Allowable Subject Matter
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed September 3, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-6 remain pending in the application. The objections to the Specification and Drawings previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed July 14, 2025 have been overcome with applicant’s corrections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0193347 (Yoshimura) in view of US 2011/0108177 (Zarak).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshimura discloses a method for producing a repaired pneumatic tire, comprising a carcass (3) extending in a toroidal shape between a pair of bead portions (8) and a belt (5) consisting of one or more layers disposed on an outer side in the tire radial direction of a crown portion of the carcass (see Figure 9, paragraphs 0087-0091), wherein the method includes:
A placement process of placing a repair patch (32), comprising a reinforcement layer consisting of a plurality of reinforcement cords arranged in parallel with each other and surrounded by unvulcanized rubber on an area to be repaired (see paragraph 0166); and
A vulcanization process vulcanizing a tire with the repair patch placed thereon (see paragraph 0136).
Yoshimura does not specifically state that in the repaired tire, an outer end in the tire radial direction of the repair patch is located on an inner side in the tire width direction than an end of a maximum width belt layer that has the largest width in the tire width direction among the one or more belt layers and an outer side in the tire width direction than a circumferential main groove located on outermost in the tire width direction, and an inner end in the tire radial direction of the repair patch is located on an outer side in the tire radial direction than a tire maximum width position; however, the exact location of a tire repair would depend upon where the damaged area is located. As demonstrated in the Zarak reference, it is known to place repair patches (15) on tires in shoulder regions where an outer side in the tire width direction than a circumferential main groove located on outermost in the tire width direction and positioned at an outer side in the tire radial direction than a tire maximum width position (see Figure 1). While the Zarak Figure does not show a belt layer, when providing a patch as shown by Zarak to the Yoshimura tire, there would be overlap between the outer end of the repair patch and the inner side in the tire width direction of an end of a maximum width belt layer that has the largest width in the tire width direction among one or more belt layers, since Yoshimura shows the widest belt layer is approximately aligned with the tread end (see Yoshimura Figure 9), and the inner end of the patch is located on an outer side in the tire radial direction than a maximum width position (see annotated Zarak Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
575
545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Yoshimura also discloses the method further includes, before the vulcanization process,
A tread rubber attachment process attaching unvulcanized tread rubber to the outer side in the tire radial direction of the belt (see paragraph 0163).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Yoshimura also discloses that a mold is used in the vulcanization process (see paragraph 0018).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being US 2019/0193347 (Yoshimura) in view of US 2011/0108177 (Zarak) further in view of WO 2019/116612 (Oda et al.).
Yoshimura in view of Zarak discloses a tire as discussed above.
Regarding claims 4 and 6, the references do not disclose the temperature of the mold during vulcanization or a pressure of hot water in a vulcanizing bladder. However, Oda discloses a method for tire vulcanizing where a vulcanization mold is heated to a temperature of 160-190 degrees C, which overlaps the claimed range of 130-170 degrees C, and a pressure of hot water (steam) in a vulcanizing bladder has an pressure of 0.01-2.0 MPa or less, which overlaps the claimed range of 1.0-2.5 MPa (see lines 171-172 and 363-380 machine translation). Oda teaches that utilizing such vulcanization parameters improves vulcanization efficiency (see lines 364-369 machine translation), and the quality of the tire obtained after vulcanization can be improved (see lines 384-387 machine translation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to perform the vulcanization of Yoshimura at the temperature and pressure as taught by Oda, in order to improve vulcanization efficiency and improve the quality of the tire.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 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
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENDY L BOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-7466. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-6:30.
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.
/WENDY L BOSS/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749