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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 30, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, 10, 12, 14-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura (JP 2021-857, of record) and further in view of Shemenski (EP 0140810, of record) and Astaix (US 2016/0159155, of record).
As best depicted in Figures 1-3, Kamimura is directed to a tire construction comprising first and second belt layers 15a,15b, wherein respective layers are formed with reinforcing cords in the form of bundles. More particularly, respective bundles include a plurality of metal filaments 21 having preferred diameters between 0.15 mm and 0.4 mm and that are spaced from one another by a distance w1 between 0.01 mm and 0.24 mm. Additionally, respective bundles are spaced from another by a distance w2 between 0.25 mm and 2.0 mm. Kamimura, however, fails to expressly teach a ternary plating of copper, zinc, and iron.
It is noted, though, that Kamimura does state that the surface of the metal may be plated and that the type of plating is not particularly limited. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use any number of known metal platings and such includes the claimed ternary plating comprising copper, zinc, and iron. Shemenski is similarly directed to tire applications and suggests the of ternary platings to provide high temperature curing (and thus reduced curing times), improved original adhesion, and improved aged adhesion (Page 2, Lines 13-35 and Page 3, Lines 5-33). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use the ternary plating of Shemenski in the tire of Kamimura for the benefits detailed above.
Furthermore, regarding claim 1, the claimed dimensions are consistent with those that are commonly used in belt assemblies formed with first and second layers having monofilaments with diameters between 0.15 mm and 0.40 mm. Astaix, for example, is similarly directed to a tire construction including first and second working belt layers 10b,10c formed with monofilaments having preferred diameters between 0.25 mm and 0.40mm (Paragraph 52). More particularly, a distance Ez2 between monofilaments in adjacent belt layers is 0.35 mm-0.60 mm (Paragraph 63- corresponds with claimed interlayer gauge and is fully encompassed by claimed range). Additionally, a rubber thickness in respective belt layers (distance from surface of monofilament to outer surface of individual belt layer) is 0.5 times the aforementioned interlayer gauge or 0.175 mm-0.30 mm (fully encompassed by claimed range). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the claimed dimensions in the tire of Kamimura as they are consistent with those commonly used in belt layers having monofilaments with diameters between 0.15 mm and 0.40 mm (as is the case in Kamimura).
Lastly, regarding claim 1, the claims are directed to a tire article, and limitations pertaining to a dimension or thickness in an uncrosslinked state or condition fail to further define the structure of the claimed tire article (in a crosslinked state or condition). Also, a distance from a filament to a layer surface (corresponds with claimed crosslinked rubber thickness) simply needs to fall between 0.2 and 1 times a filament diameter and such is consistent with the dimensions set forth above (based on distance from filament centerline to layer surface is 0.5 times filament diameter plus thickness of crosslinked rubber from filament surface to layer surface).
With respect to claim 2, Shemenski teaches an iron loading between 0.1 percent and 10 percent by weight (Page 3, Lines 25-33).
As to claims 4 and 14, the claims are directed to a method of manufacture and such fails to further define the structure of the claimed tire article.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Figure 2 includes an exemplary bundle formed with 5 filaments.
As to claims 6 and 16, distance w1 is between 0.1 mm and 0.24 mm.
With respect to claims 7 and 17, distance w2 is between 0.25 mm and 2.0 mm.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, filaments 21 have a diameter between 0.15 mm and 0.40 mm.
With respect to claims 10, 12, and 20, belt coating rubbers are conventionally formed in the absence of cobalt (cobalt is commonly disclosed as being an optional material in coating rubbers). Shemenski provides an exemplary coating rubber composition that is devoid of cobalt materials (Page 10, Lines 10-20).
Regarding claim 11, the claimed thickness values are consistent with those that are commonly associated with cords having a diameter between 0.15 mm and 0.40mm.
5. Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 12-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura and further in view of Wang (WO 2020/156967, of record) and Astaix.
As best depicted in Figures 1-3, Kamimura is directed to a tire construction comprising first and second belt layers 15a,15b, wherein respective layers are formed with reinforcing cords in the form of bundles. More particularly, respective bundles include a plurality of metal filaments 21 having preferred diameters between 0.15 mm and 0.4 mm that are spaced from one another by a distance w1 between 0.01 mm and 0.24 mm. Additionally, respective bundles are spaced from another by a distance w2 between 0.25 mm and 2.0 mm. Kamimura, however, fails to expressly teach a ternary plating of copper, zinc, and iron.
It is noted, though, that Kamimura does state that the surface of the metal may be plated and that the type of plating is not particularly limited. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use any number of known metal platings and such includes the claimed ternary plating comprising copper, zinc, and iron. Wang is similarly directed to tire applications and suggests the of ternary platings to provide high original adhesion and high aged adhesion (Paragraphs 1 and 15) in the absence of cobalt. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use the ternary plating of Wang in the tire of Kamimura for the benefits detailed above.
Furthermore, regarding claim 1, the claimed dimensions are consistent with those that are commonly used in belt assemblies formed with first and second layers having monofilaments with diameters between 0.15 mm and 0.40 mm. Astaix, for example, is similarly directed to a tire construction including first and second working belt layers 10b,10c formed with monofilaments having preferred diameters between 0.25 mm and 0.40mm (Paragraph 52). More particularly, a distance Ez2 between monofilaments in adjacent belt layers is 0.35 mm-0.60 mm (Paragraph 63- corresponds with claimed interlayer gauge and is fully encompassed by claimed range). Additionally, a rubber thickness in respective belt layers (distance from surface of monofilament to outer surface of individual belt layer) is 0.5 times the aforementioned interlayer gauge or 0.175 mm-0.30 mm (fully encompassed by claimed range). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the claimed dimensions in the tire of Kamimura as they are consistent with those commonly used in belt layers having monofilaments with diameters between 0.15 mm and 0.40 mm (as is the case in Kamimura).
Lastly, regarding claim 1, the claims are directed to a tire article, and limitations pertaining to a dimension or thickness in an uncrosslinked state or condition fail to further define the structure of the claimed tire article (in a crosslinked state or condition). Also, a distance from a filament to a layer surface (corresponds with claimed crosslinked rubber thickness) simply needs to fall between 0.2 and 1 times a filament diameter and such is consistent with the dimensions set forth above (based on distance from filament centerline to layer surface is 0.5 times filament diameter plus thickness of crosslinked rubber from filament surface to layer surface).
With respect to claim 2, Wang teaches an iron loading between 0.1 percent and 10 percent by weight (Paragraph 29).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Wang recognizes the inclusion of phosphorous loadings on the surface in accordance to the claimed invention (Paragraph 36). It is emphasized that the claims are directed to an article and the final article of Kamimura in view of Wang includes phosphorous on the surface at loadings greater than 0 mg/m2 and less than 4 mg/m2.
As to claims 4 and 14, the claims are directed to a method of manufacture and such fails to further define the structure of the claimed tire article.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Figure 2 includes an exemplary bundle formed with 5 filaments.
As to claims 6 and 16, distance w1 is between 0.1 mm and 0.24 mm.
With respect to claims 7 and 17, distance w2 is between 0.25 mm and 2.0 mm.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, filaments 21 have a diameter between 0.15 mm and 0.40 mm.
With respect to claims 10, 12, and 20, an inventive concept of Wang is the exclusion of cobalt compounds.
Regarding claim 11, the claimed thickness values are consistent with those that are commonly associated with cords having a diameter between 0.15 mm and 0.40mm.
Response to Amendment
6. The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed September 30, 2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1-8, 10, 12-18, and 20 based upon Kamimura as set forth in the last Office action because: all of the examples in Table A have a ratio between 0.7 and 1.5 and as such, Table A fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed range (would require comparative examples having ratios that fall outside the claimed range to possibly establish a conclusive showing of unexpected results). Also, as noted above, the claims are directed to a final tire article and limitations pertaining to a relationship in an intermediate condition (uncrosslinked condition) fail to further define the structure of the claimed tire article.
Conclusion
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 R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 October 6, 2025