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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 20, 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.
4. Claim(s) 16-18, 21-23, 29, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nizawa (JP 2013-220718, of record) and further in view of the Admitted Prior Art and Yoshimi (WO 2005/053971, newly cited).
As best depicted in Figure 1, Nizawa is directed to a runflat tire construction comprising a carcass 4, a plurality of working belt layers 8 (reinforcing cords embedded in a topping rubber and inclined between 10 and 40 degrees), a plurality of hooping belt layers 9 (reinforcing cords embedded in topping rubber and inclined less than 5 degrees), and a runflat insert 7 (claimed sidewall insert) arranged axially inside said carcass. It is further evident from Figure 1 that (a) said working belt layers and said hooping belt layers are corrugated belt layers including a plurality of corrugations (e.g. corrugations are located beneath rib portions 11 and include a top portion and first and second bottoms), (b) a radially outer end of said runflat insert extends axially inward of an end of said belt layers, and (c) a radially inner end of said runflat insert is located radially inward of a tire equator. Nizawa also states that a radial distance D between top and bottom corrugation parts is between 2 mm and 8 mm (overlaps the claimed requirement of less than or equal to 3 mm).
With respect to (b), while Nizawa fails to quantitatively describe an overlap between the runflat insert and the belt layers, a fair reading of Nizawa (emphasis on general depiction in figures) suggests that such an overlap is relatively small (in relation to the belt width). In terms of the exact values of said overlap, Yoshimi is similarly directed to a runflat tire and suggests an overlapped ratio B/2A between 0.05 and 0.15 (given that A is a half width of the belt layer) in order to optimize high speed running and durability . When using such a ratio in the tire of Nizawa, a wide variety of tire constructions would satisfy the claimed quantitative relationship. For example, an exemplary tire section width in Nizawa is 245 mm. Even when using such a value as the belt width (despite it being evident that the belt width is significantly less than a tire section width), the ratio of Yoshimi suggests an overlapped distance between approximately 12 mm and 37 mm. It is emphasized that an actual belt width is more likely on the order of 200 mm and when using such a value for the belt width, the ratio of Yoshimi suggests an overlapped distance between approximately 10 mm and 30 mm. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include an overlapped amount between 5 mm and 20 mm absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Lastly, the APA (Paragraph 2) recognizes the general order of modulus properties associated with runflat inserts. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a well-known and conventional composition for the runflat insert of Nizawa and such corresponds with the claimed mechanical properties. It is further noted that all the comparative examples provided by Applicant do not constitute the closest prior art of record since they are devoid of corrugated belt layers.
With respect to claims 21 and 22, as noted above, the APA recognizes the common use of modulus values greater than 4 MPa and in accordance to the claimed invention.
With respect to claims 29 and 30, said working belt layers and said hooping layers are formed with corrugations.
4. Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nizawa, APA, and Yoshimi as applied in claim 16 above and further in view of Ushikubo (US 4,947,911, of record).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, circumferential grooves 10 define a plurality of ribs (presumably 5 ribs given the depiction of one side of the tire). It is additionally well known that tire treads almost always include additional transvers grooves or cuts (tread patterns are designed to eliminate hydroplaning), as shown for example by Ushikubo (Column 1, Lines 12+). The presence of a plurality of corrugations, a plurality of ribs, and a plurality of transverse grooves or cuts is seen to satisfy the claimed arrangement (unclear how the term “plumb” structurally distinguishes the claimed tire from that of Nizawa). This is particularly the case since transverse grooves extend from circumferential grooves and corrugation bottoms are present radially inward of circumferential grooves.
5. Claim(s) 24-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nizawa, APA, and Yoshimi as applied in claim 16 above and further in view of Suzuki (EP 1577122, of record).
As to claims 24 and 25, it is generally well known that runflat inserts commonly have thickness values on the order of 5mm-15mm, as shown for example by Suzuki (Paragraph 38) and such values are seen to satisfy the claimed quantitative relationships.
Regarding claims 26-28, runflat insert 7 is positioned axially inside carcass 4 and while Nizawa fails to expressly depict an innerliner, it is well recognized that an innerliner represents a fundamental tire component designed to eliminate airflow into the tire structure (see Suzuki- Paragraph 8). Also, the general disclosure of a carcass would be well recognized as suggesting the use of at least 1 carcass layer that is wrapped around or anchored to respective beads (see Suzuki-Paragraph 8).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16, 17, and 19-30 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
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 January 26, 2026