolution (Fig. 6) (Col. 4 lines 26-30). In other words, the ribbon (Fig. 6: 67) is wound onto the strip-shaped body (Fig. 6: 63) while, at portions of the ribbon that are adjacent to one another in an axial direction of the forming drum, overlapping width direction end portions of the ribbon is about 50% of a width of the ribbon, which falls within the claimed range of from 10% to 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 overlapping width of the ribbon.
Breny further discloses a thickness of the ribbon along a radial direction of the forming drum is about 1 mm (Col. 3 lines 49-51). Breny also illustrates that the thickness of the band layer is larger than the thickness of the ribbon layer, and thereby larger than 1 mm, and is illustrated as approximately 1.5 times the thickness of the ribbon (Fig. 6), and thereby the thickness of the band layer is approximately 1.5 mm. While Breny does not state whether the figure is drawn to scale, one of ordinary skill in the art would have nonetheless found it obvious that the Breny would be reasonably in the range of 1.5 times the thickness of the ribbon. Accordingly, a height of a step along a radial direction of the forming drum of the band layer will also be a thickness of the band layer, and thereby be larger than 1.0 mm, and approximately 1.5 mm, which overlaps with the claimed range of from 1.0 mm to 6.0 mm. 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 height of the step along a radial direction of the forming drum.
Regarding claim 16, Breny further discloses a width of the ribbon along an axial direction of the forming drum is 5 to 25 mm (Col. 3 lines 49-51), which overlaps with the claimed range of from 15 mm to 24 mm. 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 width of the ribbon.
Nakagawa discloses pressure bonding tire ply components to one another at a pressure of 0.01 MPa to 1.0 MPa ([0013], [0034], [0042]), which overlaps with the claimed range of from 0.1 MPa to 0.6 MPa. 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 pressing pressure of the ribbon layered on the strip-shaped body. Accordingly, it is generally known in the tire building art to pressure bond tire ply components at pressure as discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Breny in order to pressure bond the ribbon to the strip-shaped band as is generally known in the art using a pressure known in the art as well, as taught by Nakagawa.
Regarding claim 17, Breny further discloses a width of the ribbon along an axial direction of the forming drum is 5 to 25 mm (Col. 3 lines 49-51), which overlaps with the claimed range of from 15 mm to 24 mm. 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 width of the ribbon.
Breny further discloses an example wherein half of the strip’s width may be overlapped over an adjacent convolution (Fig. 6) (Col. 4 lines 26-30). In other words, the ribbon (Fig. 6: 67) is wound onto the strip-shaped body (Fig. 6: 63) while, at portions of the ribbon that are adjacent to one another in an axial direction of the forming drum, overlapping width direction end portions of the ribbon is about 50% of a width of the ribbon, which falls within the claimed range of from 10% to 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 overlapping width of the ribbon.
Nakagawa discloses pressure bonding tire ply components to one another at a pressure of 0.01 MPa to 1.0 MPa ([0013], [0034], [0042]), which overlaps with the claimed range of from 0.1 MPa to 0.6 MPa. 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 pressing pressure of the ribbon layered on the strip-shaped body. Accordingly, it is generally known in the tire building art to pressure bond tire ply components at pressure as discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Breny in order to pressure bond the ribbon to the strip-shaped band as is generally known in the art using a pressure known in the art as well, as taught by Nakagawa.
Regarding claim 18, Breny further discloses a width of the ribbon along an axial direction of the forming drum is 5 to 25 mm (Col. 3 lines 49-51), which overlaps with the claimed range of from 15 mm to 24 mm. 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 width of the ribbon.
Breny further discloses a thickness of the ribbon along a radial direction of the forming drum is about 1 mm (Col. 3 lines 49-51), which overlaps with the claimed range of from 1.0 mm to 1.8 mm. 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 thickness of the ribbon.
Breny further discloses an example wherein half of the strip’s width may be overlapped over an adjacent convolution (Fig. 6) (Col. 4 lines 26-30). In other words, the ribbon (Fig. 6: 67) is wound onto the strip-shaped body (Fig. 6: 63) while, at portions of the ribbon that are adjacent to one another in an axial direction of the forming drum, overlapping width direction end portions of the ribbon is about 50% of a width of the ribbon, which falls within the claimed range of from 10% to 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 overlapping width of the ribbon.
Nakagawa discloses pressure bonding tire ply components to one another at a pressure of 0.01 MPa to 1.0 MPa ([0013], [0034], [0042]), which overlaps with the claimed range of from 0.1 MPa to 0.6 MPa. 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 pressing pressure of the ribbon layered on the strip-shaped body. Accordingly, it is generally known in the tire building art to pressure bond tire ply components at pressure as discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Breny in order to pressure bond the ribbon to the strip-shaped band as is generally known in the art using a pressure known in the art as well, as taught by Nakagawa.
Regarding claims 21-22, while modified Breny does not expressly recite the shape of a final end portion, a final end can only have four possible shapes in relation to the radial direction: (1) inclined so as to face the radial direction outer side; (2) inclined so as to face the radial direction inner side; (3) parallel to the radial direction; or (4) both inclined so as to face the radial direction outer side and inclined so as to face the radial direction inner side such that the two inclined faces come to a point or some other geometry comprising two inclined faces. In other words, there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions that a skilled artisan may choose from with a reasonable expectation of success. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that when there is a finite number of identified and predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options with his or her technical grasp. See MPEP 2144.04(II}(B). Accordingly, as these are the only four options for the shape of a final end portion in relation to the radial direction, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize, or alternatively find obvious, that the final end portion may be inclined so as to face the radial direction outer side or inclined so as to face a radial direction inner side. Additionally, case law holds that changes in shape are matters of design choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See MPEP 2144.04.
Moreover, the examiner notes that “a final end portion” is very broad and does not expressly recite what the final end portion belongs too (i.e., the strip-shaped body, the ribbon, etc.), or how it is positioned (i.e., radially outer layer of end portion or radially inner layer of end portion).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breny (US 5437321) (of record), [any one of Losey (US 6352093) (of record), Seitz et al. (US 4325423) (of record), and/or Trzepaez (FR 2361230, see machine translation) (of record)], and Nakagawa (JP 2011245766, see machine translation) (of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and optionally further in view of Chen et al. (US 20170057290) and/or Kamei (JP 2012030437, see updated machine translation provided) (of record).
Regarding claim 21, modified Breny discloses the claim limitations as discussed above.
Optionally, Chen discloses a method of forming a layer of tire ply, wherein the ply is wound circumferentially (Fig. 2), and wherein the ply has a lap joint between two ends of the ply that are joined together in an overlapping manner where a final end portion is inclined so as to face the radial direction outer side (Fig. 6) ([0035]). It is preferred that the strip ends are angled as illustrated ([0035]). Although Chen discloses that the ply is a carcass ply rather than a belt ply and that the layer of ply is a plurality of joined portions rather than a single wound layer of ply as in Breny, one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that Chen discloses a known structure of end portions in an overlapping joint portion of a tire ply, similar to Breny, and thus one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to further modify the joint portion of Breny so as to be a known structure in the similar tire art, as taught by Chen.
Additionally or alternatively, Kamei discloses a method of winding a rubber sheet (i.e., a strip-shaped body) and joining end portions (Figs. 2a, 2b: 13, 14) in an overlapping manner (Figs. 2a, 2b: A), wherein a final end portion (Figs. 2a, 2b: 14) is inclined so as to face a radial direction outer side. In this manner, when the end portion has an angle in a particular range at the overlap joint, it is easy to cut the rubber sheet and also smoothly remove air with a stitcher roller ([0020]). Although Kamei discloses the rubber sheet is an inner liner rather than a belt ply as in Breny, Kamei discloses a known structure of a wound tire strip-shaped body having an overlapping joint portion, similar to the wound tire strip-shaped body having an overlapping joint portion of Breny. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized, or alternatively found obvious, that the overlapping joint portion of Kamei having the advantages as discussed above would have also been advantageous for the overlapping joint portion of the strip-shaped body of Breny. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Breny in order to provide a final end portion that is inclined so as to face a radial direction outer side for the advantages as taught by Kamei.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breny (US 5437321) (of record), [any one of Losey (US 6352093) (of record), Seitz et al. (US 4325423) (of record), and/or Trzepaez (FR 2361230, see machine translation) (of record)], and Nakagawa (JP 2011245766, see machine translation) (of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and optionally further in view of any one of Kudo (JP 2015123935, see machine translation), Misawa (JP 3825884, see machine translation), and/or Seto (US 20200039160).
Regarding claim 22, modified Breny discloses the claim limitations as discussed above.
Optionally, Kudo discloses a method of winding a strip-shaped body (Figs. 3a, 3b: 6) and joining end portions in an overlapping manner (Figs. 3a, 3b: 7), wherein a final end portion is inclined so as to face a radial direction inner side (Figs. 3a, 3b). In this manner, the radially outer surfaces can be easily bonded directly to each other over a sufficient area, and sufficient air retention performance can be achieved even at the joint of the layers ([0030]-[0031]). Although Kudo discloses the strip-shaped body is an inner liner rather than a belt ply as in Breny, Kudo discloses a known structure of a wound tire strip-shaped body having an overlapping joint portion, similar to the wound tire strip-shaped body having an overlapping joint portion of Breny. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized, or alternatively found obvious, that the overlapping joint portion of Kudo having the advantages as discussed above would have also been advantageous for the overlapping joint portion of the strip-shaped body of Breny. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Breny in order to provide a final end portion that is inclined so as to face a radial direction inner side for the advantages as taught by Kudo.
Additionally or alternatively, Misawa discloses a method of winding a strip-shaped body (Figs. 2-3: 7, 8) and joining end portions in an overlapping manner (Figs. 2-3), wherein a final end portion is inclined so as to face a radial direction inner side (Figs. 2-3) ([0012]-[0013], [0017]). In this manner, the end crimp bonds to the surface of the matching sheet for continuous layers in the circumferential direction (Fig. 4). Moreover, it is possible to prevent the occurrence of cracks at the joint portion even when the body is subjected to large deformation during traveling, and thereby it is not necessary to use a crack prevention tape ([0017]-[0018]). Although Misawa discloses the strip-shaped body is an inner liner rather than a belt ply as in Breny, Misawa discloses a known structure of a wound tire strip-shaped body having an overlapping joint portion, similar to the wound tire strip-shaped body having an overlapping joint portion of Breny. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized, or alternatively found obvious, that the overlapping joint portion of Misawa having the advantages as discussed above would have also been advantageous for the overlapping joint portion of the strip-shaped body of Breny. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Breny in order to provide a final end portion that is inclined so as to face a radial direction inner side for the advantages as taught by Misawa.
Additionally or alternatively, Seto discloses a method of winding a strip-shaped body (Fig. 1: 10) and joining end portions in an overlapping manner (Figs. 1-2), wherein a final end portion is inclined so as to face a radial direction inner side (Fig. 1) ([0008], [0011], [0015]-[0016], [0034], [0038]). In this manner, the ends easily cover each other and suppress tire failure caused by the splice portion ([0011], [0015]-[0016]). Although Seto discloses the strip-shaped body is an inner liner rather than a belt ply as in Breny, Seto discloses a known structure of a wound tire strip-shaped body having an overlapping joint portion, similar to the wound tire strip-shaped body having an overlapping joint portion of Breny. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized, or alternatively found obvious, that the overlapping joint portion of Seto having the advantages as discussed above would have also been advantageous for the overlapping joint portion of the strip-shaped body of Breny. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Breny in order to provide a final end portion that is inclined so as to face a radial direction inner side for the advantages as taught by Seto.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-22 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 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues claim 1 recites “layering a ribbon on the strip-shaped body by winding the ribbon on the strip-shaped body in a direction in which the ribbon runs up onto a step of an end portion that is positioned at a radial direction outer side among the respective end portions configuring the joined portion. An overlapping portion of the ribbon is pressed toward a direction of running up onto the step, and the strip-shaped body is joined at the respective end portions” and that “the cited references do not disclose these features.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees and refers to the detailed rejection above, including the examiners note regarding the broad claim language. Moreover, the examiner notes that claim 1 has been amended to include partial claim limitations from previous claim 20, which was previously rejected in view of Nakagawa. Applicant has not provided any arguments as to why the cited references do not disclose the features which were previously claimed and rejected by the prior art.
On page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “the [claimed] features solve the problem stated in paragraph [0006] of the specification. That is, ‘at the time of winding and layering a ribbon onto the wound strip-shaped body, there is the concern that a gap, or so-called trapped air, will arise between the strip-shaped body and the ribbon due’. The prior art references do not appear to disclose the problem addressed by the present application. Thus, Applicant submits that the claimed method is not obvious in view of the cited prior art.”
The examiner notes that the advantages and motivation taught by modified Breny do not need to be the same or achieve the same result as the claimed invention. Modified Breny discloses the claim limitations as discussed in the detailed rejection above. The reasoning in the prior art references does not need to be the same or identical to those discovered by Applicant so long as there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to make the combination, which the prior art references provide.
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