Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/683,912

TIRE AND TIRE PRODUCTION METHOD

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Feb 15, 2024
Examiner
MAKI, STEVEN D
Art Unit
1749
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Bridgestone Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 10m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
683 granted / 1043 resolved
+0.5% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+24.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
1078
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
77.9%
+37.9% vs TC avg
§102
4.6%
-35.4% vs TC avg
§112
10.6%
-29.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1043 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . 1) 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. 2) 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. 3) Claims 3 and 4 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. Claim 3 describes “one or more carcass plies” [line 2, emphasis added], “carcass plies” [line 7, plural] and ”the carcass ply” [line 10, singular]. In claim 3, it is unclear how many carcass plies are being required. In other words, it is unclear if claim 3 requires at least one carcass ply or at least two carcass plies. 4) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 5) Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 (dependent on claim 3) fails to further limit claim 3 since the subject matter of claim 4 (“carcass cords of two of the tape-like members adjacent to each other in the tire circumferential direction are prevented from overlapping each other“ [claim 4, emphasis added]) is required by the subject matter of claim 1 (“two of the tape-like members adjacent to each other in the tire circumferential direction are attached so that they overlap each other only at rubber portions thereof” [claim 3, emphasis added]). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 6) 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. 7) Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caretta et al (US 2002/0056498) in view of Chen et al (US 2018/0178585), Takagi (US 2005/0092416) and Japan 117 (JP 2006-076117). Caretta et al discloses a tire production method for a tire comprising a pair of bead portions and a CARCASS 2 consisting of one or more CARCASS PLIES 3, 31 straddling between the pair of bead portions 4 in a toroidal shape 11, wherein the method includes a raw tire forming process: using a toroidal-shaped rigid core 11 with a tire forming surface that forms a luminal surface of the tire on its outer surface, and sequentially attaching unvulcanized tire components including CARCASS PLIES 3, 31 on the tire forming surface of the rigid core to form a raw tire, the raw tire forming process includes a carcass ply forming process: forming the CARCASS PLY 3 on the tire forming surface of the rigid core, the carcass ply forming process includes an attaching process: attaching tape-like members 13 with a tape width of 3 to 20 mm, in which a plurality of carcass cords 14 arranged parallel to each other are coated with rubber, sequentially in the tire circumferential direction to form a CARCASS PLY 3 comprised of the tape-like members 13 arranged in the tire circumferential in the attaching process [FIGURES 1-11 especially FIGURES 2-8, paragraphs 28-29, 55-125]. Caretta discloses: [0090] Due to the above described operating sequence of the deposition apparatus 19, in the first carcass ply 3 obtained the crown portions 24 of each strip-like length 13 are disposed consecutively in side by side relationship along the circumferential extension of the toroidal support 11, whereas each of the side portions 25 of each length 13 is partly superposed with the side portion 25 of at least one length 13 previously laid down, and also partly covered with the side portion 25 of at least one length 13 laid down subsequently. In the accompanying figures, the overlapping regions of the strip-like lengths 13 forming the first carcass ply 3 are identified by 13a. [0091] As clearly shown in FIG. 8, the side portions 25 in mutual superposition relationship move towards each other substantially in the direction of the geometric axis of rotation of the toroidal support 11, at an angle δ the value of which is correlated with the width "W" of the strip-like elements 13, and in any case with the circumferential distribution pitch thereof, as well as with the value of a maximum radius R to be measured at a point of maximum distance from the geometric axis of rotation of the toroidal support 11. [0092] Due to the mutual convergence between the contiguous side portions 25, mutual superposition or covering of same, i.e. the circumferential width of the overlapping regions 13a, progressively decreases starting from a maximum value at the radially inner ends of the side portions, until a zero value at the transition region between the side portions 25 and crown portions 24. See paragraphs 90-92, emphasis added. FIGURE 8 of Caretta et al is reproduced below: PNG media_image1.png 642 394 media_image1.png Greyscale As can be seen from FIGURE 8, one tape like member 13 is butted against another tape-like member 13 at the tire equatorial plane and the one tape like member 13 is overlapped with the another tape like member 13 at the end portion. Caretta et al teaches that each tape like member 13 has a width of 3 to 20 mm and is cut from a continuous strip like element comprising parallel cords 14 embedded in rubber [FIGURES 2-7, paragraphs 28-29, 69]. FIGURE 7 of Caretta et al is reproduced below: PNG media_image2.png 210 252 media_image2.png Greyscale Caretta et al is silent as to at the end portions of the carcass ply, two of the tape-like members adjacent to each other in the tire circumferential direction being attached so that they overlap each other only at rubber portions thereof. As to claims 3 and 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Caretta et al’s method for forming a carcass ply 3 (tire ply) such that: on the tire equatorial plane, two of the tape-like members adjacent to each other in the tire circumferential direction are attached so that they are butted against each other at tire circumferential ends thereof, and at the end portions of the carcass ply, two of the tape-like members adjacent to each other in the tire circumferential direction are attached so that they overlap each other only at rubber portions thereof [claim 3], at the end portions of the carcass ply, carcass cords of two of the tape-like members adjacent to each other in the tire circumferential direction are prevented from overlapping each other [claim 4] since (1) Caretta et al teaches forming a carcass ply (tire ply) on a toroidal support such that one tape like member 13 is butted against another tape-like member 13 at the tire equatorial plane and the one tape like member 13 is overlapped with the another tape like member 13 at the end portion wherein each tape like member 13 comprises a strip comprising parallel cords 14 embedded in rubber and wherein each tape-like member has a width of 3 to 20 mm and (2) (A) Chen teaches joining strips each comprising parallel cords embedded in rubber to form a tire ply such that the strips overlap each other only at rubber portions thereof and such that, at the overlap, cords are prevented from overlapping each other [FIGURES 5-6] so that the joint has the strength of a lap joint without having overlapped cords which can contribute to tire high speed durability and can also cause visible depressions in the sidewall [paragraphs 2, 4, 10, 33-36], (B) Takagi teaches joining strips each comprising parallel cords embedded in rubber to form a tire ply such that the strips overlap each other only at rubber portions thereof and such that, at the overlap, cords are prevented from overlapping each other [FIGURES 2, 3A, 3B, 3C] so that a tire comprising the ply has high consistency and improved weight balance [abstract] and (C) Japan 117 teaches joining strips each comprising parallel cords embedded in rubber to form a tire ply such that the strips overlap each other only at rubber portions thereof and such that, at the overlap, cords are prevented from overlapping each other [FIGURES 1-3, machine translation] so that the tire ply has substantialy homogeneous structure [machine translation]. Remarks 8) Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, method, claims 3-4 in the reply filed on 9-5-25 is acknowledged. The remaining references are of interest. 9) No claim is allowed. 10) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN D MAKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM. 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 (Whatley) 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. /STEVEN D MAKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 January 10, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 15, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600174
PNEUMATIC VEHICLE TYRE WITH CIRCUMFERENTIAL CHANNEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600172
TIRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594788
MULTI-LAYER TREAD FOR USE IN VEHICLE TYRES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589616
TIRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12570109
TIRE WITH IMPROVED END-OF-LIFE GRIP ON WET GROUND
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+24.8%)
3y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1043 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month