DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “wherein one of the layers of the reinforcement portion defines a portion of a groove of the tread” recited in amended claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. This issue is addressed in further detail in Section 18 below in “Response to Arguments”.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 1, 2, 13, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
· Claim 1: “wherein (W1) is at least 8 millimeters” should be replaced with --wherein the width (W1) is at least 8 millimeters-- in line 10 for consistency.
· Claim 2: “wherein (W1) is at least 16 millimeters” should be replaced with --wherein the width (W1) is at least 16 millimeters-- in line 10 for consistency.
· Claim 13: “P1CIR” should be replaced with --the P1CIR-- in line 2 and “P3CIR” should be replaced with --the P3CIR-- in line 1 for clarity.
· Claim 14: “from (P1) to (P3)” should be replaced with --from the point (P1) to the point (P3)-- in line 3 for consistency.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claim 1-3, 7, and 9-15 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.
· The limitation “wherein one of the layers of the reinforcement portion defines a portion of a groove of the tread” is not described by the specification. This issue is addressed in further detail in Section 18 below in “Response to Arguments”.
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. Claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamura et al (US2017/0113491A1; hereinafter “Iwamura”) in view of Gianetti (WO2022096799A1).
Regarding claim 1, Iwamura discloses a non-pneumatic tire (1 “airless tire”; Fig. 1), comprising: a rim (3b “cylindrical part”; Fig. 1), wherein an axis extends through the rim 3b in a lateral direction (Refer to the lateral direction in the below annotated Fig. 3); an annular support (4 “spokes”; Fig. 1) extending outward from the rim 3b in a radial direction (Refer to the radial direction in the below annotated Fig. 3); a tread (2 “tread ring”; Fig. 2) having a surface (2a “ground contact surface”; Fig. 2), wherein the tread 2 has a farthest outer axial extent (Refer to the axial extent in the below annotated Fig. 3) that is located at a terminal end (Refer to the terminal end in the below annotated Fig. 3) of the tread in the lateral direction; and an annular beam (6 “reinforcing body”; Fig. 3) located between the annular support 4 and the tread 2 in the radial direction (Figs. 1 and 2),
PNG
media_image1.png
505
895
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 3 of Iwamura
wherein the annular beam 6 has a reinforcement portion (7 “first reinforcing cord layer” and 8 “second reinforcing cord layer”; Fig. 3) that has a plurality of reinforcing elements (Refer to the reinforcing elements in the above annotated Fig. 3), wherein the reinforcing element closest to the farthest outer axial extent in the lateral direction is at a width (W1) (Refer to the W1 in the above annotated Fig. 3) to the farthest outer axial extent in the lateral direction, wherein (W1) is at least 8 millimeters (Para [0021] discloses that “a maximum width BW of the first reinforcing cord layer 7 is set to be smaller than a width TW of the tread ring, and preferably can be set to be about 70-95% of the width TW of the tread ring”. Further, para [0057] discloses an airless tire corresponding to the tire size 125/80R13. Accordingly, TW corresponds to 125 mm and BWmin corresponds to 87.5 mm (0.70 x 125 mm). Based on the dimensions illustrated in Fig. 5, Iwamura further discloses that width W1 can be determined by the relationship (125mm-87.5mm)/2, which yields approximately 18.75 mm. Accordingly, the limitation is met); wherein the plurality of reinforcing elements are arranged in layers in the radial direction in the reinforcement portion (7 and 8; Fig. 3); but fails to disclose wherein successive ones of the reinforcing elements in at least one of the layers are spaced a greater distance to one another in the lateral direction than spacing in the lateral direction between successive ones of the reinforcing elements spaced a lesser distance to one another in different ones of the layers; wherein the reinforcing element closest to the farthest outer axial extent in the lateral direction at the width (W1) to the farthest outer axial extent in the lateral direction is one of the reinforcing elements of the layers that have the reinforcing elements spaced the greater distance in the lateral direction, and wherein none of the reinforcing elements of the layers that have the reinforcing elements spaced the lesser distance to one another in the lateral direction are spaced the width (W1) to the farthest outer axial extent in the lateral direction.
Gianetti, however, teaches reinforcing elements arranged in multiple layers with different lateral spacing relationships between adjacent layers. Specifically, annotated Fig. 2 below teaches a reinforcing portion having reinforcing elements spaced a greater distance apart (i.e., reinforcing elements spaced a greater distance in the annotated Fig. 2 below) and reinforcing elements spaced a lesser distance part (i.e., reinforcing elements spaced a lesser distance in the annotated Fig. 2 below), wherein the reinforcing elements spaced a lesser distance apart extend laterally from the claimed width (W1) to the farthest outer axial extent (Refer to the axial extent in the annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
618
802
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 2 of Gianetti
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the
reinforcement arrangement of Iwamura by providing layers of reinforcing elements having different lateral spacing configurations, as taught by Gianetti, with the motivation to achieve desired flexibility and load distribution characteristics of the reinforcement structure.
Further, Iwamura in view of Gianetti meets the limitation “wherein one of the layers of the reinforcement portion defines a portion of a groove of the tread“ recited in claim 1 inasmuch as the Applicant’s invention does. A detailed discussion will follow in the Section 18 below in “Response to Arguments”.
Regarding claim 2, Iwamura further discloses (W1) is at least 16 millimeters (As discussed above with respect to claim 1, the width W1 is 18.75 mm. Accordingly, the limitation is met).
Regarding claim 9, Iwamura, as modified by Gianetti, discloses at least one of the layers have more of the reinforcing elements than other ones of the layers (Gianetti: Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Iwamura, as modified by Gianetti, discloses the tread extends in the radial direction at the farthest outer axial extent so as to be located closer to the axis in the radial direction than at least one of the reinforcing elements are to the axis in the radial direction (Fig. 3).
8. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamura, as modified by Gianetti, as applied to claims 1-2 and 9-10 above, and further in view of Southarewsky (CA2153949C).
Regarding claim 3, Iwamura, as modified by Gianetti, fails to disclose the annular beam has a plurality of wraps of a ply that extend in a circumferential direction of the non-pneumatic tire, wherein the plurality of reinforcing elements are located within the ply.
Southarewsky, however, teaches a plurality of wraps of a reinforced ply extending around the tire structure, wherein reinforcing elements are located within the ply (Fig. 3; “the reinforcement member 28 is comprised one or more wraps of a reinforced ply 36 formed of a plurality of the cords 38” per page 15, lines 3-9)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the annular beam reinforcement structure of Iwamura, as modified by Gianetti, by providing a plurality of wraps of a ply extending in the circumferential direction, wherein the reinforcing elements are located within the ply, as taught by Southarewsky, since such reinforcement ply arrangements were well-known to improve structural reinforcement, durability, and circumferential load support of the non-pneumatic tire.
9. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamura et al (US2017/0113491A1; hereinafter “Iwamura”), as modified by Gianetti, as applied to claims 1-2 and 9-10 above, and further in view of Boileau (US3692080A).
Regarding claim 7, Iwamura, as modified by Gianetti, fails to disclose the layers that have the reinforcing elements spaced the greater distance are located between the layers that have the reinforcing elements spaced a lesser distance.
Boileau, however, teaches arranging reinforcing elements in staggered and intermediate layer relationships, including reinforcing elements arranged in the spaces between successive reinforcing elements of adjacent layers (Figs. 1 and 2; Col. 3, lines 49-54)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the reinforcement structure of Iwamura, as modified by Gianetti, by arranging the layers having reinforcing elements spaced a greater distance between layers having reinforcing elements spaced a lesser distance, as taught by Boileau, with the motivation to provide desired flexibility, load distribution, and reinforcement support characteristics within the tire reinforcement structure.
10. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamura, as modified by Gianetti, as applied to claims 1-2 and 9-10 above, and further in view of Merino Lopez et al (US11505002B2; hereinafter “Lopez”).
Regarding claim 11, Iwamura, as modified by Gianetti, fails to disclose the reinforcing elements are made of composite fibers.
Lopez, however, teaches that reinforcement cables for a non-pneumatic wheel may be made of aramid, polyester, nylon, rayon, polyketone, metal cable, composite materials such as glass or carbon with resin, or hybrid reinforcements made from a combination of such materials (Col. 8, lines 8-13; Col. 2, lines 65-67; Col. 3, lines 1-7; Col. 9, lines 55-67; Col. 10, lines 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have formed the reinforcing elements of Iwamura, as modified by Gianetti, from well-known composite or hybrid reinforcing materials as taught by Lopez, with the motivation to improve selectable reinforcement characteristics such as strength, stiffness, durability, and weight reduction in a non-pneumatic tire structure.
11. Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamura, as modified by Gianetti, as applied to claims 1-2 and 9-10 above, and further in view of Ishiyama (JP2006103397A).
Regarding claim 12, Iwamura, as modified by Gianetti, implicitly discloses the claimed points P1, P2, and P3 along the tread surface (Fig. 5), but fails to disclose that P3CIR is at least 50 mm less than P1CIR.
Ishiyama, however, teaches a tread profile in which a circumference at an outer axial portion of the tread is less than a circumference at an axially central portion of the tread (Figs. 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the tread profile of Iwamura, as modified by Gianetti, such that the circumference at the tread edge region is reduced relative to the circumference at the axially central region, as taught by Ishiyama, with the motivation to tailor the ground contact pressure distribution, tread contact patch characteristics, and traction performance depending on the desired tread surface profile. The particular dimensional difference between P1CIR and P3CIR would have been a matter of routine optimization depending on the desired traction, wear characteristics, and tread contact pressure distribution.
Regarding claim 13, Iwamura, as modified by Gianetti and Ishiyama, further fails to disclose the non-pneumatic tire as set forth in claim 12, wherein P3CIR is at least 75 millimeters less than P1CIR.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the dimensional relationship of the tread surface such that P3CIR is at least 75 mm less than P1CIR as a matter of routine optimization of tread profile geometry depending on the desired traction, wear resistance, and contact patch characteristics.
Regarding claim 14, Iwamura, as modified by Gianetti and Ishiyama, disclose the outer surface of the tread is convex from P1 to P3, but fails to disclose wherein the distance d is at least 35 millimeters, and wherein the outer surface of the tread is convex from P1 to P3.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to select the distance d as a matter of routine optimization of tread geometry with the motivation to achieve desired tread deformation, contact pressure distribution, and traction characteristics.
Regarding claim 15, Iwamura, as modified by Gianetti and Ishiyama, discloses the annular beam has an annular beam width in the lateral direction that is WB, wherein the surface of the tread is flat so as to have the same circumference around the axis along a length in the lateral direction that is at least 50% of the length of WB (Iwamura meets the limitation as shown in Fig. 3; Ishiyama meets the limitation as shown in Figs. 3-8).
Response to Arguments
12. The following Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
13. In response to Applicant’s arguments “Fig. 2 of Gianetti does not disclose that the reinforcement structures possess different reinforcing element spacings” and “Gianetti does not identify these structures as individual reinforcing elements and does not describe any spacing relationship between reinforcing elements within those structures” on page 7, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The spacing relationship of the reinforcing elements is clearly shown in Fig. 2. No written disclosure is required. Furthermore, layer 44 shows individual reinforcing elements that are spaced farther apart and fewer in number than those of layer 40. See the annotated Fig. 2 provided above in the rejection of claim 1.
14. In response to Applicant’s arguments “The dashed, dotted, and dash-dot patterns shown in Fig. 2 are drawing conventions used to visually distinguish different reinforcement structures from one another” on page 7, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that no evidence has provided to support this. The Applicant may provide evidence (in the form of a declaration or affidavit filed under 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132) to refute the rejection.
15. In response to Applicant’s arguments “Nothing in Gianetti states that those graphical patterns correspond to spacing between reinforcement elements, much less than one pattern represents reinforcing elements spaced a greater distance apart than reinforcing elements represented by another pattern. The Office Action does not identify any passage in Gianetti stating that the different line styles in Fig. 2 correspond to different spacing between successive reinforcing elements” on page 7, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the annotated Fig. 2 provided above in the rejection of claim 1, it clearly shows the physical structure of having the reinforcing layers have different spacing between successive reinforcing elements. Furthermore, absent an express indication in Fig. 2 that the reinforcing layers are shown merely schematically, the structural features depicted in the figures may be relied upon as disclosure of the physical structure of the reinforcing layers. The Applicant may provide evidence (in the form of a declaration or affidavit filed under 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132) to refute the rejection.
16. In response to Applicant’s arguments “The absence of any such disclosure confirms that the graphical patterns of Fig. 2 of Gianetti are not intended to represent different reinforcing-element spacings” on page 7, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, the reference need not expressly discuss each element when the elements are clearly depicted in the figures.
17. In response to Applicant’s arguments “If the long dashes and dash-dot line patterns of the protection and working plies were treated as actual reinforcing elements, those graphical marks would represent discontinuous, intersecting, or physically implausible reinforcement segments rather than the continuous cords or cables that Gianetti actually describes. The cross-sections of reinforcing elements are not elongated dashes in the lateral direction, but are instead circular in shape. Looking at first and second working plies 46 and 48, there would be one single elongated reinforcing element making up each entire ply as they are both depicted as a single solid line. This contradicts the specification of Gianetti that describes the plies 46 and 48 as having multiple reinforcing elements arranged at 15° to 40° with the circumferential direction. Gianetti translation, paragraph [0095]. This further supports Applicants’ position that the line styles in Fig. 2 are used for drafting distinction among layers, not to show individual reinforcing elements or their spacing” on page 8, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the arguments do not constitute evidence. Second, the arguments are based on mere supposition. Third, plies 46 and 48 do not disclose “one single elongated reinforcing element”, but instead show plies comprising transversely oriented reinforcing elements, as is well known in the art.
18. In response to Applicant’s arguments “Since the groove is only disclose as being formed in the tread rubber part 5, Iwamura fails to disclose or suggest a layer of a reinforcement portion that defines a portion of the groove, as in claim 1”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. This limitation does not appear to be shown in the drawings. Further, the specification does not clearly state that ply portions of 302 (which lack reinforcing elements 301) constitute part of the reinforcement portion, and the claim merely states that the “reinforcement portion has a plurality of reinforcing elements arranged in radial layers”. None of the drawings show a layer of reinforcing elements that “defines a portion of the groove”. Accordingly, Iwamura in view of Gianetti meets this limitation inasmuch as the Applicant’s invention does.
19. In response to Applicant’s arguments “Gianetti does not disclose a groove, and this necessarily fails to disclose or suggest a layer of a reinforcement portion that defines a portion of the groove” on page 9, the Examiner notes that Gianetti is not relied upon for teaching this feature. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument regarding Gianetti is not relevant to the rejection.
Conclusion
20. 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.
21. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references disclose a tire including a tread having a reinforcing portion comprising a plurality of reinforcements, with different spacings between successive reinforcements.
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Taekwon (Tae) Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-5805. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Samuel Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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.
/TAEKWON CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights