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 .
2. Newly submitted claims 21 and 22 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claims 1 and 21 are directed to independent inventions, each having a unique and separate means for establishing patentability. Invention I requires a cord angle between 2 and 14 degrees with respect to the circumferential direction and such is not required by Invention II. Invention II, on the other hand, requires an axial alignment between first ends of the first and second ply and such is not required by Invention I. Thus, respective inventions have different means for establishing patentability and restriction is proper.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21 and 22 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Objections
3. Applicant is advised that should claim 23 be found allowable, claim 24 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
5. Claim(s) 1, 10, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tornau (DE 2824357, of record).
Tornau is directed to a tire construction comprising working belt layers formed with reinforcing elements inclined between 15 and 30 degrees and a belt cover layer 10 defined by a plurality of ply strips 10a, 10b, 10c, and 10d. See modified Figure 5 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
570
619
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In such an instance, first ends of a first ply strip 10d and a second ply strip 10a are circumferentially staggered from one another by 90 degrees. It is emphasized that the claims as currently drafted fail to exclude viewing ply strips 10a and 10d as the first ply strip and second ply strip, respectively.
Lastly, regarding claim 1, Tornau teaches cord angles between 0 and 20 degrees and such would correspond with the ply strip angles (Paragraph 19- see machine translation provided on January 20, 2026).
As to claims 10, 23, and 24, respective strips have an axial extension from a first shoulder region (first lateral edge) to a second should region (second lateral edge) (Paragraph 40). With specific respect to claims 23 and 24, a first lateral edge corresponds with starting points for all of the ply strips.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
7. Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 16, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (JP 08132819, of record).
As best depicted in Figures 1-4, Nakano is directed to a tire construction including a belt 10 formed with a plurality of axially adjacent ply strips 6. More particularly, first ends of axially adjacent ply strips are separated by a dimension “d”. See modified Figure 2 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
513
430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In Figure 2, first ends are separated by 90 degrees. In Figure 4, first ends are separated by 72 degrees (Paragraphs 8-13).
Lastly, regarding claim 1, Nakano teaches a tire construction including reinforcing layer 10 formed with straight or wavy cords. It is well recognized that such layers correspond with conventional “circumferential” belt layers. While Nakano fails to disclose angles in accordance to the claimed invention, the language “straight” cords is well recognized as including cords inclined at small angles, such as between 0 and 5 degrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of conventional cord angles (and thus ply strip angles), including that required by the claimed invention, there being no conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claims 5, 17, and 19, respective ends in the first ply strip, second ply strip, and third ply strip (additional ply strip) are staggered from each other in equal angular increments.
As to claim 7, Nakano teaches exemplary tire constructions in which the ply strip width is 24 mm (2.4 cm) or 30 mm (3.0 cm) (Paragraphs 8-13).
With respect to claim 16, the ply strips identified in the modified figure above depict respective ply strips are being axially offset and such is seen to correspond with an axially spaced arrangement as required by the claimed invention. This arrangement is separate and distinct from an arrangement in which the ply strips are axially aligned. Again, there is no axially overlap between axially adjacent ply strips and as such, the claimed requirement of ply strips between axially spaced apart is seen to be satisfied. Additionally, if in fact the claims require a physical gap to be present between adjacent windings, it is extremely well known and conventional that windings in belt cover layers or cap players are commonly formed in an abutting relationship, overlapping relationship, or spaced relationship (only 3 possible configurations and each is extensively used in tire belt cover layers, with many constructions even including more than 1 of these constructions in a single belt cover layer).
8. Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano.
As detailed above, Nakano is directed to a tire construction having a plurality of ply strips having first ends that are axially aligned while being circumferentially staggered. While Figure 5 depicts the presence of 4 ply strips (and thus the presence of 4 overlapped portions or joints that are separated by 90 degrees), Nakano more broadly teaches the presence of at least 2 joints in order to provide better handling at high speeds (Paragraphs 15 and 17). While Nakano fails to expressly depict the presence of 8 ply strips, such an arrangement is encompassed by the general disclosure of Nakano to include at least 2 ply strips. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of ply strips (and thus any number of overlapped regions or joints) to provide the aforementioned benefits.
Additionally, when including 8 ply strips, it is evident that said ply strips would have first ends circumferentially staggered by 45 degrees (equal spaced over 360 degrees- consistent with the disclosure to have first ends circumferentially staggered by 90 degrees when 4 ply strips are included).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claim 9 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed April 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Nakano fails to teach first and second strips with reinforcement cords oriented between 2 and 14 degrees with the circumferential direction. As detailed in the previous rejection (Paragraph 7), it is well recognized that circumferential belt layers (also known as cover layers or cap layers) are conventionally formed with cords inclined at 0 degrees or small angles on the order of 0-5 degrees. It is emphasized that the pending rejection is not based on anticipation but rather on obviousness. In such an instance, Applicant has not directly challenged the Examiner’s position, only arguing that the reference fails to expressly disclose the claimed angular range. Miyazaki (US 2002/0017351) is provided to specifically evidence the conventional range of cord angles in common belt cover layers (Paragraph 23).
As to Tornau, Applicant contends that Paragraph 18 describes cord angle between 15 and 30 degrees. These angles, though, correspond with the cord angles in the working belt layers and not the belt cover layer or belt cap layer. Looking at Paragraph 19 in the translation provided on April 21, 2025, the reference states that the layer runs essentially in the circumferential direction (i.e. at an angle of 0 to 20 degrees to the circumferential direction).
Conclusion
11. 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.
12. 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 May 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights