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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the graphed information in Fig. 2 is illegible (the inventive part of the legend, the grid, and the numbers in the x and y axes are too spotty and light to be legible), see 37 C.F.R. 1.84(l) and MPEP 608.02(V). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is more than 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in the specification Table 4 is improperly split between pp. 32-33 (either avoid the split or label the part on p. 33 as a continuation of Table 4 and add the appropriate column headings, see MPEP 608.01(I) and 37 C.F.R. 1.58(b), maintain proper positioning of characters in order to preserve their intended meaning).
Appropriate correction is required.
The amendment filed May 8, 2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: In the amendment to the specification the incorporation by reference to the foreign priority document and the international application in this national stage application was added subsequent to the filing date of the international application and therefore is not supported by the original disclosure (delete the incorporation by reference, see MPEP 608.01(p)(I)(B) last paragraph).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
All of the claimed ranges include the maximum and minimum values unless otherwise specified, as set forth in the specification p. 9 lines 9-10.
The claimed residual unreacted amount of a silane coupling agent of the white silica-based reinforcing filler in the vulcanized elastomeric material is determined as set forth in the specification p. 18 line 21 - p. 19 line 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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.
Claims 15 and 16 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. This is a new matter rejection.
The original disclosure supports the optional presence of the belt structure only when it is applied both at a radially outer position with respect to the carcass structure and at a radially inner position with respect to the tread band (one way to overcome this rejection would be to in claim 15 add before the period -- and at a radially inner position with respect to the tread band -- and to cancel claim 16).
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 14-39 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.
In the specification p. 9 lines 3-6 applicant has defined all of the ranges and other numerical entities as being preceded by “about” without defining how far away from the numerical entity is encompassed by adding the term “about”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not know without such definition how far away from the numerical entity is encompassed by adding the term “about” (one way to overcome this rejection would be to delete the sentence in specification p. 9 lines 3-6).
In claim 14 line 6, to provide proper antecedent basis, before “the at least one carcass layer” applicant should insert -- each of -- .
In claim 16 there is no antecedent basis for “the belt structure” (only introduced in claim 15, but see paragraph 12 above).
In claims 21-26 lines 1-2, to provide proper antecedent basis, after “the textile reinforcing cords” applicant should insert -- and/or textile hybrid reinforcing cords -- .
In claims 22-23 line 2, to clarify that the claims further limit claim 21, before the period applicant should insert -- and lower than, or equal to, 3500 dtex -- .
In claims 24-25 line 2, to clarify that the claims further limit claim 21, after “linear density” applicant should insert -- greater than, or equal to, 300 dtex and -- .
In claim 29 lines 1-2, to provide proper antecedent basis, applicant should change “the styrene-butadiene rubber” to -- the at least one styrene-butadiene rubber -- .
In claim 35 line 1, to provide proper antecedent basis, the claim should depend from claim 27 rather than claim 14 (the vulcanizable elastomeric composition introduced only in claim 27).
The term “at least about 0.30” in claim 38 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “at least about 0.30” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See above concerning the indefinite nature of “about 0.30” in this context.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 17-39 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Minagawa et al. (8,859,657 B2; col. 1 lines 65-67, col. 9 lines 53-67, col. 12 lines 43-49, col. 17 lines 50-62) and Japanese Patent Application 2010-216952 A (translationdisclose examples of the prior art tire rubber compositions containing silica-based reinforcing filler wherein the amount of residual unreacted silane coupling agent is desired to be as low as possible rather than a minimum threshold amount to obtain desirable E’ and tandelta values, and the prior art of record does not measure the amount of residual unreacted silane coupling agent in the same way as applicants so that there is not sufficient evidence to establish that the prior art amount of residual unreacted silane coupling agent in the vulcanized elastomeric material meets the claimed requirement of greater than or equal to 70 ppm of silicon measured by ICP-OES.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrienne C. Johnstone whose telephone number is (571)272-1218. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1PM-5PM.
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.
ADRIENNE C. JOHNSTONE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1749
Adrienne Johnstone /ADRIENNE C. JOHNSTONE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 May 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights