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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 14-20 in the reply filed on May 11, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 11, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 19 is rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush grouping of carcass ply thickness and carcass ply end count is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
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 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.
Claim(s) 14-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2022/0176745 A1 cited by applicant in view of US Patent Application Publication 2017/0210168 A1.
The only difference between the US ‘745 tire and the claimed tire is that the reference is silent as to the linear density of the flat monofilament and the multifilament yarn (Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 0007, 0074, 0109-0119), however US ‘168 discloses an exemplary high modulus multifilament yarn in such hybrid carcass cords for various tires such as passenger car and truck tires in the form of 1500D/2 aramid (3000D=3300dtex) and teaches to make the linear density of the high modulus multifilament yarn 20% to 80% of the total linear density to balance the advantage of higher modulus at high load with sufficient noise reduction and ride comfort (paragraphs 0026-0069); it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an art-recognized suitable high modulus multifilament yarn such as the 3300dtex aramid yarn as the above multifilament yarn and to select the 50% value to best balance the advantage of higher modulus at high load with sufficient noise reduction and ride comfort, resulting in 3300dex flat monofilament and 3300dtex multifilament yarn (total cord linear density 6600dtex) within the claimed ranges of 2200dtex to 6000dtex and 1800dtex to 4400dtex.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2022/0176745 A1 cited by applicant in view of US Patent Application Publication 2017/0210168 A1. as applied to claims 14-18 and 20 above, and further in view of European Patent Application 448 901 A1.
It is well known to select an end count of such carcass cords within the claimed range of 10-14 EPI in order to obtain desired mechanical characteristics of the carcass, as evidenced for example by EP ‘901 (p. 3 line 33 - p. 4 line 58); it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the end count of the above carcass cords within the claimed range of 10-14 EPI in order to obtain desired mechanical characteristics of the carcass.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrienne C. Johnstone whose telephone number is (571)272-1218. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1PM-5PM.
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.
ADRIENNE C. JOHNSTONE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1749
Adrienne Johnstone /ADRIENNE C. JOHNSTONE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights