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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 16, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 22, 23, and 25 are 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.
Claims 22, 23, and 25 require an axial alignment of first ends; however, the original disclosure, including original claim 19, describes the first ends as being axially staggered and such is in direct contrast to the amended claims. Also, Applicant has not pointed to a location in the original disclosure that provides support for such language. Thus, the amended claim language is seen to constitute new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 9, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (EP 1184204) and further in view of Sato (US 2014/0166178) and optionally in view of Korte (EP 1754615).
As best depicted in Figure 1, Nakamura is directed to a tire construction comprising a belt 26 and a tread 22. More particularly, said belt is defined by a first ply strip 26a and a second ply strip 26b, wherein adjacent windings within each ply strip are axially spaced from one another (Figure 7). In essence, adjacent windings of a first ply strip are spaced from one another by a winding of a second ply strip. See annotated Figure 7 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
540
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In such an instance, though, Nakamura fails to teach that a first end of the first ply strip is circumferentially offset from the first end of the second ply strip in an angular increment in the range of 45 to 90 degrees.
Sato is similarly directed to a tire construction including a belt layer formed with a plurality of ply strips. More particularly, Sato states that it is desirable to circumferentially stagger first ends of first and second ply strips in order to control stiffness variation (Paragraph 58). In terms of the specific offset angle, angle β1 is between 0 and 180 degrees (Paragraph 59) and such fully encompasses the claimed range between 45 and 90 degrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to circumferentially stagger first ends of the first and second ply strips of Nakamura for the benefits detailed above. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for an offset angle between 45 and 90 degrees.
Lastly, if in fact the language “ply strip” requires an elastomeric coating, Korte has been optionally provided to evidence the conventional inclusion of elastomeric coatings when spirally winding reinforcing cords to form tire belt layers (Page 2 of attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 10, Figure 1 of Nakamura depicts a belt layer formed winding first and second ply strips from a first tread edge or lateral edge to a second tread edge or later al edge.
With respect to claim 17, the claims are necessarily satisfied when there are only two ply strips.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 9, 10, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato and optionally in view of Korte.
As best depicted in Figure 1-3, Sato is directed to a tire construction comprising a tread 15 and a belt layer 145 formed by circumferentially winding a plurality of ply strips. Figure 9 specifically depicts the presence of a first ply strip 1451 and a second ply strip 1452, wherein a first end of said first ply strip and a first end of said second ply strip are circumferentially staggered by an angle β2 between 0 and 180 degrees (Paragraph 59). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select an offset angle between 45 and 90 degrees since Sato fully encompasses the claimed range and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed offset angle. Additionally, it is evident that successive windings of ply strip 1451 would be separated from one another by a winding of ply strip 1452.
Lastly, regarding claim 9, if in fact the language “ply strip” requires an elastomeric coating, Korte has been optionally provided to evidence the conventional inclusion of elastomeric coatings when spirally winding reinforcing cords to form tire belt layers (Page 2 of attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 5, Figure 13 of Nakamura depicts the presence of first, second, and third ply strips having first ends circumferentially staggered at equal increments from one another.
With respect to claim 7, Korte recognizes the well known and conventional use of individual cords or tapes including a plurality of cords to form tire belt layers (2nd page of attached machine translation). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use individual cords or tapes to form the belt layer of Nakamura. Additionally, when using tapes, Korte recognizes the known use of tapes having a width of a few millimeters (Page 4 of attached machine translation) and such is consistent with the broad range of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, Figure 3 depicts a tire construction in which belt 145 extends from a first lateral edge to a second lateral edge.
With respect to claim 17, Figure 13 depicts an arrangement in which respective first ends are equally staggered.
As to claim 19, the figures of Nakamura depict the placement of first ends in different axial locations (tire width direction).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 5, 7, 9, 10, 17, and 19 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
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 July 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights