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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
3. Claim(s) 1-6, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Praschtschikin (DE 2326755- DE ‘755, of record) and further in view of Saxton (GB 190522766, of record) and Prokofyev (RU 190114- RU ‘114, of record).
As best depicted in Figures 1 and 2, DE ‘755 is directed to a heavy duty tire construction comprising a carcass 4, a tread 1, a plurality of working belt plies 3, a pair of sidewall portions (no reference character provided), a pair of bead portions (no reference character provided), a protective layer 2 (corresponds with claimed anti-puncture layer) formed radially beyond said belt plies. More particularly, said protective layer is a metal mesh that is braided or woven. DE ‘755, however, fails to describe the metal mesh as being a chainmail design having interconnected or overlapped rings.
However, it is known in the tire industry to form protective layers with chainmail designs as required by the claimed invention. More particularly, Saxton recognizes the known use of metal chainmail designs and metal woven designs (embedded in rubber- claimed polymeric material) when forming a tire protective layer (Page 2, Lines 30-35). It is emphasized that Saxton recognizes the alternative use of metal chainmail designs and metal woven designs- one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any known design to form the protective layer of DE ‘755 (anti-puncture layer). Again, the use of both designs provides a metal protective layer having openings or interstices and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed invention.
With further respect to claim 1, the claims define an extremely broad range of inclination angles that are consistent with those that are conventionally used in tire working belt layers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of conventional inclination angles absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Additionally, the claimed breaking strength for steel cords are consistent with those that are commonly used in heavy duty tire constructions, as shown for example by RU ‘114. In such an instance, RU ‘114 teaches breaking strengths that are less than 1,400 N or 140 daN. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use breaking strengths that are consistent with those used in working belt layers and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Lastly, regarding claim 1, Saxton states that “when chain mail is used, as is preferred, for the metallic band, the links are made to overlap one another sideways as much as is practicable, to ensure invulnerability” (Page 3, Lines 22+). While an exact ratio between the surface density of the protective layer and that of the working belt is not disclosed, it appears that the claimed ratio would result from a chainmail design as taught by Saxton and a standard or common working belt layer. It is emphasized that the chainmail design (mesh design) results in a plurality of openings or interstices and such would appear to contribute to a claimed ratio less than 70% and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed ratio. Again, a fair reading of Saxton does not limit the size of the openings or interstices, there being a lack of experimentation that demonstrates a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a ratio less than 70%.
Regarding claim 2, Figure 2 of Saxton appears to depict an assembly as required by the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 3, as detailed above, Saxton states that “when chain mail is used, as is preferred, for the metallic band, the links are made to overlap one another sideways as much as is practicable, to ensure invulnerability” (Page 3, Lines 22+). This disclosure i seen to encompass the claimed relationship between the pitch and the diameter and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed relationship.
As to claims 4 and 5, the claimed types of steel are consistent with those that are conventionally used in a wide variety of tire components and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for said types of steels. It is emphasized that a fair reading of DE ‘585 and Saxton does not limit the type of steel. Also, Applicant has not directly traversed the Examiner’s position and as such, the position is taken to be Admitted Prior Art.
Regarding claim 6, the tire of DE ‘755 includes a single anti-puncture layer (protective layer).
With respect to claims 8 and 10, the claimed elongation would be expected to result when using the chainmail design taught by Saxton and common steel. Additionally, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed elongations.
4. Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE ‘755, Saxton, and RU ‘114 as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Oyagi (JP 05286305, of record).
As detailed above, DE ‘755 includes a metal mesh layer 2 (claimed anti-puncture layer) radially beyond the tire belt layers. DE ‘585 further states that said layer 3 can be arranged in the tread or directly above the tire belt layers 3 (Paragraph 14). This language suggests that a spacing can be present between the working belt layers and the protective layer. In terms of the exact amount of spacing, Oyagi is similarly directed to a heavy duty tire construction and teaches a radial spacing of at least 5 mm between an outermost protective layer and an underlying belt structure- such a spacing would be recognized as being at least 0.5 times a thickness of the protective layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a spacing that satisfies the claimed relationship since it is commonly used and recognized to provide greater protection to the underlying belt assembly (longer distance for object to travel).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed October 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant initially states that the inventive tire having a chainmail layer unexpectedly provides benefits over a typical protective layer including radially superposed layers including reinforcing elements that form angles of at least 10 degrees with respect to the tire circumferential direction. First, the closest prior art of record is DE ‘755, which specifically includes a single protective layer formed of reinforcing elements that define a plurality of interstices or openings- this construction is not analogous to the “typical” construction identified by Applicant. See the modified figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
564
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As such, the “typical” arrangement referenced by Applicant does not constitute the closest prior art of record. It is emphasized that any benefits in weight reduction and penetration resistance would have been expected to be present in the tire of DE ‘755 since it is similarly formed with a single anti-puncture layer formed with reinforcing elements that define a plurality of interstices (results are in relation to a tire arrangement that does not constitute the closest prior art of record).
Applicant further contends that Paragraph 38 describes unexpected results of the claimed surface density ratio (less than 70% when comparing the surface density of metal of the at least one puncture layer and the sum of the surface densities of metal of the layers of transverse reinforcers). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has not provided experimentation including a single anti-puncture layer formed with crossing reinforcing elements that define interstices (closest prior art of record) that compares arrangements with ratios less than 70% (inventive) and greater than 70% (non-inventive). This comparison would be required to establish a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a ratio less than 70%.
With further respect to the density ratio, it is noted that the tire of DE ‘755 includes three layers 3 of transverse metal reinforcers (see Figure on previous page). The presence of 3 layers of transverse metal reinforcers further suggests that a density ratio would be significantly less than 1 and in accordance to the claimed invention (larger number of transverse layers corresponds with a larger sum of surface densities of metal of the layers of transverse reinforcers). For example, if the quantity of warp reinforcing elements (in the anti-puncture layer) mimicked the amount of reinforcing elements in a first layer of transverse reinforcers and the quantity of weft reinforcing elements (in the anti-puncture layer) mimicked the amount of reinforcing elements in a second layer of transverse reinforcing elements, then a density ratio would be on the order of 0.67 (as a function of having a third layer of transverse reinforcing elements). It is also noted that DE ‘755 is not limited to such an arrangement- this calculation is simply provided to evidence a general order of density ratios when the quantity or end counts of the reinforcing elements are the same and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a density ratio less than 70%.
Applicant also argues that the chain mail layer of Saxton has different functionality as compared to the anti-puncture layer of the claims. It is emphasized that Saxton is simply provided to evidence the alternative use of chain mail arrangements and woven arrangements in tire components where interstices or openings are desired. Given that a woven arrangement formed with interstices is present in the tire of DE ‘755 (described as a mesh or net), it reasons that additional arrangements that similarly provide interstices would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art (lack of criticality for a chain mail arrangement as compared to a mesh or net arrangement).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Applicant contends that Paragraphs 45, 46, and 65 describe the benefits of the claimed steel composition. It is emphasized that said benefits constitute purported benefits that are not supported by experimentation. Applicant has not provided comparative examples in which the carbon content, chromium content, or elongation at break fall outside the claimed range. Additionally, as detailed above, Applicant has not directly traversed the Examiner’s well known and conventional statement regarding the claimed loadings and as such, the position is taken to be Admitted Prior Art.
As to claims 8 and 10, Applicant similarly alleges that Paragraph 40 demonstrates the benefits of elongations in accordance to the claimed invention. Again, a general statement of purported benefits is not sufficient to establish a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Conclusion
6. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
7. 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 March 31, 2026