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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 12, 2026 has been entered.
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) 16, 17, 19-28, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abinal (US 11,453,242, newly cited) and further in view of Kaplan (EP 2376295, newly cited).
As best depicted in Figures 1 and 2, Abinal teaches a tire construction comprising a carcass 6, an innerliner 7 (airtight inner layer), a pair of sidewall regions (no reference character provided), a pair of bead regions (no reference character provided), a plurality of working crown layers 41,42 including inclined cords embedded in a topping rubber or polymeric matrix (claimed crown reinforcement), a hooping belt layer 5 including circumferentially oriented cords embedded in a topping rubber or polymeric matrix (claimed crown reinforcement), and a tread 2. In terms of the claims, the combination of the tread and the crown reinforcement corresponds with the claimed crown block.
It is further evident from Figure 2 that the working crown layers and the hooping belt layer are corrugated belt layers including at least one corrugation or undulation having tops positioned between first and second bottoms (Column 4, Lines 1+). See the modified figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
568
966
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With further respect to said at least one corrugation, Abinal teaches an amplitude that is at least equal to 1.0 mm (Column 7, Lines 20+).
In such an instance, though, the tire of Abinal is devoid of a sidewall insert having a thickness between 1.0 mm and 2.5 mm and a 10% modulus of at least 6 MPa.
Kaplan is similarly directed to a tire construction. More particularly, Kaplan teaches the inclusion of shear layers or sidewall inserts having a thickness between 0.2 mm and 2 mm (Paragraph 15) in order to minimize damage associated with pinch shock (folding of the tire and contact between the shoulder and the bead- Paragraphs 1, 2, and 10). Kaplan also states that said shear layers can have any number of 10% modulus values, including those that are considerably greater than 6 MPa (Paragraphs 21-26). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include shear layers (claimed sidewall inserts) in the tire of Abinal for the benefits detailed above.
Lastly, regarding claim 16, Kaplan states that a shear layer can extend from a bead section to a shoulder section (Paragraph 17) and thus constitute a sidewall insert.
With respect to claim 17, Figure 2 depicts a top portion as being sandwiched between first and second grooves (and thus beneath a rib). Additionally, the first and second bottoms occupy the entire region on either axial side of said top region and thus are present beneath said grooves.
Regarding claim 19, Abinal teaches exemplary compositions including short fibers and having a 10% modulus as small as 25 MPa (Paragraph 26). Abinal also teaches additional embodiments in which a composition is broadly softer or almost softer than a tire bead filler (Paragraph 25). The totality of these teachings suggests a wide variety of 10% modulus values, including those that are less than 20 MPa. It is emphasized that fiber reinforced compositions are well recognized as having high mechanical properties or modulus values and as such, it reasons that said additional embodiments having a softer or almost softer material than the bead filler would correspond with 10% modulus values less than 25 MPa and in accordance to the claimed invention. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a10% modulus in accordance to the claimed invention.
As to claim 20, Abinal teaches thickness values between 0.2 mm and 2.0 mm and such fully encompasses the claimed range.
With respect to claims 21-24, Abinal teaches a shear layer that extends from a bead section to a should section within or near the crown (Paragraph 17). This arrangement would have a radially inner end and a radially outer end in accordance to the claimed invention. Also, with specific respect to claim 22, Abinal teaches an exemplary embodiment in which a thickness is uniform over a length of the shear layer and in such an instance, any location, including that radially inside a tire equator, radially beyond a tire equator, or radially between inner and outer straight lines as defined by the claims, would correspond with a maximum thickness (Paragraph 16).
Regarding claims 25-27, the tire of Abinal includes a single carcass 6 extending between respective bead portions (Figure 2). With specific respect to claim 26, shear layer 32 (in Kaplan) is positioned between a carcass 21 and an innerliner 26 (Paragraph 39). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to position a shear layer between the carcass 6 and innerliner 7 of Abinal.
As to claim 28, Abinal describes the inclusion of at least one carcass layer (Column 1, Lines 55-61).
With respect to claim 30, the working crown layers and the hooping layer of Abinal include at least one undulation or corrugation.
Claim(s) 16-28 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jefferson (EP 0414026, of record) and further in view of Kaplan and Abinal.
As best depicted in Figures 1 and 2, Jefferson teaches a tire construction comprising a pair of bead portions 30, a pair of sidewall portions 10, a tread 14, a carcass ply 28. Jefferson further teaches the inclusion of multiple belt plies 18, 20, and 22, wherein belt plies 20 and 22 are depicted as including a plurality of corrugations. More particularly a top portion of the corrugations are located beneath a tread rib and adjacent bottom portions are located beneath tread grooves 16 (claims 17 and 18). In such an instance, though, Jefferson is silent with respect to the inclusion of a sidewall insert having a thickness between 1.0 mm and 2.5 mm and a 10% modulus of at least least 6 MPa.
Kaplan is similarly directed to a tire construction. More particularly, Kaplan teaches the inclusion of shear layers or sidewall inserts having a thickness, for example, between 0.2 mm and 2 mm (Paragraph 15) in order to minimize damage associated with pinch shock (folding of the tire and contact between the shoulder and the bead- Paragraphs 1, 2, and 10). Kaplan also states that said shear layers can have any number of 10% modulus values, including those that are considerably greater than 6 MPa (Paragraphs 21-26). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include shear layers (claimed sidewall inserts) in the tire of Jefferson for the benefits detailed above.
Also, regarding claim 16, Kaplan states that a shear layer can extend from a bead section to a shoulder section (Paragraph 17) and thus constitute a sidewall insert.
With further respect to said corrugations, while Jefferson is completely silent with respect to a corrugation amplitude, the claimed values of at least 1 mm are consistent with those that are used in similar, corrugation-containing belt layers, as shown for example by Abinal (Column 7, Lines 20+). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use amplitudes of at least 1 mm in the tire of Jefferson since the claimed values are consistent with those that are used in corrugation-containing belt layers and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for an amplitude of at least 1 mm.
Lastly, an outermost belt layer 22 can be broadly viewed as a “hooping layer” and a fair reading of Jefferson encompasses tire constructions in which all the belt layers include corrugations (Column 3, Lines 5+). It is emphasized that Applicant’s original disclosure fails to specifically define a “hooping layer” in a manner that excludes belt layer 22 of Jefferson (Paragraph 106 in PGPub simply states that “optionally, and preferably, the main direction forms, with the circumferential direction of the tyre, an angle with an absolute value less than or equal to 10°, preferably less than or equal to 7° and more preferably less than or equal to 5°). Additionally, Abinal provides evidence that conventional belt assemblies include at least one working belt layer and at least one hooping layer or band layer (Figure 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the general disclosure of Jefferson (belt structure typically includes several belts- Column 2, Lines 29+) as including conventional belt assemblies, as evidenced by Abinal.
Regarding claim 19, Abinal teaches exemplary compositions including short fibers and having a 10% modulus as small as 25 MPa (Paragraph 26). Abinal also teaches additional embodiments in which a composition is broadly softer or almost softer than a tire bead filler (Paragraph 25). The totality of these teachings suggests a wide variety of 10% modulus values, including those that are less than 20 MPa. It is emphasized that fiber reinforced compositions are well recognized as having high mechanical properties or modulus values and as such, it reasons that said additional embodiment having a softer or almost softer material than the bead filler would correspond with 10% modulus values less than 25 MPa and in accordance to the claimed invention. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a 10% modulus in accordance to the claimed invention.
As to claim 20, Abinal teaches thickness values between 0.2 mm and 2.0 mm and such fully encompasses the claimed range.
With respect to claims 21-24, Abinal teaches a shear layer that extends from a bead section to a should section within or near the crown (Paragraph 17). This arrangement would have a radially inner end and a radially outer end in accordance to the claimed invention. Also, Abinal teaches an exemplary embodiment in which a thickness is uniform over a length of the shear layer and in such an instance, any location, including that radially inside a tire equator, radially beyond a tire equator, or radially between inner and outer straight lines as defined by the claims, would correspond with a maximum thickness (Paragraph 16).
Regarding claims 25-27, the tire of Jefferson includes a single carcass 28 extending between respective bead portions (Figure 1). With specific respect to claim 26, shear layer 32 (in Kaplan) is positioned between a carcass 21 and an innerliner 26 (Paragraph 39). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to position a shear layer inside carcass 28 of Jefferson. Also, while Jefferson is silent regarding a tire innerliner, such a component is well recognized as being a fundamental component of modern day tire constructions that prevents airflow into the tire body. Abinal provides one example of a conventional tire innerliner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected a conventional tire innerliner to be present in the tire of Jefferson and as taught by Abinal, shear layers are positioned between a carcass and an innerliner to provide pinch shock resistance.
As to claim 28, it is extremely well known and conventional that modern day tires include at least one carcass ply (unless specifically directed to a mono carcass construction). Abinal provides one example comprising at least one carcass layer (Column 1, Lines 55-61). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include at least one carcass ply in the tire of Jefferson (in the same manner that Jefferson describes a belt structure including at least one belt- Column 2, Lines 29+).
With respect to claim 30, all belt layers can include corrugations as detailed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-28 and 30 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 April 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights