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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments entered on 12/18/2025 have been accepted. Claims 1, 7, and 10 are amended. Claims 5-6 are canceled. Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 9/25/2025. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objections previously set forth.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 2nd page line 3 is missing a comma or semicolon at the end of the line following the word “material”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation "adhesion of the cords to the elastomeric material" in 2nd page lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim will be examined as if the elastomeric material was introduced as in claim 1, such that the belt bandage ply’s cords are embedded in elastomeric material, which is the elastomeric material referred to in lines 2-3 of claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reese (EP3738789A1, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Reese teaches a pneumatic vehicle tire [see Fig. 1], comprising
a carcass with a plurality of textile carcass strength elements (carcass “2” which contains reinforcing elements [0004]),
a belt arranged radially outside of the carcass (belt “7” which is arranged outside of the carcass [Fig. 1, 0038]),
a belt bandage ply of a belt bandage arranged radially outside the belt (belt bandage “8” is arranged radially outside of the belt [Fig. 1, 0038]. The belt bandage comprises the reinforcing ply “9”, which is considered the belt bandage ply),
wherein the belt bandage ply has a plurality of textile cords as strength elements which are substantially parallel and are embedded in elastomeric material, wherein the cords have two yarns of polyamide 6.6 (PA6.6) which have a same linear density and are end twisted together to form the cord (the belt bandage contains parallel and substantially circumferentially extending reinforcing members embedded in rubber [0004, 0007]. Fig. 3 shows an example of an embodiment where the cord is made of precisely two yarns [0029], and the cord of Fig. 3 is incorporated in the structure of Fig. 4 so as to form the belt bandage ply [0047-0048]. The two yarns are both preferably polyamide, and preferably PA 6.6 [0019-0020, 0027, 0043, 0047]. The yarns are end-twisted with one another [0027-0028]. The cord with two yarns of polyamide may have the construction of 1880 dtex x 2 [0047, 0022], such that they both have the same linear density),
the plurality of cords have a twist factor of 120 to 220 (the cords may have a twist factor α of 100 to 250 [0047, 0030]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
It is considered that the claimed tangent modulus would implicitly be achieved, as "When the claimed and prior art products of identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established”, see MPEP 2112.01 I. And further, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”, see MPEP 2112.01 II. It being emphasized that Reese suggests the use of two yarns to form the cord with a construction of 1880 dtex x 2 [0047, 0022], where the yarns are end-twisted with each other [0027-0028], where the yarns are both preferably PA 6.6 [0019-0020, 0027, 0043, 0047], and with a twist factor α of 100 to 250 [0047, 0030] (substantially overlapping with the preferred twist range of 120 to 220). Thus, the prior art of Reese suggests cords and yarns that are substantially the same as applicant’s disclosure which states [0019-0020]:
[0019] Thus, two yarns made of PA 6.6 with the linear density of 1880 dtex are end-twisted together to form the cord. Measurements of the force-elongation curve of such a cord have shown that, in comparison to a cord of the structure PA 6.6 1400 dtex x 2, such a cord already has a tangent modulus which is advantageously increased for high-speed capability, despite an only slight increase in the diameter.
[0020] For example, a cord of the structure PA 6.6 1880 dtex x2 has a tangent modulus of 11.8 N/%, whereas the corresponding reference cord of the structure PA 6.6 1400 dtex x 2 has a tangent modulus, which is lower by 2.8 N/%, of only 9.0 N/%, in each case measured at an elongation of 4%. The cord and the reference cord each have an identical twist factor of 150.
Therefore, while not explicitly disclosing the claimed tangent modulus from 9.3N/% to 14N/% as an elongation of 4%, one of ordinary skill would reasonably expect Reese’s cords to have the same properties, see MPEP2112. The cords of Reese are substantially the same as disclosed by the Applicant in their instant specification, and Reese’s cords have each of the characteristics listed in the Instant Application as explicitly affecting the tangent modulus (namely, the cord construction type, cord/yarn material, number of yarns, and twist factor). And one of ordinary skill would have expected for Reese’s cords to have a tangent modulus of approximately 11.8 N/% because of this. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Additionally, it is noted that unexpected results nor criticality have been shown by Applicant. Additionally, the burden rests with Applicant to establish results are unexpected and significant. (MPEP §716.02(b)).
Regarding claim 3, Reese suggests a tire with cords of the structure PA 6.6 1880 dtex x 2 (as in the rejection of claim 1 above, Reese suggests that the cords preferably are PA 6.6 [0019-0020, 0027, 0043, 0047] with a construction of 1880dtex x 2 [0047, 0022], such that a cord construction as claimed would have been obvious).
Regarding claim 7, Reese suggests a cord of the plurality of cords is arranged over an entire axial extent of the belt and beyond (as in Fig.1, the belt bandage extends over the entire axial extend of the belt so as to envelope it [Fig. 1]. And as the reinforcing ply of the belt bandage has its reinforcing members continuously would along the axial width [0039], the cords would clearly similarly extend over the entire axial extent of the belt).
Regarding claim 8, Reese suggests the tire is in a passenger car (the tire may be used in a passenger vehicle [0038]. Additionally, it is noted that “is in a passenger car” is merely an intended use of the tire that does not impart specific structural limitations onto the claimed tire, and that the tire of Reese would be capable of being in any type of vehicle).
Regarding claim 9, Reese suggests that tire is in a light-duty vehicle or a van (it is noted that “light-duty vehicle” is considered in the art to encompass a range of light weight vehicle loads, including passenger vehicles. Reese states that its tire may be used in passenger vehicles [0038], such that it would clearly be used with light-weight vehicles. Additionally, it is noted that “in a light-duty vehicle or a van” is merely an intended use of the tire that does not impart specific structural limitations onto the claimed tire, and that the tire of Reese would be capable of being in any type of vehicle).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reese (EP3738789A1, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of at least one of Reese2 (EP3269562A1, of record), Reese3 (EP3912833A1, of record), or Kramer (DE102019215504A1, of record).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Reese does not explicitly give the thread density of the belt bandage cords. However, a density of 80-100epdm is conventional and known within the art, and it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the cords as such. Reese2 (of same inventive entity and inventor as Reese), teaches cords related to a belt bandage ply [0003-0004]. The cords of the reinforcing layer have two multifilament yarns twisted together [0033, 0035], where the material is polyamide 6.6 [0016-0017]. The density of the cords may be 90epdm [0033] or 90-100epdm [0035], for example. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the cords of Reese to have an epdm as suggested by Reese2. One would have been motivated so as to simplify production and achieve a cost advantage [0033, 0035].
Alternatively, Reese3 (of same inventive entity and inventor as Reese) teaches a belt bandage for a tire which has the construction of x2 [pg. 2 of machine translation], meaning that two yarns are twisted together. Reese3 suggests that a density of each cord of the belt bandage is preferably from 80-160 epdm [pg. 2 of machine translation]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the cords of Reese to have an epdm as suggested by Reese3. One would have been motivated so as to ensure sufficient strength of the tire and ensuring sufficient distance between the cords so that there is enough rubber between the cords [pg. 2 of machine translation].
Alternatively, Kramer (of same inventive entity and shared inventor as Reese) teaches a belt bandage for a tire [pg. 1 of machine translation]. The cords may comprise cords made of PA6.6 and at a construction of 1880x2 [pg. 4 of machine translation], along with a variety of other possible options. The cords of the belt bandage layer preferably have a density of reinforcement in a range of 50-150epdm [pg. 4 of machine translation]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the cords of Reese to have the epdm as suggested by Kramer. One would have been motivated so as to improve the process capability and the cord spacing [pg. 4 of machine translation].
Therefore, each of Reese2, Reese3, and/or Kramer makes obvious the density being from 80 to 100epdm. Each of the references either have examples explicitly within the claimed range or substantially overlapping with the claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It is considered that the claimed tangent modulus per cm width of the belt bandage ply would implicitly be achieved, as "When the claimed and prior art products of identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established”, see MPEP 2112.01 I. And further, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”, see MPEP 2112.01 II. It being emphasized that Reese suggests the use of two yarns to form the cord with a construction of 1880 dtex x 2 [0047, 0022], where the yarns are end-twisted with each other [0027-0028], where the yarns are both preferably PA 6.6 [0019-0020, 0027, 0043, 0047], and with a twist factor α of 100 to 250 [0047, 0030]. Additionally, as above, each of the references Reese2, Reese3, and/or Kramer suggests the epdm of the cord ranging from 80 to 100epdm. Reese2 suggesting either a density of 90epdm or 90-100epdm [0033, 0035], Reese3 suggesting a density of 80-160 epdm [pg. 2 of machine translation], and Kramer suggesting a density from 50-150epdm [pg. 4 of machine translation]. Thus, the prior art of Reese suggests cords and yarns that are substantially the same as applicant’s disclosure which states [0019-0020]:
[0024] Surprisingly, it has been shown that such a belt bandage ply with good shrinkage properties has an excellent tangent modulus per cm width of the belt bandage ply.
[0025] An advantageous embodiment is provided in that the cords have the structure PA 6.6 1880 dtex x 2 and are arranged with a thread density of 80 epdm to 100 epdm, preferably of 85 epdm to 95 epdm, particularly preferably with a thread density of 90 epdm.
[0026] Surprisingly, it has been shown that a belt bandage ply F1 according to the invention, which has cords of the structure 1880dtex x 2 in an arrangement of the cords with a thread density of 90 epdm, has a tangent modulus at 4% elongation of the belt bandage ply in the direction of extent of the cords that is higher by more than 2500 N/cm than the corresponding tangent modulus of a reference ply R1, which has reference cords of the structure 1400dtex x 2, which are also arranged with a thread density of 90 epdm. The belt bandage ply F1 according to the invention has a tangent modulus per cm width of 10580 N/cm at an elongation of 4%. The cords and the reference cords each have an identical twist factor of 150.
[0027 ] A pneumatic vehicle tire having such a belt bandage ply F1 according to the invention in the belt bandage has excellent high-speed capability. The thickness and use of materials in the belt bandage ply are only slightly increased, and therefore the rolling resistance is not significantly increased.
Therefore, while not explicitly disclosing the claimed tangent modulus per cm width of the belt bandage ply of 8300N/cm to 14000N/cm, one of ordinary skill would reasonably expect Reese’s cords to have the same properties, see MPEP2112. The cords of Reese (as modified by the conventionally known thread densities of Reese2, Reese3, and/or Kramer) are substantially the same as disclosed by the Applicant in their instant specification, and Reese’s cords have each of the characteristics listed in the Instant Application as explicitly affecting the tangent modulus (namely, the cord construction type, cord/yarn material, number of yarns, and twist factor, and thread density). And one of ordinary skill would have expected for Reese’s cords to have a tangent modulus of approximately 10580 N/cm because of this. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Additionally, it is noted that unexpected results nor criticality have been shown by Applicant. Additionally, the burden rests with Applicant to establish results are unexpected and significant. (MPEP §716.02(b)).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reese (EP3738789A1, of record) and in view of one of Reese2 (EP3269562A1, of record), Reese3 (EP3912833A1, of record), or Kramer (DE102019215504A1, of record).
Regarding claim 10, Reese teaches a pneumatic vehicle tire [see Fig. 1], comprising
a carcass with a plurality of textile carcass strength elements (carcass “2” which contains reinforcing elements [0004]),
a belt arranged radially outside of the carcass (belt “7” which is arranged outside of the carcass [Fig. 1, 0038]),
a belt bandage ply of a belt bandage arranged radially outside the belt (belt bandage “8” is arranged radially outside of the belt [Fig. 1, 0038]. The belt bandage comprises the reinforcing ply “9”, which is considered the belt bandage ply),
wherein the belt bandage ply has a plurality of textile cords as strength elements which are substantially parallel and are embedded in elastomeric material, wherein the cords have two yarns of polyamide 6.6 (PA6.6) which have a same linear density and are end twisted together to form the cord (the belt bandage contains parallel and substantially circumferentially extending reinforcing members embedded in rubber [0004, 0007]. Fig. 3 shows an example of an embodiment where the cord is made of precisely two yarns [0029], and the cord of Fig. 3 is incorporated in the structure of Fig. 4 so as to form the belt bandage ply [0047-0048]. The two yarns are both preferably polyamide, and preferably PA 6.6 [0019-0020, 0027, 0043, 0047]. The yarns are end-twisted with one another [0027-0028]. The cord with two yarns of polyamide may have the construction of 1880 dtex x 2 [0047, 0022], such that they both have the same linear density),
the plurality of textile cords each having a structure of 1880 dtex x 2 (as stated above, the cord with two yarns of polyamide may have the construction of 1880 dtex x 2 [0047, 0022],
the plurality of textile cords have an adhesive impregnation for adhesion of the cords to the elastomeric material (“In order to ensure reliable adhesion of textile reinforcing elements to the rubber, it is expedient to provide the reinforcing elements with an adhesive impregnation” [0032]),
the textile cords have a twist factor of 140 to 180 (the cords may have a twist factor α of 100 to 250 [0047, 0030]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Reese does not explicitly give the thread density of the belt bandage cords. However, a density of 85-95epdm is conventional and known within the art, and it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the cords as such. Reese2 (of same inventive entity and inventor as Reese), teaches cords related to a belt bandage ply [0003-0004]. The cords of the reinforcing layer have two multifilament yarns twisted together [0033, 0035], where the material is polyamide 6.6 [0016-0017]. The density of the cords may be 90epdm [0033] or 90-100epdm [0035], for example. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the cords of Reese to have an epdm as suggested by Reese2. One would have been motivated so as to simplify production and achieve a cost advantage [0033, 0035].
Alternatively, Reese3 (of same inventive entity and inventor as Reese) teaches a belt bandage for a tire which has the construction of x2 [pg. 2 of machine translation], meaning that two yarns are twisted together. Reese3 suggests that a density of each cord of the belt bandage is preferably from 80-160 epdm [pg. 2 of machine translation]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the cords of Reese to have an epdm as suggested by Reese3. One would have been motivated so as to ensure sufficient strength of the tire and ensuring sufficient distance between the cords so that there is enough rubber between the cords [pg. 2 of machine translation].
Alternatively, Kramer (of same inventive entity and shared inventor as Reese) teaches a belt bandage for a tire [pg. 1 of machine translation]. The cords may comprise cords made of PA6.6 and at a construction of 1880x2 [pg. 4 of machine translation], along with a variety of other possible options. The cords of the belt bandage layer preferably have a density of reinforcement in a range of 50-150epdm [pg. 4 of machine translation]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the cords of Reese to have the epdm as suggested by Kramer. One would have been motivated so as to improve the process capability and the cord spacing [pg. 4 of machine translation].
Therefore, each of Reese2, Reese3, and/or Kramer makes obvious the density being from 85 to 95epdm. Each of the references either have examples explicitly within the claimed range or substantially overlapping with the claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It is considered that the claimed tangent modulus would implicitly be achieved, as "When the claimed and prior art products of identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established”, see MPEP 2112.01 I. And further, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”, see MPEP 2112.01 II. It being emphasized that Reese suggests the use of two yarns to form the cord with a construction of 1880 dtex x 2 [0047, 0022], where the yarns are end-twisted with each other [0027-0028], where the yarns are both preferably PA 6.6 [0019-0020, 0027, 0043, 0047], and with a twist factor α of 100 to 250 [0047, 0030]. Additionally, as modified by Reese2, Reese3, and/or Kramer, a well-known thread density of 85-95 would be obvious to use by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the prior art of Reese suggests cords and yarns that are substantially the same as applicant’s disclosure which states [0019-0020]:
[0019] Thus, two yarns made of PA 6.6 with the linear density of 1880 dtex are end-twisted together to form the cord. Measurements of the force-elongation curve of such a cord have shown that, in comparison to a cord of the structure PA 6.6 1400 dtex x 2, such a cord already has a tangent modulus which is advantageously increased for high-speed capability, despite an only slight increase in the diameter.
[0020] For example, a cord of the structure PA 6.6 1880 dtex x2 has a tangent modulus of 11.8 N/%, whereas the corresponding reference cord of the structure PA 6.6 1400 dtex x 2 has a tangent modulus, which is lower by 2.8 N/%, of only 9.0 N/%, in each case measured at an elongation of 4%. The cord and the reference cord each have an identical twist factor of 150.
Therefore, while not explicitly disclosing the claimed tangent modulus from 9.3N/% to 14N/% as an elongation of 4%, one of ordinary skill would reasonably expect Reese’s cords to have the same properties, see MPEP2112. The cords of Reese are substantially the same as disclosed by the Applicant in their instant specification, and Reese’s cords have each of the characteristics listed in the Instant Application as explicitly affecting the tangent modulus (namely, the cord construction type, cord/yarn material, number of yarns, and twist factor). And one of ordinary skill would have expected for Reese’s cords to have a tangent modulus of approximately 11.8 N/% because of this. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Additionally, it is noted that unexpected results nor criticality have been shown by Applicant. Additionally, the burden rests with Applicant to establish results are unexpected and significant. (MPEP §716.02(b)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 5-6 of their Remarks filed 12/18/2025 that Reese would not necessarily have the claimed tangent modulus. Applicant argues that two of their cords (1880x2 and 1400x2) have different tangent modulus values, such that the modulus may different substantially.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the different cord types having different tangent modulus values is not convincing, because Applicant is not comparing their invention with the closest prior art (Reese). The Examiner does not contend that separate cords have separate structures of 1880x2 vs 1400x2 would have different tangent modulus values, as different tangent modulus values would be the expected result given the difference in cord construction. However, when Reese’s cord structure as detailed in the rejections of above is compared with the inventive cords of the instant specification [see 0019-0020 in particular], it is clear that the cords are substantially the same. Namely, Reese suggests the use of two yarns to form the cord with a construction of 1880 dtex x 2 [0047, 0022], where the yarns are end-twisted with each other [0027-0028], where the yarns are both preferably PA 6.6 [0019-0020, 0027, 0043, 0047], and with a twist factor α of 100 to 250 [0047, 0030] (substantially overlapping with the preferred range of 120-220 and/or 140-180). Because these suggested cords by Reese are substantially the same as the 1880x2 embodiment disclosed in the instant specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected for the tangent modulus to have a value substantially close to 11.8 N/% because of this.
Applicant argues on pg. 7 that Reese/Reese2 disclose a twist factor range, but that this range does not recognize a tangent modulus window. Applicant argues that the modulus range and twist factor range are chosen specifically for optimization of fatigue/strength requirements.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Reese/Reese2 may not directly disclose a tangent modulus value, Reese is specific in that its twist factor may range from 100-250. Where the instant claims have either a twist factor of 120 to 220 or 140 to 180, in both cases Reese’s twist factor substantially overlaps these ranges. In fact, the median point of the range 100-250 satisfies both of these claimed ranges (as well as a host of other values within the range), such that the utilization of a twist factor at this narrowed range would have been obvious given the disclosure of Reese. In response to applicant's argument that Reese does not recognize the tangent modulus, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). For the reasons as previously stated, Reese’s cords would have reasonably had a tangent modulus within the claimed range because Reese’s cords satisfy each of the preferred characteristics of the cord which have an affect on the tangent modulus.
Applicant argues on pgs. 7-8 that the instant specification shows that the 1880x2 PA 6.6 cord produces a modulus per width over 2500N/cm greater than a 1400x2 reference cord, as well as higher strength and energy absorption. Applicant argues that this shows surprising and beneficial results (unexpected results), which cannot be overcome with “overlapping ranges” type rejection.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments/results are not sufficient to overcome the rejections of record, as these cited benefits are taken over a 1400x2 reference cord which is not commiserate in scope to the closest prior art of record Reese, wherein Reese suggests the 1800 dtex x2 cord with the yarns end-twisted, PA 6.6, and with an overlapping twist factor. Applicant does not demonstrate that their claimed range is critical or that the prior art teaches away, such that Applicant’s attacks on the “overlapping ranges” is not found convincing, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to work within the overlapping ranges (such as the twist factor) and would have landed upon the claimed twist factor. See MPEP 2144.05, and MPEP 716.02. Additionally, as these results argued by Applicant appear to be entirely the result of the change in cord construction from 1400x2 to 1880x2 (as the two cords otherwise have the same material PA 6.6 and twist factor, as noted by Applicant), these results further don’t show nonobviousness because a 1880x2 cord construction is very well known in the art. Reese (and Kramer) already show that this cord construction (1880x2) is well known in the art, such that the specific results Applicant relies upon are unconvincing.
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 THOMAS F SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-4857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/T.F.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights