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 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 12, 14, 16, 25, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa’247 (US 2014/0299247) in view of Fujii (US 2017/0182847) and CN’138 (CN 204915138).
Regarding claims 12 and 33, Hasegawa’247 teaches a pneumatic radial tire for a passenger car comprising a pair of bead portions, a carcass layer, a belt layer, and a tread portion. TABLE 1 discloses test tire sizes (reproduced below) satisfying the claimed tire outer diameter OD and total tire width SW of claims 12 and 33.
Test tire #
Tire size
SW (mm)
OD (mm)
SW/OD
8
165/55R16
165
589.3
0.28
13
185/50R16
185
596.8
0.31
Hasegawa’247 is silent to a groove area ratio. However, Fujii teaches a tire for a passenger car with a tread having a groove area ratio greater in the center region, Vc, than in the shoulder regions, Vs (abstract) wherein 1.03 ≤ Vc/Vs ≤ 1.10 such that the difference in stiffness is prevented which is advantageous for snow performance and dry running performance [0009] and TABLE 1 shows exemplary values of Vc (%) of 19% and 20% and Vs (%) of 18%. 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 Hasegawa’247 such that it satisfies the following formulas:
0.008 ≤ Aa/OD ≤ 0.150
Ace/Ash > 1
1 < Ace/Ash ≤ 1.5 + (100/OD)
since Hasegawa’247 teaches tire sizes satisfying the claimed OD and Fujii teaches a tread of a tire for a passenger car having 1.03 ≤ Vc/Vs ≤ 1.10 and exemplary values of Vc = 19% and 20% and Vs = 18% for good snow and dry tire running performance.
Hasegawa’247 is silent to 1.2 ≤ Gce/Gsh ≤ 2.5. However, providing the tire of Hasegawa’247 with a tread of Fujii including the claimed Gce/Gsh relationship would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Fujii teaches a pneumatic tire for a passenger car tire comprising 4 circumferential main grooves and CN’138 teaches a pneumatic tire for a passenger car comprising 4 circumferential grooves wherein “depth of the crown groove of the circumferential main groove at the crown portion is h1, a depth of the shoulder groove of the circumferential main groove at the shoulder portion is h2 wherein h1/h2 is 1.33 and 1.78 for a balanced performance of drainage and wear resistance (page 2 of the machine translation).
Regarding claim 14, the claimed relationship is expected because Hasegawa’247 teaches tire sizes satisfying the claimed OD and Fujii teaches the groove depths of the main grooves 11 and 12 are from 6.5 to 9.5 mm [0023].
Regarding claims 16 and 25, the claimed relationship is expected because FIG. 2 of Fujii teaches a tread pattern having the claimed ratio within the claimed range.
Claims 17-18 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa’247 (US 2014/0299247) in view of Fujii (US 2017/0182847) and CN’138 (CN 204915138), as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Hasegawa et al. (US 5,435,364).
Regarding claims 17 and 26, Hasegawa’247 is silent to the claimed relationship: 1500 ≤ WLce x PCce x OD ≤ 33000. However, providing this claimed relationship in the tire of Hasegawa’247 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since (1) Hasegawa’247 teaches a passenger car tire and discloses tire sizes having the claimed OD, (2) Fujii teaches the groove width of the lug grooves 14 is 1.5 to 7.0 mm [0026] , and (3) Hasegawa et al. teaches a footprint of a passenger car tire having a pitch number of 4 in the tire ground contact length in a center region (FIG.1) and providing a typical pitch number of the same class of tire yields predictable results.
Regarding claims 18 and 27, Hasegawa’247 is silent to the claimed relationship: 0.005 ≤ PCce/OD ≤ 0.020. However, providing this claimed relationship in the tire of Hasegawa’247 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since (1) Hasegawa’247 teaches a passenger car tire and discloses tire sizes having the claimed OD and (2) Hasegawa et al. teaches a footprint of a passenger car tire having a pitch number of 4 in the tire ground contact length in a center region (FIG.1) and providing a typical pitch number of the same class of tire yields predictable results.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa’247 (US 2014/0299247) in view of Fujii (US 2017/0182847) and CN’138 (CN 204915138), as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Miyazaki (US 2002/0017351).
Regarding claim 19, Hasegawa’247 is silent the specifics of the carcass ply. However, TABLE 2 of Miyazaki teaches a pneumatic tire for a passenger car having a carcass ply comprising a carcass cord made of aliphatic polyketone 1500d/2 (EX. B1) having:
Total denier: 3,000 D
Tensile strength = 16.8 g/d
Cord count = 40 cords / 5 cm = 40 cords / 50mm
A tensile strength of a cord = (16.8 x 3000) g ≈ 494.3 N
The claimed tensile strength ≈ 494.3 N x 40 cords/50 mm
≈ 19,772 N/50mm
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 Hasegawa’247 with a carcass ply which satisfies 17 ≤ Tcs/OD ≤ 120 because Hasegawa’247 teaches tire sizes satisfying the claimed OD and providing a known carcass ply, such as one disclosed by Miyazaki, to the tire of Hasegawa’247 yields predictable results which satisfy the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa’247 (US 2014/0299247) in view of Fujii (US 2017/0182847) and CN’138 (CN 204915138), as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Miyazaki’296 (US 2002/0011296).
Regarding claim 20, Hasegawa’247 is silent to the specifics of the belt layer. However, Miyazaki’296 teaches a pneumatic tire comprising a breaker 7 composed of two cross plies 7a and 7b formed by metallic monofilaments ([0007]).
TABLE 1: Ex. 1 discloses:
The tensile strength 3400 Newtons/mm2
Cord diameter = 0.45 mm
Cord count = 40 cords/ 5 cm = 40 cords/ 50 mm
The corresponding claimed tensile strength = Tbt =
3400 x (π x (0.45/2)2) x 40 ≈ 21629 N/ 50 mm
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 Hasegawa’247 with a belt layer comprising a pair of cross belts formed by belt cords made of steel covered with a coating rubber and satisfying 25 ≤ Tbt/OD ≤ 250 because Hasegawa’247 teaches tire sizes satisfying the claimed OD and providing a known belt configuration; such as one disclosed by Miyazaki’296, to the tire of Hasegawa’247 would yield predictable results which satisfy the claimed invention.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa’247 (US 2014/0299247) in view of Fujii (US 2017/0182847) and CN’138 (CN 204915138), as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Kikuchi (US 2009/0277558).
Regarding claims 21-22, Hasegawa’247 is silent to the specifics of the bead cores. However, Kikuchi teaches a steel bead wire for forming a bead core of a pneumatic tire for a passenger car [0005],[0031]. TABLE 1: No. 1 teaches a bead wire having a tensile strength = 1280 MPa and discloses the diameter of the wire is about 1.5-3.5 mm and is wound 5-10 times [0062],[0063].
A tensile strength of a bead wire = 1280 MPa =1280 N/mm2.
A diameter of a bead wire = 2 mm.
Area of the bead wire = π x (2/2)2 ≈ 3.14 mm2
The bead core has 10 windings.
Claimed tensile strength ≈ 1280 x 3.14 x 10 ≈ 40,192 N.
Total cross sectional area of the bead wire ≈ 10 x 3.14 ≈ 31.4 mm2.
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 Hasegawa’247 with a bead core which satisfies 45 ≤ Tbd/OD ≤ 120 and 0.025 ≤ σbd/OD ≤ 0.075 because Hasegawa’247 teaches tire sizes satisfying the claimed OD and providing a known bead core configuration; such as one disclosed by Kikuchi, to the passenger car tire of Hasegawa’247 yields predictable results which satisfy the claimed invention.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa’247 (US 2014/0299247) in view of Fujii (US 2017/0182847), CN’138 (CN 204915138), and Hasegawa et al. (US 5,435,364), as applied to claim 27, and further view of Miyazaki (US 2002/0017351).
Regarding claim 28, Hasegawa’247 is silent the specifics of the carcass ply. However, TABLE 2 of Miyazaki teaches a pneumatic tire for a passenger car having a carcass ply comprising a carcass cord made of aliphatic polyketone 1500d/2 (EX. B1) having:
Total denier: 3,000 D
Tensile strength = 16.8 g/d
Cord count = 40 cords / 5 cm = 40 cords / 50mm
A tensile strength of a cord = (16.8 x 3000) g ≈ 494.3 N
The claimed tensile strength ≈ 494.3 N x 40 cords/50 mm
≈ 19,772 N/50mm
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 Hasegawa’247 with a carcass ply which satisfies 17 ≤ Tcs/OD ≤ 120 because Hasegawa’247 teaches tire sizes satisfying the claimed OD and providing a known carcass ply, such as one disclosed by Miyazaki, to the tire of Hasegawa’247 yields predictable results which satisfy the claimed invention.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa’247 (US 2014/0299247) in view of Fujii (US 2017/0182847), CN’138 (CN 204915138), Hasegawa et al. (US 5,435,364), and Miyazaki (US 2002/0017351), as applied to claim 28, and further in view of Miyazaki’296 (US 2002/0011296).
Regarding claim 29, Hasegawa’247 is silent to the specifics of the belt layer. However, Miyazaki’296 teaches a pneumatic tire comprising a breaker 7 composed of two cross plies 7a and 7b formed by metallic monofilaments ([0007]).
TABLE 1: Ex. 1 discloses:
The tensile strength 3400 Newtons/mm2
Cord diameter = 0.45 mm
Cord count = 40 cords/ 5 cm = 40 cords/ 50 mm
The corresponding claimed tensile strength = Tbt =
3400 x (π x (0.45/2)2) x 40 ≈ 21629 N/ 50 mm
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 Hasegawa’247 with a belt layer comprising a pair of cross belts formed by belt cords made of steel covered with a coating rubber and satisfying 25 ≤ Tbt/OD ≤ 250 because Hasegawa’247 teaches tire sizes satisfying the claimed OD and providing a known belt configuration; such as one disclosed by Miyazaki’296, to the tire of Hasegawa’247 would yield predictable results which satisfy the claimed invention.
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa’247 (US 2014/0299247) in view of Fujii (US 2017/0182847), CN’138 (CN 204915138), Hasegawa et al. (US 5,435,364), Miyazaki (US 2002/0017351), and Miyazaki’296 (US 2002/0011296), as applied to claim 29, and further in view of Kikuchi (US 2009/0277558).
Regarding claims 30-31, Hasegawa’247 is silent to the specifics of the bead cores. However, Kikuchi teaches a steel bead wire for forming a bead core of a pneumatic tire for a passenger car [0005],[0031]. TABLE 1: No. 1 teaches a bead wire having a tensile strength = 1280 MPa and discloses the diameter of the wire is about 1.5-3.5 mm and is wound 5-10 times [0062],[0063].
A tensile strength of a bead wire = 1280 MPa =1280 N/mm2.
A diameter of a bead wire = 2 mm.
Area of the bead wire = π x (2/2)2 ≈ 3.14 mm2
The bead core has 10 windings.
Claimed tensile strength ≈ 1280 x 3.14 x 10 ≈ 40,192 N.
Total cross sectional area of the bead wire ≈ 10 x 3.14 ≈ 31.4 mm2.
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 Hasegawa’247 with a bead core which satisfies 45 ≤ Tbd/OD ≤ 120 and 0.025 ≤ σbd/OD ≤ 0.075 because Hasegawa’247 teaches tire sizes satisfying the claimed OD and providing a known bead core configuration; such as one disclosed by Kikuchi, to the passenger car tire of Hasegawa’247 yields predictable results which satisfy the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented in this office action.
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 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