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 2/13/2026 have been accepted. Claims 12, 13, 15, 17-20 are amended. Claims 21-31 are new. There are no canceled claims. Claims 12-31 are pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not overcome many of the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 11/14/2025, as the identified issues were not addressed by amendments nor were arguments made to any supposed error in the remarks. See below for outstanding and additional 112(b) rejections. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome some of the objections previously set forth. See below for details.
Claim Objections
Claims 15, 20, 25, 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
It is recommended that claim 14 remove the portion “…wherein the first upper reinforcing element and the second upper reinforcing element are arranged on the inner side of the tire carcass”, as this limitation is already present in the final paragraph of claim 12 of which this claim depends.
Claim 15 should read “…the tire carcass comprises the one carcass ply…”, because amended claim 12 of which this claim depends introduces one carcass ply of the carcass.
Claim 20 line 4 should read “…the strength members
Claim 25 should read “wherein the flipper strip is a rubber material having a greater stiffness than rubber materials of the reinforcing elements”, as this is a typo.
Claim 29 2nd page lines 11-12 recite “wherein the first upper reinforcing element and the second upper reinforcing element are arranged on the inner side of the tire carcass”. This portion should be deleted, because the claim already requires this limitation on 2nd page lines 7-9.
Applicant is advised that should claim 13 be found allowable, claim 21 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 13, 17-18, 20-21, 25, 29-31 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 13 recites “…wherein the first upper reinforcing element and the second upper reinforcing element are formed by a reinforcing ply, wherein the reinforcing ply extends over the entire central area into the sidewall areas”. Claim 12, of which this claim depends, requires in the final paragraph for the first and second upper reinforcing elements to be “separate reinforcing elements and are spaced from one another”. Therefore, the required limitations in claim 13 directly contradicts the claimed limitations of claim 12, such that it is unclear how the first/second upper reinforcing elements can possibly be formed by a single ply while also being separate and spaced apart from each other. Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter. The claim will be examined such that the claim is satisfied if the reinforcing elements extend at least partially in a central area and sidewall areas.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "…than the carcass rubber material" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim will be examined as if the carcass rubber material is introduced as in claim 16.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “…modulus of elasticity than the rubber materials of the reinforcing elements” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither “the rubber materials” nor “the reinforcing elements” are previously introduced, such that it is not clear what each of these aspects are referring to. Is the reinforcing elements referring to all of the first/second upper/lower reinforcing elements? Or is it referring to reinforcing elements of the carcass and cords for example. And regarding the “rubber materials”, the only previously introduced rubber material is of the flipper-strip and the carcass in the same claim. The claim will be examined such that the flipper-strip rubber material only needs to have a higher modulus than the carcass rubber material.
Claim 18 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 18 recites the limitation “…higher modulus of elasticity than the carcass rubber material " on the final line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim will be examined as if the carcass rubber material is introduced as in claim 16.
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 20 line 4 recites “…preferably the strength members in the strength members…”. By the use of the word “preferably”, it is not clear whether the specified limitation is explicitly required by the claim or if the limitation is merely an optional component. Additionally, the “preferable” limitation then goes on to refer to the first lower reinforcing element and the second lower reinforcing elements, which are both already being referred to in lines 1-3 of the claim, such that it does not appear that the “preferable” aspect of the claim would in any way change the scope of the claim if it were to be required. Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter. The claim will be examined as if the “preferable” limitation is an optional component.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “…wherein the strength members in the first upper reinforcing element…” in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim will be examined as if the strength members are introduced as in claim 19.
Claim 21 recites “…wherein the first upper reinforcing element and the second upper reinforcing element are formed by a single reinforcing ply, wherein the reinforcing ply extends from the first sidewall area through the central area into the second sidewall area”. Claim 12, of which this claim depends, requires in the final paragraph for the first and second upper reinforcing elements to be “separate reinforcing elements and are spaced from one another”. Therefore, the required limitations in claim 21 directly contradicts the claimed limitations of claim 12, such that it is unclear how the first/second upper reinforcing elements can possibly be formed by a single ply while also being separate and spaced apart from each other. Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter. The claim will be examined such that the claim is satisfied if the reinforcing elements extend in a central area and sidewall areas.
Claim 25 recites “…wherein the flipper strip is a rubber material…”. However, claim 12 of which this claim depends introduces a first flipper strip and a second flipper strip. Therefore, it isn’t clear which of the two flipper strips are being referred to, or if the Applicant is intending to collectively refer to both flipper strips having the claimed limitation. Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter. The claim will be examined such that at least one flipper strip meets the claimed limitation.
Claim 25 recites “…wherein the flipper strip is a rubber material having a greater stiffness than rubber materials of the reinforcing elements”. The underlined portion is lacking antecedent basis, such that it isn’t clear what rubber materials and of what reinforcing elements are being referred to as they were not previously introduced. Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter.
Claim 29 recites wherein the first and second upper reinforcing elements are “…formed as separate reinforcing elements and are spaced apart from one another”. Claim 29 then further recites “…wherein the first upper reinforcing element and the second upper reinforcing element are formed by a reinforcing ply that extends over the entire central area into the sidewall areas”. Therefore, there are contradicting limitations, as it is unclear how the first/second upper reinforcing elements can possibly be formed by a single reinforcing ply while also being separate and spaced apart from each other. Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter. Claims 30-31 are rejected for relying upon a rejected claim. The claim will be examined such that the claim is satisfied if the reinforcing elements extend in a central area and sidewall areas and are separate and spaced from one another.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “…higher modulus of elasticity than the carcass rubber material " on the final line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim will be examined as if the carcass rubber material is introduced as in claim 16. Claims 30-31 are rejected for relying upon a rejected claim.
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 30 recites the limitation “…higher modulus of elasticity than the carcass rubber material " on the final line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim will be examined as if the carcass rubber material is introduced as in claim 16.
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 12-16, 19, 21-24, 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokokura (US2008/0156409A1), in view of Nakamura (US2019/0375237A1), and optionally in view of Kameda (US2020/0324583A1, of record).
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/should 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).
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 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].
Regarding claim 13, modified Yokokura makes obvious a tire with the upper reinforcing elements extending over a central area and sidewall areas (as above, the upper reinforcing elements “8” as in Fig. 8 of Yokokura clearly extend in a tread and sidewall region of the tire. And see 112(b) rejections above regarding the reinforcing ply limitations).
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 [0075]).
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 21, modified Yokokura makes obvious a tire with the upper reinforcing elements extending over a central area and sidewall areas (as above, the upper reinforcing elements “8” as in Fig. 8 of Yokokura clearly extend in a tread and sidewall region of the tire. And see 112(b) rejections above regarding the reinforcing ply limitations).
Regarding claim 22, modified Yokokura makes obvious a tire wherein the reinforcing elements are arranged on a same side of the 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 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).
Regarding claim 28, modified Yokokura makes obvious a tire wherein the lower reinforcing elements extend beyond an end of the flipper strips into the sidewall area (Yokokura clearly shows that the reinforcing layer “8” may extend beyond ends of the flipper strips and into the sidewall area, see Fig. 4 and 6 for example, wherein a lower element extends radially above the flipper strips. Because Yokokura alternatively discloses that a lower reinforcing element may extend radially above the flipper strip, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the layer as such [0054], because Yokokura makes it clear that the reinforcing element may have an extended length and which may still yield beneficial properties [see Table 4-3]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokokura (US2008/0156409A1), in view of Nakamura (US2019/0375237A1), and optionally in view of Kameda (US2020/0324583A1, of record), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Niizawa (JP2012096656A, of record) and Oare (US5871600A, of record).
Regarding claim 17, 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. 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. 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 explicitly give the modulus of the carcass rubber material. Oare (similarly tied to run-flat tires) teaches a tire with carcass plies 38 or 40, wherein the carcass plies are similarly coated with a rubber material [Col6 L20-60]. The carcass plies have a modulus value of from 10-15 MPa (Table 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the carcass rubber modulus of Oare to the tire of Yokokura, as Yokokura is silent as to the rubber modulus of its carcass rubber. One would have been motivated so as to make a working tire, so as to have adequate rubber properties of its carcass ply as this is considered an essential property of the tire [Col14-Col 15]
When Yokokura is in view of Niizawa and Oare, the modulus of the carcass rubber would be from 10-15 while the modulus of the flipper strip would be considerably higher with a value from 30-80/90. 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).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokokura (US2008/0156409A1), in view of Nakamura (US2019/0375237A1), and optionally in view of Kameda (US2020/0324583A1, of record), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Serra (US2004/0016495A1).
Regarding claim 18, 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. Yokokura gives a modulus of the cord of the reinforcing layer [0010], but does not suggest a modulus of its surrounding rubber material compared to that 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 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]. 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 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].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokokura (US2008/0156409A1), in view of Nakamura (US2019/0375237A1), and optionally in view of Kameda (US2020/0324583A1, of record), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Harikae (JP2010000901A).
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.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokokura (US2008/0156409A1), in view of Nakamura (US2019/0375237A1), and optionally in view of Kameda (US2020/0324583A1, of record), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Niizawa (JP2012096656A, of record) and Serra (US2004/0016495A1).
Regarding claim 25, Yokokura has a flipper strip “9”, although Yokokura does not explicitly give the modulus of the flipper strip. 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. 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 explicitly give the modulus of the reinforcing elements. 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]. 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 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/Serra, the modulus of the flipper strip would clearly be considerably greater than that of any of the reinforcing elements rubber portions. 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). Because modulus is directly correlated with the stiffness of the material, it would reasonably be considered that the flipper strip would similarly have a higher stiffness compared to these other rubber materials as well.
In the alternate, claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokokura (US2008/0156409A1), in view of Nakamura (US2019/0375237A1), and optionally in view of Kameda (US2020/0324583A1, of record), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Boen (FR3005438A1).
Regarding claim 26, Boen discloses a run-flat tire (Fig. 1) which comprises a variety of reinforcing elements [see Fig. 1, pg. 4 of machine translation]. The reinforcing elements preferably have a diameter of less than 1.1mm, wherein the diameter is taken to be synonyms with a “thickness” as claimed under the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof [pg. 4 of machine translation]. 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 modify the reinforcing elements of Yokokura to have a thickness of 1.1mm or less, as suggested by Boen. One would have been motivated in order to reduce the mass of rubber in the tire, thus improving the rolling resistance and hysteresis of the tire [pg. 4 of machine translation].
Claim 29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokokura (US2008/0156409A1), in view of Nakamura (US2019/0375237A1), optionally in view of Kameda (US2020/0324583A1, of record), in view of Niizawa (JP2012096656A, of record) and in view of Serra (US2004/0016495A1).
Regarding claim 29, 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/should 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).
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 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].
Modified Yokokura further makes obvious all of the reinforcing elements being located on an inner side of the carcass (as detailed above in the modification of Nakamura, it is well known in the art to have reinforcing layers located inside of the tire carcass, such that it would have been an obvious modification so as to have each of the reinforcing layers “8” of Yokokura located radially inside of the tire carcass),
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 [0075]).
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. 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. 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. 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]. 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 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 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 Yokokura 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 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]).
Regarding claim 31, modified Yokokura makes obvious a tire wherein the tire is a passenger vehicle tire (“run-flat tires for passenger cars” [0124]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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