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.
Claim(s) 16-17, 19-23, 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 Yoshimi (WO 2005/053971, of record) and the Admitted Prior Art.
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. Additionally, the tire of Nizawa includes a tread 1 formed with a plurality of grooves or cuts 10. 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. top of corrugations are located beneath rib portions 11 and first and second bottoms of corrugations are located beneath cuts 10 that delineate said rib portion), (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.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, as detailed above, a top of corrugations are located beneath rib portions 11 and first and second bottoms of corrugations are located beneath cuts 10 that delineate said rib portion.
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 claim 30, said working belt layers and said hooping layers are formed with corrugations.
4. 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 Amendment
5. The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed July 28, 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 16, 17, 19-28, and 30 based upon Nizawa as set forth in the last Office action because:
Applicant argues that Yoshimi’s ratio of B/A is indicated to be based on the outermost reinforcing layer, which is normally comprised of 0 degree textile cords that have minimal effect on generation of cornering forces and torques. It is emphasized that the outermost reinforcing layer or cap layer 9 in Nizawa has an identical width to a widest working crown layer (radially innermost working crown layer 8) in Nizawa. Thus, when modifying the tire of Nizawa, B/A taught by Yoshimi would be directly analogous to a relationship between (a) an overlap of the runflat insert and the radially innermost working crown layer AND (b) an overlap between the runflat insert and the cap layer. See the modified figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
732
888
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is further emphasized that Nizawa generally depicts a tire construction in which an overlap amount (claimed as ENG) between a radially innermost working crown layer and a runflat insert is extremely small and the disclosure of Yoshimi evidences the quantitative values associated with such small amounts.
Applicant also states that it was surprising that reduced ENG combined with corrugated/wavy summit reinforcing plies improved handling while also improving or maintaining mass, rolling resistance, comfort/ride, and run-flat capability. Looking at Table 2, though, a non-inventive example identified as Case 3 actually demonstrates superior F(1) property as compared to an inventive example identified as Case 1.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed July 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the figures of Nizawa were not said to be drawn to scale and would not render a relationship between the widths. The figures, though, can be used to provide a general relationship between widths. It is clearly evident that the runflat insert does not extend, for example, to a tire equatorial plane. The figures do in fact suggest that an overlapped amount is relatively small and Yoshimi has been provided to specifically evidence quantitative values associated with such small overlapped amounts.
Applicant argues that Yoshimi does not map onto the ratio discussed in the present application. The Applicant respectfully disagrees. See the modified figure above of Nizawa in which an overlapped amount between the runflat insert and each of a radially innermost working crown layer and a hooping layer is the same.
Applicant contends that there is no reason provided to assume that the width of the tire in Yoshimi is 200 mm. It is emphasized that the tire section width in the exemplary tire of Nizawa is 245 mm and a width of the crown reinforcing structure is smaller than said tire section width. Thus, a width of the crown reinforcing structure would in fact be expected to be on the order of 200 mm.
As to the modulus of the runflat insert, the Examine previously pointed to Paragraph 2 in Applicant’s original specification.
Applicant argues that runflat inserts do not necessarily commonly have thickness values of 5 mm to 15 mm. Suzuki evidences conventional thickness values associated with runflat inserts.
Applicant contends that the Examiner fails to provide any support in regards to an innerliner being a fundamental tire component. The Examiner did in fact point to Suzuki to evidence the conventional use of an innerliner (modern tubeless tires are recognized as including a conventional innerliner to maintain air within the tire cavity).
Applicant argues that it is often the case where a tire has only one carcass layer. It is extremely well known and conventional that tires are conventionally described in terms of at least one layer for respective tire components, including the carcass. This is evidenced by Suzuki. There is absolutely nothing in Nizawa that suggests the exclusive use of a single carcass ply.
Regarding B/A in Yoshimi, see the modified figure of Nizawa above. It is emphasized that an overlapped amount or width between a runflat insert and each of a radially innermost working crown layer (radially innermost layer 8) and a hopping crown layer is the same. When modifying such a tire with Yoshimi, B/A would be applicable to both of these overlapped amounts or widths in Nizawa.
Applicant argues that the Office Action does not provide an adequate motivation to combine Yoshimi with Nizawa. It is emphasized that Nizawa specifically depicts an extremely small overlapped with or amount (in relation to an overall belt width, for example). The overlapped width is clearly depicted as being greater than 0 mm and significantly smaller than a belt width. Yoshimi is simply provided to correlate small overlapped widths with quantitative values. Again, there is an express disclosure by Nizawa (in the form of the figures) that an overlapped width or amount is small and Yoshimi provides evidences that the claimed range of overlapped widths are in fact consistent with runflat tire constructions. Additionally, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed overlapped widths (see analysis of Table 2 above).
Applicant contends that evidence has been provided that demonstrates unexpected results from the claimed combination. It is emphasized that Nizawa is specifically directed to a runflat tire construction comprising a corrugated belt assembly and a runflat insert, wherein an overlapped width or amount between said insert and said belt assembly is extremely small. The general depiction in Nizawa is consistent with the claimed range of values for ENG. For example, a tire section width is 245 mm and a half section width is on the order of 123 mm. It is clearly evident from the figures of Nizawa that an overlapped width is considerably smaller than a half section width. Again, Yoshimi is simply provided to evidence the quantitative values associated with runflat tires having small overlapped amounts. The disclosure of Yoshimi is consistent with the general depiction of Nizawa that an overlapped width is considerably smaller than a half section width.
Applicant argues that the declaration evidence further supports that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected the claimed combination of the recited corrugated crown layer and ENG relationship to provide acceptable performance. This argument is not entirely understood. Nizawa specifically teaches a runflat tire construction having a corrugated crown layer and a small overlapped width or amount (claimed ENG). The fact that it is unclear of the figures of Nizawa are working drawings does not render the claims non-obvious. The figures can fairly be used to indicate than an overlapped width or amount in the tire of Nizawa is small and considerably smaller than a half tire section width, for example. The figures are not being used for exact measurements but rather for general relationships. Also, as detailed above, a non-inventive example actually demonstrates superior F(1).
Conclusion
7. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
8. 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 August 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights