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
Claims 35 and 42 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 35, the phrase “the surface density value of the central area” should be replaced with -- a surface density value of the central area -- for clarity.
Regarding claim 42, the term “same” should be deleted because such term is superfluous. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
4. Claims 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 36, there is no support in the original disclosure for “the band is enabled to totally or partially cover at least a thread” (emphasis added). For purposes of this examination, this limitation will be treated as if it requires the band to be enabled (i.e., configured) to totally or partially cover at least a tread of the tire.
5. 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 35-54 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 35, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the annular…geometry” in line 4.
Regarding claim 37, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the tread of the tire”.
Regarding claim 38, the limitation “at least one flank of the tire” renders claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “at least one flank of the tire” refers to “at least one flank of the tire” previously recited in claim 37 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 40, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the tread of the tire” in line 4, “the tread” in line 7, “the tread of the wheel” in line 9 and “the flanks of the tire” in line 10 (note claim 40 only previously recites “at least one flank”). Further, the limitation “at least one adjacent lateral area” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “at least one adjacent lateral area” refers to “at least one adjacent lateral area” previously set forth in claim 39 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 43, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “its lateral edges”.
Regarding claim 45, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the surface of the central area”.
Regarding claim 47, the limitation “a linear or rectilinear arrangement” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a linear or rectilinear arrangement” refers to “a linear or rectilinear arrangement” previously set forth in claim 46 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 48, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “its constituent fabric”
Regarding claim 49, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the metal yarns” (note claim 48 sets forth “metallic yarns”).
Regarding claim 51, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “its surface”.
Regarding claim 53, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “its surface”.
Regarding claim 53, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the amount or properties of the warp yarns”.
Regarding claim 54, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the number or properties of the weft yarns” and “these differentiated weft yarns”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 35-45 and 53, as best understood in light of the numerous section 112 issues noted above, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Figini (EP 1745948 A1).
Regarding claim 35, Figini discloses a vehicle tire cover casing 1, the vehicle tire cover casing comprising: a fabric band 3 having an annular arrangement and therefore with a circumferential path as a result of the annular geometry or geometry (Fig. 1), the band having proportions and being enabled to cover and surround an external region of a tire 2 of a vehicle (Fig. 1), wherein the fabric band has a central area 11, 12 along the circumferential path and at least one lateral area 4, 5 adjacent to the central area following the circumferential path (Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the at least one adjacent lateral area 4, 5 of the band has a surface density value lower than the surface density value of the central area at 11 in the band (evident from paragraph [0046] that outer 4 and inner 5 side portions have a lower density than portions 11, 12 of belt 3; further it is evident from the embodiment of Fig. 2 which shows the outer 4 and inner 5 side portions being thinner than the central area such that the outer 4 and inner 5 side portions would necessarily have a lower surface density than the central area at 11 of the belt 3; likewise it is evident from the embodiment of Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0084-0085] that the outer 4 and inner 5 side portions have a lower surface density than the central area at 11 of the belt 3 due to the inclusion of threads 10 at the central area 11); wherein the band further has a textile or fabric continuity in a mutual contact between the central area and the at least one adjacent lateral area, the band being formed in one piece or textile body (paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 36, Figini further discloses the band is enabled to totally or partially cover at least a tread (radially outer surface of tire 2) and at least one flank 2A, 2B of the tire of the vehicle (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 37, Figini further discloses the central area of the band corresponds to at least the tread of the tire and the at least one lateral area corresponds to at least one flank of the tire (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 38, Figini further discloses the central area of the band corresponds to the tread and also partially over the at least one flank of the tire (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 39, Figini further discloses there are at least two adjacent lateral areas 4, 5, resulting in at least one adjacent lateral area on both sides of the central area of the band, following the circumferential path of the annular geometry of the band (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 40, Figini further discloses when the central area of the band corresponds to at least the tread of the tire and the at least one lateral area corresponds to at least one flank of the tire; the central area of the band corresponds to the tread of the wheel (i.e., tire) and at least one adjacent lateral area corresponds to each of the flanks of the tire (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 41, Figini further discloses the band has only one adjacent lateral area 4, 5 arranged on each side of the central area following the circumferential path of the annular geometry of the band (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 42, Figini further discloses the lateral areas of the band have a symmetry in relation to the central area of the band (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 43, Figini further discloses the band incorporates an elastic means 6A, 6B on at least one of its lateral edges following the circumferential path of the annular geometry of the band (Fig. 2; paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 44, Figini further discloses the sleeve is made totally or partially of polymeric material (paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 45, Figini further discloses the central area of the band has projections at 10 on the surface of the central area (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 53, Figini discloses a method of manufacturing a vehicle tire cover casing 1, the method comprising: supplying a plurality of of warp yarns (threads 10 and warp yarns from “weaving operation” per paragraph [0084]) from and along a warp (implicit from the “weaving operation” of paragraph [0084]); supplying a plurality of weft yarns (weft yarns from “weaving operation” per paragraph [0084]) from and along a creel (implicit from the “weaving operation” of paragraph [0084]), weaving the warp yarns and the weft yarns to form a one-piece fabric band 3 configured to cover a tread (radially outer surface of tire 2) and flanks 2A, 2B of a vehicle tire 2, the fabric band including a central area 11, 12 and at least one lateral area 4, 5 adjacent to the central area (Figs. 1 and 2), wherein at least one of an amount or properties of the warp yarns along the warp is heterogeneous along the warp (evident from the inclusion of warp threads 10 as shown in the embodiment of Fig. 5), such that the fabric band has different surface densities along its surface (evident from Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0084-0085] and/or Fig. 2 and paragraph [0046]), and wherein the at least one lateral area has a surface density lower than a surface density of the central area as a result of the heterogeneity in the amount or properties of the warp yarns supplied along the warp (evident from Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0084-0085]).
Claims 53 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ruschulte (US 2012/0018065 A1).
Regarding claim 53, Ruschulte discloses a method of manufacturing a vehicle tire cover casing (“snow chain” formed from “textile web material” shown in the embodiments of Figs. 1a, 2a, 2c, 3 and 4), the method comprising: supplying a plurality of warp yarns K from and along a warp (implicit structure of the “weaving machine” per paragraph [0009]); supplying a plurality of weft yarns FF from and along a creel (implicit structure of the “weaving machine” per paragraph [0009]), and weaving the warp yarns and the weft yarns to form a one-piece fabric (evident from at least paragraph [0009]; Figs. 3 and 4) configured to cover a tread and flanks of a vehicle tire R (evident from Fig. 4), the fabric band including a central area (width portions I and II that engage road surface ST as best shown in Fig. 4) and at least one lateral area (width portions III that do not engage the road surface ST as best shown in Fig. 4 and implied from at least paragraph [0034]), wherein at least one of an amount or properties of the warp yarns supplied along the warp is heterogeneous along the warp (evident from at least Figs. 2a and 2c where the spacing of the warp yarns vary across the different width portions), such that the fabric band has different surface densities along its surface (evident from at least Figs. 2a and 2c where the spacing of the warp yarns vary across the different width portions), and wherein the at least one lateral area has a surface density lower than a surface density of the central area as a result of the heterogeneity in the amount or properties of the warp yarns supplied along the warp (evident from Fig. 2c which shows a closer spacing (i.e., “tighter weave”) of warp yarns K along the width direction for width portion II at the central area when compared to the spacing of warp yarns K along the width direction for width portion III at the least one lateral area, and paragraph [0035] which discloses the WALZ density being greater in width portion II than width portion III ).
Regarding claim 54, Ruschulte further discloses the number or properties of the weft yarns supplied is heterogeneous along the creel (evident from at least Figs. 2a and 2c), resulting in the fabric band having projections (unlabeled projections that engage road surface ST as shown in Figs. 2a, 2c and 4) on the surface that are in turn resulting from these differentiated weft yarns supplied from the creel (evident from at least Figs. 2a and 2c), the projections being in turn oriented in a direction of the arrangement of the weft yarns supplied from the creel (evident from at least Figs. 2a and 2c).
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 46 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figini in view of Masi et al. (WO 2006/129147 A1; hereinafter “Masi”).
Figini fails to disclose the projections having the claimed linear or rectilinear arrangement.
Masi, however, teaches a sleeve 2 for covering vehicle tires in which the sleeve comprises projections 5 having a linear or rectilinear arrangement (Fig. 7), and with an orientation that is parallel to the axial axis of the annular arrangement of the band (evident from at least Figs. 1 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sleeve of Figini so that the projections have the claimed linear or rectilinear arrangement, such as taught by Masi, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing the sleeve with a desired tractive profile.
Claims 48-50 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figini in view of De Waegheneire (US 2004/0147193 A1).
Regarding claims 48-50, although Figini further discloses that “other types of structurally and/or functionally equivalent materials” can be used for the yarns of the textile band (paragraph [0039]), Figini fails to expressly disclose the textile band incorporates metallic yarns in a total or partial conformation of its constituent fabric, and wherein the metal yarns are totally or partially made of titanium or stainless steel.
De Waegheneire, however, teaches the use of a textile band 10 which incorporates metallic yarns in a total or partial conformation of its constituent fabric, and wherein the metal yarns are totally or partially made of titanium or stainless steel to be very resistant to high temperatures (paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sleeve of Figini so that the textile band incorporates metallic yarns made of titanium or stainless steel in a total or partial conformation of its constituent fabric, such as taught by De Waegheneire, as well-known alternative yarn materials that would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing predictable material properties, such as good heat and corrosion resistance.
Regarding claim 52, although Figini further discloses the band incorporates in its conformation at least yarns of a polymeric nature or the like (paragraph [0038] and further discloses that “other types of structurally and/or functionally equivalent materials” can be used for the yarns of the band (paragraph [0039]), Figini fails to expressly disclose the band also simultaneously incorporates yarns of a metallic nature.
De Waegheneire, however, teaches the use of a band 10 which incorporates metallic yarns to be very resistant to high temperatures (paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sleeve of Figini so that the band also incorporates metallic yarns, such as taught by De Waegheneire, as a well-known alternative yarn material that would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing predictable material properties, such as improving heat and corrosion resistance of the band.
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figini in view of De Waegheneire, as applied to claims 35 and 48 above, and further in view of Masi.
Although modifying Figini in view of De Waegheneire to incorporate metallic yarns would implicitly result in the projections of the band being metallic in nature, Figini, as modified by De Waegheneire, fails to disclose the projections have a linear or rectilinear arrangement, or the projections have a linear and rectilinear arrangement, and with an orientation that is parallel to the axial axis of the annular arrangement of the band.
Masi, however, teaches a sleeve 2 for covering vehicle tires in which the sleeve comprises projections 5 having a linear and/or rectilinear arrangement (Fig. 7), and with an orientation that is parallel to the axial axis of the annular arrangement of the band (evident from at least Figs. 1 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sleeve of Figini, as modified by De Waegheneire, so that the projections have the claimed linear or rectilinear arrangement, such as taught by Masi, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing the sleeve with a desired tractive profile.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that Figini does not disclose “the at least one adjacent lateral area of the band has a surface density value lower than the surface density value of the central area” because Figini does not expressly use the term “surface density”, the Examiner notes that paragraph [0046] of Figini discloses the at least one adjacent lateral area 4, 5 of the band “comprise a material which is lighter…than the material comprising belt 3”. In other words, the lateral areas 4, 5 of the band are less dense than the central area at 11 in the band. Fig. 2 of Figini shows a cross-sectional view of the vehicle tire cover casing in which the lateral areas 4, 5 are shown to be thinner than the central area at 11 of the band such that the lateral areas would necessarily have a lower surface density than the circumferential portion at 11 of the belt 3 being both lighter and thinner than the central area at 11. Likewise, it is evident from the embodiment shown in Fig. 5 and further described in paragraphs [0084-0085] of Figini that the lateral areas 4, 5 of the band would also have a lower surface density value than a surface density value of the central area at 11 due to the thickening of the central area because of the inclusion of threads 10 at the central area at 11 in combination with the previous teaching of paragraph [0046] that the lateral areas 4, 5 are lighter than the central area.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Figini does not anticipate the “one piece or textile body” limitation because paragraph [0048] of Figini teaches that sewing can be used to connect the components as an alternative to a directly woven belt structure disclosed in paragraph [0047], the Examiner first notes that a belt where the components are sewn together to form a one piece clearly reads on the requirement that the belt be “one piece”. Nonetheless, as correctly pointed out by Applicant, Figini expressly discloses a one piece woven textile body for the band 3 as described in paragraph [0048]. Applicant is reminded that "[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding claim 45 that Figini does not disclose surface projections on the central area, the Examiner notes that Fig. 5 of clearly shows the threads 10 forming projections on the surface of the central area.
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding claim 53 that Ruschulte does not disclose the warp yarns being heterogeneous along the warp, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes Figs. 2a and 2c clearly show the spacing of warp yarns K varying (i.e., “being heterogeneous”) along the warp in the different width portions I, II and III.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Ruschulte does not anticipate claim 53 because it does not expressly disclose the loom architecture (i.e., a warp and a creel), the Examiner notes that Ruschulte expressly discloses the use of a weaving machine (paragraph [0009]). The warp and the creel are implicit structures of a weaving machine as would be clearly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding claim 54 that “Ruschulte teaches projection orientation opposite to the claimed direction”, the Examiner notes that at least Figs. 2a and 2c clearly show the projections being oriented in a direction of the arrangement of the weft yarns supplied from the creel.
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding claims 46 and 47 that Masi does not disclose the claimed arrangement because “Masi…does not provide a written disclosure of projections oriented parallel to the axial axis of the annular arrangement of the band”, the Examiner notes that at least Figs. 1 and 7 of Masi clearly shows such claimed arrangement. Applicant is reminded that drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding claims 46 and 47 that “The combination also lacks a persuasive motivation to combine”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding claims 48-50 and 52 that “A person of ordinary skill seeking to improve a textile sleeve for tire traction would not reasonably look to high temperature burner membrane technology to modify Figini’s anti-skid belt”, the Examiner notes it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both De Waegheneire and Applicant utilize metallic yarns to improve the properties and performance of the yarn.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIP T KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7953. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Samuel (Joe) J Morano can be reached at (571)272-6684. 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.
/Kip T Kotter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights