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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/07/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 8 and 18 have been amended. Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claim Objection
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “075mm” should read “0.75 mm”. Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/07/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2019/0071820 A1 – of record), in view of Assaad (US 2012/0067491 A1 – of record), in view of Sinopoli et al. (US 2005/0051251 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a tire to include a belt layer reinforced by steel cords, see [0037] – (construed as a rubber component reinforced by one or more metal cords). The cords being configured to have a m number of core filaments (typically 3 or 4) arranged in parallel, see [0013], [0015] – (construed as and overlaps N core filaments arranged essentially in parallel to one another in the cord, with N being an integer from 2 to 5) and n number of sheath filaments (typically 2 or 3 when m is 3 or 4) which wrap the core filaments, see [0020], Fig. 1 – (construed as M sheath filaments wound around the core filaments, with M being N-1). The cords have a diameter of 0.05 mm – 0.60 mm, see [0050] – (overlaps a diameter D within a range of 0.25 mm to 0.5 mm). Additionally, Wang discloses the sheath filaments have a twist pitch of 8 to 20 mm, see [0025] – (construed as a lay length). It being readily seen that a filament diameter of 0.30 mm gives a lay length of 15 mm. It being considered where for the claimed diameters (0.25 mm to 0.5 mm) and lay length formula (50 multiplied by D to 70 multiplied by D) gives a possible range of 12.5 mm to 35 mm which of which Wangs sheath twist pitch range of 8 to 20 mm clearly overlaps – (construed as the sheath filaments have a lay length within a range of 50 multiplied by D to 70 multiplied by D).
Wang does not explicitly disclose the at least one metal cord of the one or more metal cords comprises mega tensile metal filaments, or the cord has a maximum diameter.
Assaad discloses reinforcement structures for a pneumatic tire. The reinforcement structures to include a belt structure with mega tensile (MT) steel reinforcing cords, see [0067]. This being suitable for having an increased strength cord allowing for a reduction in EPI and/or use of smaller diameter cord constructions, see [0091]. Sinopoli discloses an invention related to cord, cord reinforced plies and radial tires for vehicles. The inventive concept to include cords of various configurations, see [0039] – [0041], Table 2. This to include a max cord gauge – (construed as a maximum cord diameter) of 0.90, see Table 2 – (overlaps a range of less than 1 mm). This being advantageous for resulting in reduction in gauge material and cost as compared with the former cord structures making the tires lighter in weight and less costly, see at least [0058].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang’s cords to be formed of a mega tensile composition as taught by Assaad to provide the tire with cord suitable for having an increased strength cord allowing for a reduction in EPI and/or use of smaller diameter cord constructions as suggested by Assaad and have the cord have a diameter of less than 1 mm as taught by Sinopoli to reduce the material usage and cost as suggested by Sinopoli. Concerning the claimed ranges: It has been held 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(I).
Regarding claim 2, as previously discussed, modified Wang discloses the claimed diameter range of 0.25 mm to 0.30 mm, see at least Wang [0050]. Concerning the claimed ranges: It has been held 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(I).
Regarding claim 3, as previously discussed, modified Wang discloses the tire is a pneumatic tire and the rubber component is one of a metal cord-reinforced belt, see at least Wang [0037] or Assaad [0067].
Regarding claim 4, modified Wang discloses the tire is a pneumatic tire having a tread portion 15, two axially spaced-apart bead portions 16, 18, at least one carcass ply 12, 14 connecting both bead portions, and one or more cord-reinforced belts 26 arranged radially between the at least one carcass ply and the tread portion in a crown area of the tire, wherein at least one of the cord-reinforced belts is reinforced by the one or more metal cords, see [0067], Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 6, modified Wang discloses the core filaments have a twist pitch – (construed as a lay length) of over 300 mm, see [0025] – (overlaps a lay length larger than 1000 mm). Concerning the claimed ranges: It has been held 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(I).
Regarding claim 7, as previously discussed, modified Wang discloses the use of mega tensile metal filaments, see Assaad [0067]; while contemplating the use of mega tensile metal monofilaments, see Assaad [0083].
Regarding claim 8, as previously discussed, modified Wang discloses a maximum cord diameter of less than 1 mm, see at least Wang [0050].
Regarding claim 9, as previously discussed, modified Wang discloses the mega tensile metal filaments are mega tensile steel filaments, see at least Wang [0037], Assaad [0067].
Regarding claim 10, modified Wang discloses the steel has a carbon content within a range of above 0.60 percent by weight, see at least Wang [0048] – (overlaps 0.8 weight percent to 1.2 weight percent). Concerning the claimed ranges: It has been held 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(I).
Regarding claim 12, as previously discussed, modified Wang discloses a tread portion 15 and two belts 28, 30 arranged radially below the tread portion, wherein each belt comprises a plurality of the metal cords arranged in parallel to one another and comprising the mega tensile metal filaments, wherein the mega tensile metal filaments are mega tensile steel filaments, see at least Assaad [0013], [0085] – [0086].
Regarding claims 13-14, as previously discussed, modified Wang discloses the at least one metal cord has an N + M construction, with N = 3 and M = 2, and wherein the mega tensile metal filaments are mega tensile steel filaments; and the at least one metal cord has a 3 + 2 x D construction, wherein D is within a range of 0.25 mm to 0.30 mm, see the rejection of claim 1 or at least Wang [0013], [0020], [0050] and Assaad [0067]. Concerning the claimed ranges: It has been held 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(I).
Claims 5, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2019/0071820 A1 – of record), in view of Assaad (US 2012/0067491 A1 – of record), in view of Sinopoli et al. (US 2005/0051251 A1), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Sakae (JP 201919320 A – of record).
Regarding claims 5, 15, while modified Wang discloses the use of two cord reinforced belts to include multiple parallel metal cords comprising the mega tensile metal filaments and a minimum rivet of 0.46 mm, see Assaad discussion in claims 4, 12 and [0091]; it does not explicitly disclose the claimed belt cord orientation. Sakae discloses suitable for improve durability and uneven wear resistance. The tire is configured to have a two ply belt 6A, 6B reinforced with steel cords making angles of ± 25° with respect to the circumferential direction of the tire – (construed as and overlaps as with respect to an equatorial plane of the tire within a range of 15° to 30°) and having a number of strikes of 18/inch – (construed as and overlaps as 13 EPI to 20 EPI). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Wang’s belt reinforcement scheme to have the claimed cord angles as taught by Sakae as the prior art suggests such a configuration contributes to improved durability and uneven wear resistance of a tire. Concerning the claimed ranges: It has been held 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(I).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2019/0071820 A1 – of record), in view of Assaad (US 2012/0067491 A1 – of record), in view of Sinopoli et al. (US 2005/0051251 A1), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Bhagwat et al. (US 5,437,748 – of record).
Regarding claim 11, while modified Wang discloses the use of a brass coating ,see at least Wang [0048]; it does not explicitly disclose the claimed brass amount. Bhagwat discloses it is usually desirable for to utilize brass coated steel wires in the reinforcement of rubber articles, such as tires. And configures a steel wire to be coated with brass in an amount of 2 to 8 grams of brass per kilogram of the steel wire, see at least the abstract; and further have a copper amount of 62% to 70% and preferred 63% to 65% by weight of copper. This being suitable for improving the adhesion of the steel cord to rubber as well as acting as a lubricant during processing of the steel filaments, see at least Col 1 lines 60 – Col 2 line 2 and Col 3 lines 63-68 – (construed as and overlaps a range of 2.2 g of brass per kg of steel to 4.6 g of brass per kg of steel; and a copper content of the brass within a range of 61 weight percent to 66 weight percent).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Wang’s brass coated steel filaments to have the claimed cord material amounts as taught by Bhagwat as the prior art suggests such a configuration contributes to increased adhesion and processability of the steel filaments. Concerning the claimed ranges: It has been held 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(I).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2019/0071820 A1 – of record), in view of Assaad (US 2012/0067491 A1 – of record), in view of Sinopoli et al. (US 2005/0051251 A1), in view of Sakae (JP 201919320 A – of record), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Terekhov (RU 2495761 C1 – of record).
Regarding claims 16-17, while modified Wang discloses the use of a cord reinforced belt; it does not explicitly disclose the claimed belt thickness. Terekhov discloses a tire suitable for lower material and manufacturing cost. The tire is configured to have a thickness of rubberized metal cord layer of 0.72 – 1.52 mm, see page 7 paragraph 10 – (construed as and overlaps a belt layer thickness measured in the equatorial plane of the tire, within a range of 1.0 mm to 1.4 mm). Since the prior art doesn’t specify any particular thickness difference across the rubberized metal cord layer, then under the broadest reasonable interpretation afforded the examiner; the rubberized metal cord layer is considered to have a constant thickness to include at the equatorial plane of the tire. Additionally, Terekhov discloses the metal cord has a linear density of 1.05 – 2.67 g/m and strength of 900 ± 5N, see page 7 paragraph 10. It being readily seen that for cord properties: strength of 900 N and weight of linear density 2.0 g/m * 1/25.4 m (conversion factor); that the strength to weight ratio of the multiple parallel metal cords is 11430 N/kg/m2 – (construed as and overlaps within a range of 10500 N/(kg/m2) to 15000 N/(kg/m2)). Concerning the claimed ranges: It has been held 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(I).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2019/0071820 A1 – of record), in view of Assaad (US 2012/0067491 A1 – of record), in view of Sinopoli et al. (US 2005/0051251 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Wang discloses a tire having a belt layer reinforced by steel cords, see [0037] – (construed as a tire comprising a rubber component reinforced by one or more metal cords). The cords being configured to have a m number of core filaments (typically 3 or 4) arranged in parallel, see [0013], [0015] – (construed as and overlaps three core filaments arranged essentially in parallel to one another in the cord) and n number of sheath filaments (typically 2 or 3 when m is 3 or 4) which wrap the core filaments, see [0020], Fig. 1 – (construed as two sheath filaments wound around the core filaments). The cords have a diameter of 0.05 mm – 0.60 mm, see [0050] – (overlaps a diameter D within a range of 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm). Additionally, Wang discloses the sheath filaments have a twist pitch of 8 to 20 mm, see [0025] – (construed as a lay length). It being readily seen that a filament diameter of 0.30 mm gives a lay length of 15 mm. It being considered where for the claimed diameters (0.25 mm to 0.5 mm) and lay length formula (50 multiplied by D to 70 multiplied by D) gives a possible range of 12.5 mm to 35 mm which of which Wangs sheath twist pitch range of 8 to 20 mm clearly overlaps – (construed as the sheath filaments have a lay length within a range of 50 multiplied by D to 70 multiplied by D).
Wang does not explicitly disclose the at least one metal cord of the one or more metal cords comprises mega tensile metal filaments, or the at least one metal cord has a cord diameter of 0.75 to 0.95 mm.
Assaad discloses reinforcement structures for a pneumatic tire. The reinforcement structures to include a belt structure with mega tensile (MT) steel reinforcing cords, see [0067]. This being suitable for having an increased strength cord allowing for a reduction in EPI and/or use of smaller diameter cord constructions, see [0091]. Sinopoli discloses an invention related to cord, cord reinforced plies and radial tires for vehicles. The inventive concept to include cords of various configurations, see [0039] – [0041], Table 2. This to include a cord gauge – (construed as a maximum cord diameter) of 0.90, see Table 2 – (overlaps a range of 0.75 mm to 0.95 mm). This being advantageous for resulting in reduction in gauge material and cost as compared with the former cord structures making the tires lighter in weight and less costly, see at least [0058].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang’s cords to be formed of a mega tensile composition as taught by Assaad to provide the tire with cord suitable for having an increased strength cord allowing for a reduction in EPI and/or use of smaller diameter cord constructions as suggested by Assaad and have the cord have a diameter within a range of 0.75 mm to 0.95 mm as taught by Sinopoli to reduce the material usage and cost as suggested by Sinopoli. Concerning the claimed ranges: It has been held 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(I).
Regarding claim 19, as previously discussed, modified Wang discloses the mega tensile metal filaments are mega tensile steel filaments, see at least Assaad [0067], and the cord has a 3 + 2 x D construction, with D being within a range of 0.2 mm to 0.3 mm, see at least Wang [0013], [0020], [0050], Fig. 1; and wherein a lay length of the sheath filaments is within a range of 15 mm to 17 mm, see at least Wang [0025]. Concerning the claimed ranges: It has been held 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(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 has 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571) 272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-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 on (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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749