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 § 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 16-18, and 20 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.
Claims 16 and 20 each recites “a distance in the tire radial direction between the outer end of the outer-side portion and the outer surface of the bead core…”. It is unclear which tire constituent is being referred to when reciting “the outer end of the outer-side portion”. In the original specification, the outer end of the outer-side portion refers to reference character 15i which relates to a reinforcing layer 15 which is not recited in claims 16 and 20. One way to overcome this rejection is require each bead portion including a reinforcing layer that is between the bead core and the carcass ply. And, claims 17-18 are rejected between they are dependent claims of rejected claim 16.
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.
Claims 1, 4-9, 12-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krietemeyer et al. (US 2013/0118669) in view of Shinmura (US 5,111,865).
Regarding claim 1, FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 of Krietemeyer et al. teaches a pneumatic tire comprising a tread portion, a pair of sidewall portions, a pair of bead portions having bead cores 135, a carcass 145, a belt layer 110, and a reinforcing rubber layers (170).
The carcass has a body portion 150 and a pair of turned up portions 155 [0024]. Each turned up portion 155 of the carcass ply has a height H1 that ranges 70%-95% of the section height H0 [0025]. FIG. 1 shows each turned up portion comprising a first portion (a region wherein the turned up portion terminates below the belt-abstract), a second portion (a region wherein the turned up portion is directly adjacent to the a reinforcing rubber layer, 170, best shown in FIG. 2 or FIG. 3), and a third portion that is between the first portion and the second portion.
While FIG. 2 does not illustrate the rim, the tire of Krietemeyer et al. satisfying a second portion extending such that at least a portion of the second portion is on an outer side in the tire radial direction with respect to a rim flange of the standardized rim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because FIG. 2 of Krietemeyer et al. shows the corresponding second portion extending at close vicinity to a maximum width position of the tire and Shinmura teaches a typical tire and rim assembly wherein the rim flange is located in a bead region that is radially below the maximum width position of the tire (FIG. 1 and FIG. 2).
Krietemeyer et al. is silent to a third length of the third portion is 0.8 to 1.4 times a sum of the first length of the first portion and a second length of the second portion. However, the tire of Krietemeyer et al. having said claimed length relationship would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because FIG. 1 of Krietemeyer et al. illustrates the corresponding first length, second length and third length and satisfies the claimed relationship; moreover, [0033] teaches H4 = 30% to 70% of the section height H0 [0033] and H5 = 10% and 30% of the section height H0 [0034].
As to the claim limitation of “a length in the tire axial direction between the outer ends of the pair of turned-up portions is 0.1 to 0.3 times a length of the body portion”, FIG. 1 of Krietemeyer et al. reasonably illustrates the claimed limitation. NOTE: one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the tire of Krietemeyer et al. is symmetrical at the equatorial plane E; further, Krietemeyer et al. teaches H1 = 70%-95% of the section H0 [0025] and terminating below the belts, rendering the claimed relationship obvious.
Krietemeyer et al. is silent to a reinforcing layer between the bead core and the carcass ply wherein the reinforcing rubber layer overlaps in the tire axial direction the reinforcing layer below the outer end of the rim flange. However, Shinmura teaches a tire comprising a bead filler ply 3 disposed between the carcass and the bead core to prevent the abrasion of the carcass (col. 3, lines 5-10). Shimura further teaches a tire and rim assembly wherein the rim height is A = 25 mm (TABLE 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tire of Krietemeyer et al. with the claimed reinforcing layer such that the reinforcing rubber layer overlaps in the tire axial direction the reinforcing layer below the outer end of the rim flange because Krietemeyer et al. teaches H5 = 10% and 30% of the section height H0 [0034] and Shinmura providing a bead filler ply (reinforcing layer) disposed between the bead core and carcass to prevent abrasion of the carcass thereby improving bead durability and teaches tire rim assembly wherein the rim height A = 25 mm with exemplary tire size of 215/75R15 (col. 4, lines 15-20, TABLE 1).
For a known and exemplary tire size 215/75R15, the cross sectional height is 215 x 0.75 = 161.25 mm.
Krietemeyer et al. teaches H5 may be as low as 10% of the cross section height of a tire; according 10% of 161.25 ≈ 16 mm.
Shinmura teaches an exemplary rim flange height of 25 mm.
Accordingly, there is a reasonable expectation the claimed overlap would present “below the outer end of the rim flange”.
Regarding claim 4, FIG. 1 of Krietemeyer et al. shows the height of the bead apex and the height of the reinforcement rubber sufficiently high; such that, the outer end of the bead apex and the outer end of the reinforcing rubber layer would be outward of the outer end of the rim flange. Also, Shinmura also teaches the height of the bead apex that is greater than the height of the rim flange and the rim flange located in the vicinity of the bead core.
Regarding claim 5, while Shinmura is silent to the outer end in the tire radial direction of the inner-side portion and an outer end in the tire radial direction of the outer-side portion of the reinforcing layer are at the same position in the tire radial direction, providing this claimed feature in the tire of Krietemeyer et al. would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because official notice is a tire comprising a flipper (equivalent to the bead filler ply of Shimura) with ends which terminate at the same radial height is known/conventional and an obvious alternative with outer ends which are staggered in the tire radial direction (i.e. the embodiment shown by Shimura).
Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tire of Krietemeyer et al. with the outer end in the tire radial direction of the inner-side portion and the outer end in the tire radial direction of the outer-side portion are outward of an inner end in the tire radial direction of the reinforcing rubber layer, in the tire radial direction because Krietemeyer et al. teaches H5 = 10% and 30% of the section height H0 [0034], Shinmura teaches 0.4 ≤ F/A < 1 wherein A = the height of the rim flange and F = a height of the bead filler ply (abstract)- teaching an embodiment that is just less than the height of the rim, and TABLE 1 discloses numerical values for F (e.g. 19 mm), and A (e.g. 25 mm) wherein a tire size is P 215/75R15 (col. 4, line 17) which has a section height of 215 mm x 0.75 = 161.25 mm.
Regarding claim 7, see col. 3, lines 13-15 of Shinmura.
Regarding claim 8, see FIG 2 of Krietemeyer et al.
Regarding claim 9, Krietemeyer et al. does not state the carcass ply includes carcass cord and a topping rubber and the claimed product relationship between the carcass ply and the reinforcing ply. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tire of Krietemeyer et al. with the carcass ply having carcass cords and a topping rubber which covers the carcass cord AND a product of a cord density of the carcass ply and a complex elastic modulus of the topping rubber is greater than a product of a cord density of the reinforcing ply and a complex elastic modulus of the first rubber because a carcass ply including carcass cords covered by a topping rubber is conventional as evidenced of Shinmura which teaches a carcass is composed of one or more plies of rubberized organic fiber cords or metallic cords having a density of 50 to 65 ends and further teaches the bead filler ply 3 (“reinforcing ply”) comprising of at least one ply of rubberized organic fiber cords such as nylon fiber cords arranged at a density of 20 to 35 ends (col. 3, lines 1-15) AND official notice is taken it is known in the tire art to use the same topping rubber for reinforced plies of different parts of the tire (e.g. carcass plies and flippers).
Regarding claim 12, see FIG. 1 and [0021] teaches cap plies 115 may be omitted. Accordingly, the second length would be greater than the first length. Further, Krietemeyer et al. in [0033] teaches H4 = 30% to 70% of the section height H0 [0033] and H5 = 10% and 30% of the section height H0 [0034], envisages a relatively long/tall reinforcing rubber layer rendering the claimed limitation obvious.
Regarding claim 13, see FIG. 2 of Krietemeyer et al. and the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claims 16-20, refer to rejection of claim 1 and as to the last 5 lines of claim 16, last 7 lines of claim 19, and claim 20, these limitations are rendered obvious because Krietemeyer et al. teaches each turned up portion of the carcass ply has a height H1 that ranges 70%-95% of the section height H0 [0025], H4 = 30% to 70% of the section height H0 [0033], and H5 = 10% and 30% of the section height H0 [0034] and see FIG. 1 and FIG. 2. In other words, as height H1 approaches 70% of the section height H0, the amount of overlap with the belt layer (“first length”) decreases. As height H4 approaches 30% of the section height H0 (related to the “second length”), the overall height of the reinforcing rubber decreases. And, these combined features would render obvious a third length that is relatively tall such that it would reasonably satisfy 0.8 to 1.4 times the sum of the first and second length and where the second length is greater than the first length. When H5 approaches 10% of the second height, there is reasonable expectation that there is sufficient overlap with the reinforcing layer of Shimura and satisfying the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krietemeyer et al. (US 2013/0118669) in view of Shinmura (US 5,111,865), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of JP’110 (JP 09-020110).
Regarding claim 10, Krietemeyer et al. is silent to a length in the tire axial direction between a bead toe and a bead heel. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tire of Krietemeyer et al. with the claimed length in the tire axial direction between a bead toe and a bead heel in range of not greater than 16 mm because one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the illustrated tire cross-section of Krietemeyer et al. is a passenger car tire and JP’110 teaches a tire for passenger cars having a bead contour with a bead width BW (the claimed length) of 12 mm (FIG. 1 and page 3 of the machine translation) with good bead-rim engagement and providing a known and suitable value for the bead width of the same class of tire yields predictable results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krietemeyer et al. (US 2013/0118669) in view of Shinmura (US 5,111,865), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ebiko (US 2013/0240107).
Regarding claim 11, while Krietemeyer et al. is silent to a thickness of the sidewall rubber, the tire of Krietemeyer et al. having a thickness of the sidewall rubber in a range of 2.0 mm to 6.0 mm would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Ebiko discloses known and suitable thicknesses of the sidewall rubber in FIG. 3 with an average rubber thickness from 2.0 to 3.5 mm [0032]-[0033].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented in this office action.
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 KENDRA LY whose telephone number is (571)270-7060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-5:00PM.
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 B 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.
/KENDRA LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749