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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments entered on 5/18/2026 have been accepted. Claims 12, 14, 18, 20, 28, 29 are amended. Claim 32 is new. Claims 12, 14-16, 18-20, 23-24, 26-32 are pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome some of the 112(b) rejections previously set forth. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome some of the objections previously set forth. See below for outstanding and new objections/rejections.
Claim Objections
Claims 15-16, 18-20, 29 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 should read “…as claimed in claim 12, wherein”, as there is a missing comma.
Claim 15 line 2 should read “…wherein the tire carcass consists the one carcass ply that extends as a continuous ply through all of the areas of the tire carcass”, as claim 12 introduces this one carcass ply as “a tire carcass… consisting of only one carcass ply”.
Claim 16 line 2 should read “…embedded in the carcass rubber material”, as the rubber material of the tire carcass was introduced in claim 12 of which this claim depends.
Claim 18 should read “…each of the reinforcing elements comprises the rubber material having the modulus of elasticity greater than that of the carcass rubber material”, as the rubber materials and modulus of elasticity of the reinforcing elements and carcass rubber are introduced in amended claim 12.
Claim 19 line 2 should read “…embedded in the carcass rubber material”, as this carcass rubber material is introduced in amended claim 12.
Claim 20 line 4 should read “…the strength members
Claim 20 lines 4-5 “the strength members in the strength members in the first lower reinforcing element and in the second lower reinforcing element” should be deleted as they do not add any additional limitations to the claim. This portion used to be part of the “preferably” limitation, but now that “preferably” has been removed, this line adds no limitations to the claim. The claim of lines 1-3 already specifies that strength members of each of the reinforcing elements have cord angles different from the carcass strength members.
Claim 29 2nd page 2 lines 2-3 and page 2 lines 8-9 both require the same limitation of the first and second upper reinforcing elements to be arranged on the inner side of the tire carcass. This portion referring to the first and second upper reinforcing elements being arranged on the inner side of the tire carcass in lines 8-9 should be removed.
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.
Claims 20, 29-32 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.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “differs from a cord angle of the carcass strength members in the tire carcass” in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim will be examined as if the carcass strength members are introduced as in claim 16.
Claim 29 2nd page lines 9-10 require for “…the first lower reinforcing element and the second lower reinforcing element are arranged on the inner side of the tire carcass”. Claim 29 final paragraph then requires “…the first lower reinforcing element is arranged outside of the carcass ply”. Claim 29 is therefore simultaneously requiring for the first lower reinforcing element to be arranged both inside and outside of the tire carcass, which is not possible. Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter. Claims 30-32 are rejected for relying upon a rejected claim. The claim will be examined as if the first lower reinforcing element is required to be arranged on the inner side of the tire carcass.
Claim 30 recites “…wherein the first rubber material and the second rubber material and the third rubber material and the fourth rubber material, and all of the rubber materials, have a higher modulus of elasticity than the carcass rubber material”. Because of the statement “and all of the rubber materials”, it is implicitly implied that additional rubber materials in addition to the first through fourth rubber materials are being referred to. It is not clear what other rubber materials could be referred to other than the first through fourth rubber materials, as no other rubber materials are introduced in the claim. Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter. The claim will be examined such that all of the rubber materials (being the first through fourth) require the cited limitations.
Claim 32 requires for the first lower reinforcing element and the second lower reinforcing element to be on opposite sides of the carcass ply. Claim 29 (which claim 32 depends upon) 2nd page lines 9-10 requires for “…the first lower reinforcing element and the second lower reinforcing element are arranged on the inner side of the tire carcass”. Therefore, claim 32 directly contradicts the required limitations of claim 29 of which it depends, such that it isn’t clear where the reinforcing elements should be located. Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter. The claim will be examined such that the first and second lower reinforcing elements are arranged on the inner side of the tire carcass as required in claim 29.
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.
Claim 32 is 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. Claim 32 requires for “the first lower reinforcing element and the second lower reinforcing element are on opposite sides of the carcass ply”. Applicant does not specifically address where the support for new claim 32 is coming from in the specification, but it appears that they may be basing this limitation off of Fig. 5, which on first look appears to suggest one lower reinforcing element on an inside and one lower reinforcing element on an outside of the carcass. However, the written specification details that this is not the case. The specification [0055] states that the lower reinforcing element “34” may be on the outside of the carcass, and then states that “In an alternative configuration, on the left side of the pneumatic vehicle tire 10 the second lower reinforcing element 36 in Fig. 5…”, wherein Fig. 5 depicts the element “36” as inside of the carcass. As the specification details that the left side of the pneumatic tire is “in an alternative configuration”, it is not reasonably suggested to the person of ordinary skill in the art that the same tire would have lower elements situated on opposite sides of the carcass ply within the same embodiment, but rather that this would be occurring within “alternative configurations”. This interpretation is in line with how Applicant has depicted separate embodiments of their invention: see Figs. 2-4 which each have 4 separate embodiments in each Figure number. Therefore, the limitation of claim 32 is considered to be new matter.
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 12, 14-16, 18-19, 23-24, 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokokura (US2008/0156409A1, of record), in view of Nakamura (US2019/0375237A1, of record), in view of Kameda (US2020/0324583A1, of record), in view of Niizawa (JP2012096656A, of record) and in view of Serra (US2004/0016495A1).
Regarding claim 12, Yokokura teaches a pneumatic vehicle tire (see Fig. 5), comprising a tire carcass consisting of only one carcass ply (radial carcass “3”, there is clearly only one carcass as in Fig. 5 [0051]), wherein Fig. 5 (for example) shows one half of the tire which would be symmetrical about the equator line on the opposite side of the tire. The central area would be considered a tread region, with a first/second sidewall area being the region around the sidewalls “6” on each half of the tire, and the first/second bead area being the region around the bead core and surrounding structures on each half of the tire of the bead portion “1”,
A tread on the outside of the carcass (see Fig. 5, tread “4”),
A first/second flipper strip arranged at the first/second bead areas (bead filler “9”, which would be located on both halves of the tire, may be considered the flipper strips),
A first upper reinforcing element arranged at the central/first sidewall area and a second upper reinforcing element at the central/second sidewall area (as in Fig. 5, the reinforcing cord layer “8” may be considered the upper reinforcing layer. This layer extends in both a tread/shoulder region of the tire through the sidewall region. And as the tire is symmetrical about the equator, there would be this element on both halves of the tire forming the first/second elements),
A first lower reinforcing element at the first bead area and a second lower reinforcing element at the second bead area (as in Fig. 5, the lower reinforcing elements may be considered to be “8” which is located at a lower radial region of the tire around the bead portion. As the tire is symmetrical about the equator, there would be this element on both halves of the tire forming the first/second elements),
The upper reinforcing elements are located at a distance from the lower reinforcing elements, and they do not have any overlap in a width direction and are not physically touching (as in Fig. 5, the upper and lower elements as defined above, i.e., the upper and lower reinforcing cord layers “8”, are clearly separated from each other in a radial direction, do not overlap, and are not touching),
a first and second turn-up area (as in Fig. 5, the carcass clearly turns up around the bead core, where the region axially outside of the turnup is considered the turn up area).
Yokokura clearly suggests in Fig. 5 that the upper reinforcing elements (the reinforcing cords “8” located at the radial upper portion of the tire on both halves of the symmetrical tire) would necessarily be spaced apart from one another and would be separate reinforcing elements. Yokokura does not explicitly have the reinforcing cords disposed on an inner side of the tire carcass. However, Yokokura does not limit its tire to such an embodiment, as Yokokura details that the reinforcing cord may be located in a number of different locations and may be modified [0054]. It is well known in the art to have reinforcing cords located on an inner side of the carcass as opposed to an outer side of the carcass. Nakamura discloses a tire (see Figs. 1-2), wherein the tire includes a carcass “2” and a reinforcing layer “4” [Figs. 1-2]. The reinforcing layer may be made to be located on an inner side of the carcass [see Fig. 2 compared to Fig. 1, 0039].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the reinforcing layers of Yokokura to be located on a radial inner side of the carcass as suggested by Nakamura. One would have been motivated so as to improve uniformity, reduction of vibrations generated by repeated deformation of the tire, reduction of strain deformation of the cords, and improvement of rolling resistance [0039].
Modified Yokokura makes obvious a first and second flipper strip where the first/second flipper strip is a two-part design, with a part partially between the first/second bead area and the first/second turn-up area, and a part partially on the outer side of the first/second turn-up area (it is noted that the limitation does not require any specific characteristics of the claimed flipper strips so as to delineate the rubber portions from other rubber portions of the tire. As such, the rubber portions of Yokokura may be defined such that any of the rubbers in the bead region is considered to be a part of the claimed “flipper strips” and satisfy the claim language. For example, the rubber that is located axially outside of the turnup portion near the rim guard “12” may be reasonably considered to be part of the flipper strip, such that the flipper strip would comprise part rubber that is inside of the turn-up portion and part rubber that is located axially outside of the turn-up portion).
Yokokura does not explicitly show the first and second flipper strips arranged in a two-part design such that they are arranged partially between the bead area and turn up area and partially on the outer side of the turn-up area and with the flipper strips being the same material. It is well known in the art to situate a first bead apex/filler that is located inside of the turn-up portion and a second bead apex/filler that is located outside of the turn-up portion. Such a well-known structure is akin to the claimed “two-part design” where the flipper is located both inside and outside of the turn-up portion. And as Yokokura suggests a variety of different bead core and rubber arrangements [see Figs. 1-10], as well as suggesting that various changes may be made, one would find it obvious to modify the bead rubbers of Yokokura to have the two part structure as is known in the art. For example, Kameda is also a run-flat tire (akin to Yokokura) which is tied to similar inventive endeavors. Kameda teaches that its carcass extends around and axially inside of the bead-core and forms a turn-up portion [see Fig. 2]. Kameda provides a first bead filler rubber “51” which is disposed on an axial inside of the turn-up portion and a second bead filler rubber “52” which is disposed on an axial outside of the turn-up portion [0028, Fig. 2].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the layers of Yokokura to have the first and second bead filler as suggested by Kameda. One would have been motivated so as to ensure rigidity over a region from the bead to the tread and sidewall region and to suppress deflection of the sidewall during run-flat traveling [0064, 0066-0073].
Yokokura has a flipper strip “9”, although Yokokura does not explicitly give the modulus of the flipper strip nor that of the carcass rubber material or reinforcement elements. As such, it would have been obvious to look to the art for examples of conventional modulus values to apply to the flip-strip rubber material and of the carcass rubber so as to have a working tire. Niizawa teaches a run-flat tire (same endeavor as Yokokura), where a bead filler “6” is on the radial outside of the bead and a rubber layer “8” is on the axial outside of the turn-up portion of the carcass, such that these rubber layers would be considered representative of rubber layers of the flipper strip in the two-part design. The elastic modulus of the bead filler “6” is set from 30-90MPa, and the elastic modulus of the rubber layer “8” is set from preferably 30-80MPa [bottom of pg. 3 to top of pg. 4 of machine translation].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the bead fillers of Yokokura to have the modulus as suggested by Niizawa. One would have been motivated so as to ensure run-flat durability and riding comfort during normal running [bottom of pg. 3 to top of pg. 4 of machine translation].
Yokokura does not suggest a modulus of the carcass rubber material or reinforcing element. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to look to conventional tires with modulus values to apply to Yokokura to obtain a working tire. Serra teaches a pneumatic tire which comprises a carcass ply “101” and a reinforcing layer “107”. The coating rubber modulus E’ of the carcass ply is less than 4.5MPa and preferably 1.5-4MPa [0022]. The elastic modulus E’ of a reinforcing structure with a reinforcing cord is preferably from 2.5 to 9MPa [0043]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize the modulus values as suggested by Serra for the carcass rubber material and the reinforcing rubber material because Yokokura is silent as to the modulus thereof. And one would have been motivated so as to obtain a working tire, and with a reasonable expectation of success so as to lower the rolling resistance [0010-0014] and improve driving performance [0084-0085, Tables III-VI].
When Yokokura is in view of Niizawa and Serra, the modulus of the flipper strip would be high with a value from 30-80, and the modulus of the carcass rubber would be less than 4.5 while the rubber of the reinforcing material would be 2.5-9. Therefore, the flipper strips would clearly have a higher modulus than the other rubber materials. 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).
Regarding claim 14, modified Yokokura makes obvious a tire wherein all of the reinforcing elements are arranged on the inner side of the tire carcass (as in the rejection of claim 12 above, Nakamura makes obvious having a reinforcing cord layer arranged on an inside of the carcass for a variety of benefits including reduction of vibrations and improvement of rolling resistance [0039]. It would have been obvious to modify the layers “8” of Yokokura to be located on the inner side of the carcass so as to realize these benefits, and as Yokokura does not expressly limit the placement of these reinforcing layers “8”).
Regarding claim 15, modified Yokokura makes obvious a tire wherein the tire carcass comprises one carcass ply that extends as a continuous carcass ply through all of the areas of the tire carcass (see Fig. 5, wherein there is clearly only one carcass ply in Yokokura that extends along the length of the carcass to each of the regions of the tire as defined).
Regarding claim 16, modified Yokokura makes obvious a tire wherein the carcass ply has a plurality of carcass strength members that are embedded in a carcass rubber material (the carcass ply is formed by covering reinforcing cords with a coating rubber [Yokokura, 0075]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Yokokura makes obvious a tire wherein the reinforcing elements have the rubber material with the modulus of elasticity greater than the carcass rubber material to provide localized stiffness in the shoulder/bead areas (Yokokura suggests that the carcass ply is formed by covering reinforcing cords with a coating rubber [0075], such that the carcass cords have a rubber material. And the reinforcing cords are rubberized fiber cords [0008], such that they each would have a rubber material around the cord. As noted in the rejection of claim 12 above, it would have been obvious to modify the carcass rubber and reinforcing rubber of Yokokura to have the modulus values as suggested by Serra, so as to obtain a working tire, and with a reasonable expectation of success so as to lower the rolling resistance [Serra, 0010-0014] and improve driving performance [Serra, 0084-0085, Tables III-VI]. Serra teaches a pneumatic tire which comprises a carcass ply “101” and a reinforcing layer “107”. The coating rubber modulus E’ of the carcass ply is less than 4.5MPa and preferably 1.5-4MPa [0022]. The elastic modulus E’ of a reinforcing structure with a reinforcing cord is preferably from 2.5 to 9MPa [0043]. Because the modulus values of the rubber of the reinforcing structure is greater than that of the carcass modulus values ranges, it would reasonable for the person of ordinary skill in the art to situate the reinforcing layer moduli higher than that of the carcass rubber material. 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). And as the relationship between moduli and the structure/placement of the cords are the same as the instant application, it would thus be reasonably be suggested that the reinforcing elements would provide the localized stiffness to the shoulder/bead areas as this property is dependent upon the reinforcing cords being present in such areas with the claimed moduli relationship. .
Regarding claim 19, modified Yokukura makes obvious a tire wherein the carcass ply has a plurality of carcass strength members in a carcass rubber material (the carcass ply is formed by covering reinforcing cords with a coating rubber [0075]), and wherein the upper and lower reinforcing elements have different strength members than the carcass in regards to material and fineness (Yokukura suggests that in a preferable embodiment of the invention, the reinforcing cord layers “8” are made to have a rigidity that is more than that of the carcass [0018-0021]. As the rigidity is dependent upon the material and fineness of the cord, it is reasonably suggested by Yokukura that the materials of the reinforcing ply would have a different material/fineness compared to the carcass ply so as to have this rigidity difference as described by Yokukura. 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)).
Regarding claim 23, modified Yokokura makes obvious a tire wherein an inner tire layer is arranged, such that the reinforcing elements are between the inner tire layer and the carcass (Yokokura has an inner liner to the inside of the rubber “7” [0118, 0125], such that the inner liner is considered to be the innermost portion of the tire which contacts the cavity, as conventional within the art of tires. The reinforcing elements when modified by Nakamura to be inside of the carcass would clearly be located inside of the carcass and outside of the inner liner, as the inner liner is the air seal with the cavity. And additionally, as in Fig. 2 of Nakamura, even when the reinforcing layers are inside of the carcass, there is clearly still an inner liner formed inside of the reinforcing layers [0178-0179]).
Regarding claim 24, modified Yokokura makes obvious a tire wherein at least one further ply is between the tread and the carcass over the central area (see Fig. 5, layers “10”, “11A”, and “11B” are each located in the cited region).
Regarding claim 26, modified Yokokura makes obvious a tire wherein the reinforcing elements have a thickness in the range of 0.9 to 1.8mm (the cords may have a density of 50 cords/50mm [0077, Tables 4-2], such that the cords may have a thickness of approximately 1mm. 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)).
Regarding claim 27, modified Yokukura makes obvious a tire wherein the reinforcing elements have a greater stiffness than the carcass (Yokukura suggests that in a preferable embodiment of the invention, the reinforcing cord layers “8” are made to have a rigidity that is more than that of the carcass [0018-0021]. Rigidity and stiffness are highly correlated properties and often used interchangeably, such that it is considered that as the rigidity of the reinforcing cord layers is greater than that of the carcass, the stiffness would similarly be greater. And additionally, as the modulus of the reinforcing element is greater than that of the carcass rubber material [see rejection of claim 18 above], and as a higher modulus means a greater stiffness [see 0039 of originally filed specification], the reinforcing elements would clearly have a greater stiffness than the carcass).
Regarding claim 28, modified Yokokura makes obvious a tire wherein the lower reinforcing elements are arranged completely in respective bead areas (as in Fig. 5 of Yokokura, this lower reinforcing element “8” may be considered to be completely in a respective bead area as it does not extend radially above the bead filler “9”).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokokura (US2008/0156409A1, of record), in view of Nakamura (US2019/0375237A1, of record), in view of Kameda (US2020/0324583A1, of record), in view of Niizawa (JP2012096656A, of record) and in view of Serra (US2004/0016495A1), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Harikae (JP2010000901A, of record).
Regarding claim 20, modified Yokukura suggests an angle of the reinforcing cord layers is preferably from 0-85deg [0092]. Yokukura does not explicitly suggest an angle of the carcass cords. However, a wide variety of carcass cord angle at different values and suggested ranges is known in the art. Harikae teaches a pneumatic tire with a carcass “4”, wherein the carcass has a cord angle which is in the range of 82-88degrees [pg. 3 of machine translation]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the carcass cords to have an angle from 82-88deg as suggested by Harikae. One would have been motivated in order to improve the high-speed durability [pg. 3 of machine translation]. And as the suggested ranges of these angles are substantially different, it would be reasonably suggested that the cords would have different angles relative to each other for a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su (US2005/0008843A1), optionally in view of Kameda (US2020/0324583A1, of record), optionally in view of Nakamura (US2019/0375237A1, of record), in view of Niizawa (JP2012096656A, of record) and in view of Serra (US2004/0016495A1, of record).
Regarding claim 29, Su teaches a pneumatic vehicle tire (see Fig. 9), comprising a tire carcass consisting of only one carcass ply (carcass “105”, there is clearly only one carcass as in Fig. 9), wherein as in Fig. 9 of Su the central area would be considered a tread region, with a first/second sidewall area being the region around the sidewalls on each half of the tire, and the first/second bead area being the region around the bead core and surrounding structures on each half of the tire of the bead portion “104”,
A tread on the outside of the carcass (see Fig. 9, tread “101” [0082]),
A first/second flipper strip arranged at the first/second bead areas (see Figs. 8-9, wherein the material located within the carcass turn up portion above the bead core would be considered the flipper strip),
A first upper reinforcing element arranged at the central/first sidewall area and a second upper reinforcing element at the central/second sidewall area (as in Fig. 9, the layers “107” may be considered the first/second upper reinforcing elements. As in Fig. 9, both layers “107” are disposed within the central tread region and respective sidewall areas),
A first lower reinforcing element at the first bead area and a second lower reinforcing element at the second bead area (as in Fig. 9, the layers “108” which is located at a lower radial region of the tire around the bead portion of the tire may be considered the first/second lower reinforcing elements),
The upper reinforcing elements are located at a distance from the lower reinforcing elements (as in Fig. 9, the upper and lower elements are clearly separate elements with a space between them),
a first and second turn-up area (as in Fig. 9, the carcass clearly turns up around the bead core, where the region axially outside of the turnup is considered the turn up area),
wherein a first and second flipper strip where the first/second flipper strip is a two-part design, with a part partially between the first/second bead area and the first/second turn-up area, and a part partially on the outer side of the first/second turn-up area (it is noted that the limitation does not require any specific characteristics of the claimed flipper strips so as to delineate the rubber portions from other rubber portions of the tire. As such, the rubber portions of Su may be defined such that any of the rubbers in the bead region is considered to be a part of the claimed “flipper strips” and satisfy the claim language. For example, the rubber that is located axially outside of the turnup portion of the carcass may be reasonably considered to be part of the flipper strip, such that the flipper strip would comprise part rubber that is inside of the turn-up portion and part rubber that is located axially outside of the turn-up portion).
Optionally applied, regarding the claimed two-part design flipper strip, it is well known in the art to situate a first bead apex/filler that is located inside of the turn-up portion and a second bead apex/filler that is located outside of the turn-up portion. Such a well-known structure is akin to the claimed “two-part design” where the flipper is located both inside and outside of the turn-up portion. And as Su suggests a variety of different bead core and rubber arrangements [see Figs. 8-10], as well as suggesting that various changes may be made, one would find it obvious to modify the bead rubbers of Su to have the two part structure as is known in the art. For example, Kameda is a tire which teaches that its carcass extends around and axially inside of the bead-core and forms a turn-up portion [see Fig. 2]. Kameda provides a first bead filler rubber “51” which is disposed on an axial inside of the turn-up portion and a second bead filler rubber “52” which is disposed on an axial outside of the turn-up portion [0028, Fig. 2].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the layers of Su to have the first and second bead filler as suggested by Kameda. One would have been motivated so as to ensure rigidity over a region from the bead to the tread and sidewall region [0064, 0066-0073].
Modified Su makes obvious a tire wherein the first and second upper reinforcing elements and first and second lower reinforcing elements are disposed on an inner side of the carcass (as shown in Fig. 9, the upper reinforcements “107” is clearly disposed inside of the carcass layer “105”. And the lower reinforcement layers “108” are disposed on an inside of the tire carcass at least in the turned-up portion of the carcass [see Fig. 9], such that the limitations are satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Optionally applied regarding the claimed reinforcing elements disposed on an inner side of the carcass, Nakamura discloses a tire (see Figs. 1-2), wherein the tire includes a carcass “2” and a reinforcing layer “4” [Figs. 1-2]. The reinforcing layer may be made to be located on an inner side of the carcass [see Fig. 2 compared to Fig. 1, 0039]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the reinforcing layers of Su to be located on a radial inner side of the carcass as suggested by Nakamura. One would have been motivated so as to improve uniformity, reduction of vibrations generated by repeated deformation of the tire, reduction of strain deformation of the cords, and improvement of rolling resistance [0039].
Modified Su makes obvious the first and second upper reinforcing elements are formed by a single reinforcing ply that extends over the entire central area into the sidewall areas (Su details that the distance from the end of the composite sheets “107” to the tire equator is a distance L3, wherein when L3 equals 0 the composite sheets “107” because “one continuous sheet extending from left bead core to right bead core” [0083]. Su is therefore clearly suggesting that the tire may comprise the sheet “107” in the form of a continuous sheet extend between both sides of the tire, wherein this continuous sheet would be a single reinforcing ply. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Fig. 9 of Su so as to have the continuous sheet “107” as suggested by Su. One would have been motivated as Su explicitly suggests this structure [0083], and such a modification would be expected to improve performance of the tire and prevent bending of the sidewall [0057, 0083-0087]),
Wherein the first lower reinforcing element forms an overlap ply comprised of portions of first upper, carcass ply, and first lower reinforcing elements (see Fig. 9 right side, wherein there is an overlap between the upper element “107”, the carcass ply “105”, and the lower element “108”).
Su does not explicitly give the modulus of the flipper strip nor that of the carcass rubber material. As such, it would have been obvious to look to the art for examples of conventional modulus values to apply to the fliper-strip rubber material and of the carcass rubber so as to have a working tire. Niizawa teaches a tire where a bead filler “6” is on the radial outside of the bead and a rubber layer “8” is on the axial outside of the turn-up portion of the carcass. The elastic modulus of the bead filler “6” is set from 30-90MPa, and the elastic modulus of the rubber layer “8” is set from preferably 30-80MPa [bottom of pg. 3 to top of pg. 4 of machine translation]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the bead fillers of Su to have the modulus as suggested by Niizawa. One would have been motivated so as to ensure riding comfort during normal running [bottom of pg. 3 to top of pg. 4 of machine translation].
Su does not suggest a modulus of the carcass rubber material. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to look to conventional tires with modulus values to apply to Su to obtain a working tire. Serra teaches a pneumatic tire which comprises a carcass ply “101” and a reinforcing layer “107”. The carcass ply is made of wires and is rubber coated [0060-0063]. The coating rubber modulus E’ of the carcass ply is less than 4.5MPa and preferably 1.5-4MPa [0022]. The elastic modulus E’ of a reinforcing structure with a reinforcing cord is preferably from 2.5 to 9MPa [0043]. Because the modulus values of the reinforcing structure is greater than that of the carcass modulus values ranges, it would reasonable for the person of ordinary skill in the art to situate the reinforcing layer moduli higher than that of the carcass rubber material. 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). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a carcass ply with a plurality of carcass strength members embedded in a carcass rubber material and the modulus values as suggested by Serra for the carcass rubber material and the reinforcing rubber material. As Su does not explicitly detail the structure of its carcass material, it would have been obvious to utilize the structure of cords embedded in rubber as detailed in Serra to provide structure to the tire, and one would have been motivated to utilize the modulus values so as to obtain a working tire, and with a reasonable expectation of success so as to lower the rolling resistance [0010-0014] and improve driving performance [0084-0085, Tables III-VI].
When Su is in view of Niizawa and Serra, the modulus of the carcass rubber would be from less than 4.5 while the modulus of the flipper strip would be considerably higher with a value from 30-80/90, and the rubber of the reinforcing material would be 2.5-9. Therefore, the flipper strip would clearly have a higher modulus than the other rubber materials. 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).
Regarding claim 30, modified Su makes obvious a tire wherein the rubber material of the reinforcing elements has a higher modulus of elasticity than the carcass rubber material (as in the rejection of claim 29 above, the carcass rubber may have a modulus of less than 4.5, while the rubber surrounding the reinforcing agents may have a modulus from 2.5 to 9MPa. Because the modulus values of the reinforcing structure is greater than that of the carcass modulus values ranges, it would reasonable for the person of ordinary skill in the art to situate the reinforcing layer moduli higher than that of the carcass rubber material. 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). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize the modulus values as suggested by Serra because Su is silent as to the modulus thereof. And one would have been motivated so as to obtain a working tire, and with a reasonable expectation of success so as to lower the rolling resistance [0010-0014] and improve driving performance [0084-0085, Tables III-VI]).
Regarding claim 31, modified Su makes obvious a tire wherein the tire is a passenger vehicle tire (Su’s tire is described as a general tire that is not explicitly restricted to any specific purpose or size. See Claim 10, for example. The vehicle of which the tire may be equipped may work with regular rims and provides good responses to steering/accelerating/braking and cornering [0030, 0055, 0059]. Therefore, as Su does not explicitly restrict its inventive tire to a specific category of tire, one would appreciate such a tire being suitable for use with passenger vehicle tires. And accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tire of Su for use with a passenger vehicle tire).
Regarding claim 32, modified Su makes obvious a tire wherein the first lower reinforcing element and second lower reinforcing element are on opposite sides of the carcass ply (as noted in the 112(b) rejection of claim 32 above, the limitations herein directly contradict the limitations of claim 29 of which this claim depends, such that the claim is examined utilizing these limitations of claim 29 which are obvious for the rationale listed above. Alternatively, it is noted that Fig. 9 of Su would suggest having the lower reinforcing elements on opposite sides of the carcass ply, as one is located on the left side and one is located on the right side (such that they could be considered to be on opposite sides).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 8 of their filed remarks dated 5/18/2026 that the rejection of independent claim 12 is improper. Applicant argues that the utilization of Yokokura to teach a plurality of distinct reinforcing elements is improper, as the layer “8” extends through multiple regions of a tire and doesn’t suggest the reinforcing elements.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the rejections of record, the embodiment as shown in Fig. 5 is utilized in the rejection of claim 12. This embodiment clearly shows one half of the tire with a reinforcing cord layer “8” disposed in a region between the tread and sidewall and another layer “8” disposed between the sidewall/bead area, wherein both of these layers “8” are distinct and not touching. As this is one half of the tire, the opposite half of the tire would have a similar structure with two layers “8”. It is not clear what exactly Applicant believes is lacking from this rejection, as Applicant does not particularly address the rejections of record nor identifies what is lacking in the prior art. If Applicant is arguing that a separate embodiment of Yokokura is sufficient to teach away from the arrangement shown in Fig. 5 of Yokokura, it is noted that disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP 2123.
Regarding the additional new limitations in independent claim 12, the prior art combination in the rejection of claim 12 above makes obvious these limitations. See rejections above.
Applicant argues on pg. 9 of their filed remarks dated 5/18/2026 that claim 29 does not teach or suggest a plurality of distinct reinforcing elements, which are not taught or suggested for the reasons provided with regards to claim 19.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has presented no arguments against claim 19, nor does claim 19 depend upon claim 29 or vice versa, such that the subject matter between the claims is not relevant. Applicant is newly requiring that the first/second upper reinforcing elements are formed as a continuous ply, by their canceling of contradicting limitations. See rejections above for how these limitations are considered met by the prior art or Su (US2005/0008843A1, newly cited).
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Conclusion
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
