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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onitsuka et al. (US 2022/0063337) in view of JP’801 (JP 2010-274801) and Kodama (US 5,908,520).
Regarding claims 1-2, Onitsuka et al. teaches a tire comprising a tread, a belt [0035]-[0037], and a band [0040]-[0049] and [0084]. While Onitsuka et al. does not recite a shape index “not less than 1.00 and not greater than 1.30”, the tire of Onitsuka et al. having the claimed shaped index would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Onitsuka teaches a shape index of 1.10 to 1.50 (FIG. 5 and [0068]-[0070]).
Onitsuka et al. is silent to a residual tension. However, JP’801 teaches a tire comprising a circumferential belt layer 4 wherein the residual tension of the circumferential belt layer in a center region CR of a tread section is larger than the residual tension of the circumferential belt layer in a shoulder region SR of the tread section for wear resistance performance and low rolling resistance (abstract). JP’801 teaches the residual tension of the circumferential belt layer in the center region of the tread portion is in a range of 1.5 to 5.0 times the residual tension of the circumferential belt layer in the shoulder region of the tread portion. The residual tension of the circumferential belt layer in the center region CR is 150 to 400 N/cm and the residual tension of the circumferential belt layer in the shoulder region SR is 50 to 200 N/cm (page 3 of the machine translation). Kodama teaches a tire comprising a belt reinforcing layer reinforced with organic fiber cords with an end count E = 55 and 65 cords/5cm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tire of Onitsuka et al. with the claimed residual relationship and residual tension values not less than 15.0 N required in claim 1, the residual tension ratio of claim 2, and the residual tension of the band cords in the crown zone is not less than 30 N and not greater than 50 N because JP’801 teaches a pneumatic tire comprising a circumferential belt layer 4 wherein the residual tension of the circumferential belt layer in a center region CR is larger than the residual tension of the circumferential belt layer in a shoulder region SR for wear resistance performance and low rolling resistance wherein the residual tension of the circumferential belt layer in the center region is in a range of 1.5 to 5.0 times the residual tension of the circumferential belt layer in the shoulder region where the residual tension of the circumferential belt layer in the center region CR is 150 to 400 N/cm and the residual tension of the circumferential belt layer in the shoulder region SR is 50 to 200 N/cm and TABLE 1 of Kodama discloses an end count E = 55 and 65 cords/5 cm for the reinforcing layer (band). Providing a known end count for the same tire constitute (band) yields predictable results.
For example:
E ranges from 11 cords/cm to 13 cord/cm.
400 (N/cm) x 1/11 (cm/cords) ≈ 36 N of residual tension of the band cords in the crown region of the band which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tire of Onitsuka et al. with a band cord having an elongation rate under constant load in accordance with JIS L 1017 not less than 1.9% and not greater than 8.4% because official notice is taken that a band cord for a tire having an elongation rate under constant load being not less than 1.9% and not greater than 8.4% is well-known/conventional.
Regarding claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tire of Onitsuka et al. with a width in an axial direction of each shoulder zone is not less than 1/8 and not greater than 3/8 of a width in the axial direction of the control zone because JP’801 teaches the ratio of CW/BW is 0.5-0.9 wherein BW includes the width of the center region and shoulder regions and CW is the width of the circumferential belt layer in the center region (page 3 of the machine translation).
Regarding claim 9, refer to the rejection of claim 1. See [0044]-[0049] of Onitsuka et al.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onitsuka et al. (US 2022/0063337) in view of JP’801 (JP 2010-274801) and Kodama (US 5,908,520), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Meyer et al. (US 2005/0061410).
Regarding claims 6-8, Onitsuka et al. is silent to the claimed tread arcs. However, FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 of Meyer et al. teaches a tread profile comprising TR1, TR2, TRA, and SR wherein TR1 > TR2 > TRA and SR is illustrated having the smallest radii to obtain uniform pressure distribution (abstract, [0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tire of Onitsuka et al. with the claimed plurality of arcs such that its satisfies the claimed structural features recited in claims 6-8 because JP’801 teaches a pneumatic tire comprising a circumferential belt layer 4 wherein the residual tension of the circumferential belt layer in a center region CR is larger than the residual tension of the circumferential belt layer in a shoulder region SR for wear resistance performance and low rolling resistance wherein the residual tension of the circumferential belt layer in the center region is in a range of 1.5 to 5.0 times the residual tension of the circumferential belt layer in the shoulder region and the residual tension of the circumferential belt layer in the center region CR is 150 to 400 N/cm and the residual tension of the circumferential belt layer in the shoulder region SR is 50 to 200 N/cm and the ratio of CW/BW is 0.5-0.9 wherein BW includes the width of the center region and shoulder regions and CW is the width of the circumferential belt layer in the center region and Meyer et al. teaches a tread profile comprising a plurality of arcs: TR1, TR2, TRA, and SR wherein SR has the smallest radii to obtain the uniform pressure distribution (FIG. 1-FIG. 2 and [0027]-[0029]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are moot in view of the new ground of the rejection presented in this office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENDRA LY whose telephone number is (571)270-7060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-5:00PM.
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 B 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.
/KENDRA LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749