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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naruse (US 11,541,699) and further in view of Yukawa (EP 1253025).
As best depicted in Figures 1, 2, and 8, Naruse is directed to a tire construction comprising a sound damper 7 positioned on a tire inner surface via an elastic fixing band or base member 8. In such an instance, sound damper 7 is not adhered to a tire inner surface but rather is positioned in a manner that allows for easy and free attachment and removal of said damper (Column 4, Lines 15-28). Also, Figure 2 depicts an annular configuration for said damper, in which case a circumferential extent of said damper (claimed as L) would be approximately the same as the circumferential length of a tire inner surface (claimed as C). In such an instance, though, Naruse is silent with respect to a thickness of said damper and as such, fails to disclose the claimed quantitative relationships.
In any event, sound dampers are well recognized as having any number of thickness values as shown for example by Yukawa. More particularly, Yukawa states that a thickness T is at least 3.0 mm and can be as large as 80% of a tire cavity height (Paragraph 26). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use thickness values that satisfy the claimed quantitative relationships absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results. For example, an outer diameter of approximately 700 mm in the exemplary tire construction of Naruse (Column 7, Lines 15-20) corresponds with a distance R that is slightly less than 350 mm (350 mm represents a distance from the tire rotational axis and an outer tread surface). Using R=330 mm (for example), the claims (equation 1) are satisfied when a thickness is between approximately 13 mm and 60 mm. These values are essentially filly encompassed by the disclosure of Yukawa in regards to the common thickness values of sound dampers. Likewise, equation 2 would be satisfied since L/C can be approximately 1.
With respect to claim 2, a width of the sound damper is at least 20 mm and as large as a tread width plus 40 mm (Paragraph 26- Yukawa). This disclosure fully encompasses the broad range of the claimed invention. For example, given an exemplary width of 245 mm in Naruse, the claims require a damper width between 50 mm and 200 mm. When modifying the tire of Naruse with Yukawa, a sound damper width would fall between 20 mm and 285 mm.
Regarding claims 3 and 6, see Figure 1 of Naruse.
As to claims 4 and 5, it is extremely well known and conventional to form an annular sound damper by joining or connecting first and second ends of said damper. More particularly, the use of adhesives or mechanical means is consistent with the conventional manner in which said joining is achieved. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a conventional joining technique to form an annular sound damper in the tire of Naruse. It is also noted that Naruse does describe the alternative use of adhesives and mechanical means when discussing attachment means between the sound damper and the band member (Column 4, Lines 40+).
With respect to claims 7 and 8, Yukawa teaches densities between 5 kg/m3 and 60 kg/m3 (Paragraph 56). With specific respect to claim 8, given that the material and density of the damper in Yukawa is substantially the same as that of the claimed invention, it reasons that the hardness of the damper in Yukawa would mimic that of the claimed invention.
As to claim 9, Yukawa states that a damper volume ranges between 0.004 and 0.2 times a cavity volume (Paragraph 16) and such fully encompasses the claimed invention.
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 April 29, 2025