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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
3. Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 12, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Passante Spaccapietra (US 2022/0063352, of record) and further in view of (a) Minowa (JP 2015-44582, of record) and/or JP 2016-537257 (of record) and (b) optionally in view of GB 1,318,749 (newly cited) and/or Tokunaga (JP 06191219, of record).
As best depicted in Figure 2, Passante Spaccapietra is directed to a tire construction comprising a first working belt layer 54 formed with cords inclined between 10 and 50 degrees, a second working belt layer 56 formed with cords inclined between 10 and 50 degrees, and an intermediate layer 58 (circumferential belt layer) formed with circumferentially oriented cords sandwiched therebetween (Paragraphs 38, 39, and 42). In such an instance, an axial extent or width of said intermediate layer is less than an axial extent or width of said first working belt layer and said second working belt layer (Paragraph 42). The tire of Passante Spaccapietra further includes a top protector belt 62 formed with high impact cords having energy absorption greater than 7.5 J/mm2 (Paragraph 47). In such an instance, though, the circumferential belt layer of Passante Spaccapietra is defined by a single layer, as opposed to a first layer and one or more further layers.
It is well known, though, in similar tire constructions including a circumferential belt layer to provide folded ends in order to, among other things, improve wear resistance and tire durability, as shown for example by Minowa (Paragraph 13 and Figures 1 and 4) and/or JP ‘257 (Figure 3b). In such an instance, the folded portions correspond with the claimed one or more further layers (2 further layers depicted in the references correspond with the claimed second and third layers radially above and radially below a first layer). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include folded ends in the circumferential belt layer of Passante Spaccapietra for the benefits detailed above. Additionally, as detailed above, Passante Spaccapietra teaches a preferred embodiment in which an intermediate layer has a smaller width than each of the working belt layers (such a width relationship would remain which including folded edges to define second and third layers). GB ‘749 (Figure 4) and/or Tokunaga (Figure 2) are optionally cited to specifically evidence the known use of multiple, low angle belt layers between first and second working belt layers, wherein said low angle belt layers have a width that does not extend axially beyond edges of adjacent working belt layers
Also, regarding claim 1, Figure 2 clearly depicts an intermediate layer (circumferential belt layer 58) having an axial extension at least equal to 0.70 times a width of working belt layer 54. Additionally, it is evident that an axially outer end of said intermediate layer is slightly beyond a shoulder groove- when following the teachings of Minowa and JP ‘257, folded portions (correspond with further layers as claimed) would be arranged below said shoulder groove and significantly less than 0.50 times a width of working belt layer 54.
Additionally, regarding claim 1 (and claims 3-6 and 12), the working belt layers and the intermediate belt layer (circumferential belt layer) are formed with extensible steel materials having an elongation at the 10% of breaking load is greater than 0.2% (Paragraphs 38 and 42). A fair reading of Passante Spaccapietra suggests that the same cord materials can be used in the working belt layers and the intermediate belt and such includes the claimed cord constructions (Paragraph 38). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the claimed cord construction in the intermediate belt of Passante Spaccapietra (a=4, b=3, and d=0.35 mm). It is further emphasized that the expressly disclosed cord constructions in Paragraph 42 for the intermediate belt layer are exemplary.
Lastly, regarding claim 1, the claimed rubber penetration appears to be a direct result of using a specific cord construction (see Paragraph 63 in Applicant’s original specification) and as such, it reasons that the modified intermediate belt of Passante Spaccapietra (which includes a cord construction consistent with that required by the claimed invention) would demonstrate a rubber penetration between 90% and 100%.
With respect to claim 2, the first layer and further layers are formed by winding a single ply strip and said further layers are arranged below shoulder grooves on respective sides of the tire.
With respect to claims 6 and 10, Passante Spaccapietra teaches the use of steel cords for the working belt layers and the intermediate layer (Paragraphs 34, 38, 39, and 42). Additionally, a percent elongation at 10% of breaking load is greater than 0.2% (Paragraphs 38 and 42).
As to claim 7, the protector belt of Passante Spaccapietra can be formed with a cord construction of 5x, such as 5x0.35 and 5x0.38. (Paragraph 47).
Regarding claim 21, the claims are directed to a tire construction and limitations pertaining to the method of manufacture fail to further define the structure of the claimed tire article (lack of evidence that the disclosed methos results in a “materially different” tire article”). In such an instance, a final tire article (after curing) in the modified tire of Passante Spaccapietra would have an intermediate belt formed with three layers.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed August 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not show an intermediate belt defined by first, second, and third layers, wherein respective layers do not extend beyond axially outer edges of the working belt layers. It is emphasized that Passante Spaccapietra includes an intermediate having a preferred axial extension less than an axial extension of adjacent working belt layers (Paragraph 42). One of ordinary skill in the art, when modifying such an arrangement in view of Minowa and/or JP ‘257, would not have extended an axial width of the intermediate belt layer beyond edges of the adjacent working belt layers. The benefits associated with included folded edges to define second and third layers are not limited to a belt design in which an intermediate belt extends beyond edges of adjacent working belt layers. GB ‘749 and Tokunaga are optionally provided to evidence the known manufacture of tires in which multiple layers corresponding with an intermediate belt are positioned between first and second working belt layers and extend less than said working belt layers.
Conclusion
5. 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.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 August 14, 2026
