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
2. Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim language fails to clearly describe the required carbon contents. It appears that the claims intend to require either a low carbon content or a high carbon content consistent with Applicant’s original disclosure. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
4. Claim(s) 11 and 13-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fenner (US 3,911,662, of record) and further in view of (a) Monnot (US 4,936,366, of record) and/or KR 759695 (newly cited) and (b) Sandstrom (US 2006/0169382, of record).
Fenner is directed to steel cord construction comprising two or more twisted strands, wherein each strand is formed with three or more twisted filaments (Column 2, Lines 60+). This structure (open structure with spaces) is identified by Fenner (Column 3, Lines 1-10) as providing a high degree of rubber penetration in an analogous manner to the claimed invention (Paragraphs 7 and 8). This disclosure, along with the figures of Fenner, suggests that said rubber completely fills interspaces between filaments in an analogous manner to the claimed invention. Fenner further states that such a steel cord can be embedded in a body of elastomeric material (e.g. tire breaker or belt layer) (Abstract and Column 2, Lines 40-50). In such an instance, though, Fenner is silent with respect to the elongation at break and the elongation properties under a tensile stress of 100 N before and after vulcanization.
As best can be determined by the Examiner, the claimed mechanical properties appear to result from using a specific type of steel, a specific structure, and a specific topping rubber composition (Paragraphs 6-8, 15, 16, and 16-20 in original specification). As detailed above, the steel cord of Fenner can be formed with 2-4 strands and each strand can be formed with 3 filaments or wires. Fenner also teaches the use of filament diameters on the order of 0.0073 inches (or approximately 0.18 mm) (Column 3, Lines 25+ and Column 4, Lines 25-30). This structure is directly analogous to Applicant’s disclosed structure (Paragraphs 19, 20, and 51). Additionally, the disclosed type of steel and the disclosed topping rubber composition are consistent with those that are conventionally used in tire components including the tire breaker or belt, as shown for example by Monnot (Column 3, Lines 55+) and/or KR ‘695 (Abstract) and Sandstrom (Abstract and Paragraphs 9-25). It is emphasized that Applicant disclosed (a) suitable steels as being high carbon steels with a carbon content of at least 0.65 percent by weight and (b) suitable rubber compositions as including 2-8 phr of sulfur, 0.5-3 phr of accelerators, 5-15 phr of a methylene acceptor-methylene donor product, and 0.03%-0.15% by mass of cobalt (in the form of a cobalt salt). Given the extreme similarity between the inventive cord and that taught by Fenner in view of Monnot and Sandstrom, it reasons that the claimed mechanical properties would be present in the modified tire of Fenner. Again, as best can be determined by the Examiner, the claimed mechanical properties are a direct result of the aforementioned characteristics and thus would be expected to be present in the modified cord of Fenner.
Lastly, regarding claim 11 (and claims 23 and 26), the steel cord of Fenner can include between 2 and 4 strands, with each strand formed with 3 circular filaments. Additionally, said filaments have a filament diameter on the order of 0.18 mm. This is substantially identical to Applicant’s inventive steel cord. Also, Monnet recognizes common steels used in belt or breaker cords have a modulus of 190 GPa or greater. The totality of these features contribute to the claimed P value, suggesting that the P value in the modified tire of Fenner would be at least 50 N in accordance to the claimed invention. It is further noted that common or standard filament lengths over a given pitch appear to be consistent with Applicant’s quantitative relationship. It is emphasized that the modified steel cord of Fenner includes a number of filaments, a modulus of filaments, and an area of filaments that directly mirrors that of the claimed invention and thus, it would be expected that the claimed quantitative relationship would be satisfied (assuming standard filament lengths between pitches).
Regarding claims 13, 23, and 26, given a filament diameter on the order of 0.18 mm, the claims are satisfied when S is less than approximately 5.4mm and such values are consistent with common/standard steel filaments used in tire steel cords. Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to form the steel cord with a claimed ratio less than 30.
With respect to claims 14 and 23, the claimed ratio would be expected to be present in the modified steel cord of Fenner since a pitch is less than the actual length of the steel cord within a given pitch. The claims essentially encompass all of the cord constructions in which an actual length is greater than the pitch (results since the filament path is sinusoidal as opposed to being straight).
As to claims 15-20 and 23-25, Sandstrom evidences the makeup of common tire topping rubber compositions, including those having applicability in tire belts (Paragraphs 9-25). With specific respect to claim 19, Sandstrom recognizes the well-known inclusion of brass to enhance adhesion to surrounding rubber compositions (Paragraph 42). With specific respect to claim 25, the general disclosure of sulfenamides by Sandstrom would have been recognized as encompassing all common sulfenamides, including DCBS. It is emphasized that DCBS is extensively used as an accelerator in tire rubber compositions.
Regarding claims 21 and 27, Fenner is directed to steel cords having applicability in pneumatic tires (Column 1, Lines 5-11).
With respect to claims 22 and 28, Fenner is broadly directed to steel cords that are embedded in elastomeric material (Column 1, Lines 5-11). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use the steel cord of Fenner in a variety of common applications, including continuous belts, rubber tracks, and conveyor belts. It is emphasized that steel cords are commonly disclosed as having applicability in a wide variety of applications. More particularly, tires are commonly disclosed in an alternative manner with each of the claimed applications when disclosing applications of steel cords.
As to claims 23 and 26, Monnet (Column 3, Lines 60-65) and/or KR ‘695 (Abstract) recognize the known use of carbon contents in steels, and more specifically stainless steel, of at least 0.65%.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed January 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that amended claim 11, which incorporates the limitations of dependent claim 12, is not taught by Fenner. The combination of structural limitations required by amended claim 11 has been addressed on Page 4 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed on October 17, 2025 (rejection of dependent claim 12) and Applicant has not provided any specific arguments that alter the previous rejection.
As to claim 23, Applicant argues that the particular carbon content is not taught by the cited references. This argument is not entirely understood since claim 23 appears to require either a low carbon content between 0.04-0.20 percent by weight or a high carbon content of at least 0.65% (consistent with Paragraph 16 in Applicant’s original disclosure as marked up). Monnot and KR ‘695, for example, specifically recognize the known use of carbon contents that are at least 0.65% by weight.
Conclusion
6. 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 February 6, 2026