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
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 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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maiocchi (FR 2111886, see machine translation) and any one of Takagi (US 20020195186) (of record) and/or Shinmura (US 5111865) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Maiocchi discloses a tire having a bead portion (Fig. 1), the tire comprising: a bead bundle (Fig. 1: 2) positioned in the bead portion of the tire; a bead filler (Fig. 1: 8, 9) having a lower end portion coupled to an upper surface portion of the bead bundle (Fig. 1: 2) and to carcass 1) coupled to an inner surface of the carcass and extending to a bottom surface of the carcass; a rim cushion rubber (Fig. 1: 6) directly coupled to a lower inner surface of the inner liner and extending from the lower inner surface of the inner liner to an upper portion of the bead filler (Fig. 1: 8, 9), the rim cushion rubber (Fig. 1: 6) surrounding the bottom surface of the carcass (Fig. 1: 1) and one edge of the carcass at one end portion of the carcass; and a side wall rubber (Fig. 1: see sidewall rubber on axially most outer side of tire adjacent to carcass 1, rubber 8, and rubber 6) coupled to an upper portion of the carcass (Fig. 1: 1) and extending to the rim cushion rubber (Fig. 1: 6), thereby being coupled to an upper end portion of the bead filler (Fig. 1: 8, 9) and the rim cushion rubber (Fig. 1: 6), wherein the bead filler comprises: a bead filler rubber (Fig. 1: 9) coupled to the upper surface portion of the bead bundle (Fig. 1: 2); and a profile-type rubber (Fig. 1: 8) coupled to the bead filler rubber (Fig. 1: 9), and wherein an upper end of the rim cushion rubber is in contact with the profile-type rubber (Fig. 1: see how tip of rubber 6 touches/is in contact with rubber 8).
Although Maiocchi discloses that the turn-up of the carcass ply (Fig. 1: 3) extends in the bead zone, in a position between the neutral axis and the flange of the associated rim (Fig. 1: 4) ([0036]-[0037], [0061]), there is no disclosure as to the advantages or disadvantages of providing the turn-up in said position. Moreover, the neutral axis is disclosed as being axially between the carcass plies (Fig. 1: 1) and strip of metallic cord fabric (Fig. 1: 5) ([0036]), which may be below the rim flange. Accordingly, this is merely a preferable example and does not explicitly limit the disclosure to such a limitation. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. It is also well settled that an applied reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one of the ordinary skill in the art, including not only preferred embodiments, but less preferred and even non-preferred. See MPEP 2123.
Takagi discloses a tire comprising a carcass (Fig. 6: 25) with a turn-up end (Fig. 6: 25b, L1) that is that is below a rim flange (Fig. 6: 40a, H) ([0082], [0097]). The bead portion supported by the wheel rim experiences small dynamic strains, and since the carcass edge susceptible to concentration of stress is disposed within the bead portion having small dynamic strains, the tire is improved in strength and durability ([0097]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Maiocchi in order to provide the one edge of the carcass below a rim flange of the tire as taught by Takagi for the advantages as discussed above.
Additionally or alternatively, Shimura discloses a tire comprising a carcass with a turn-up end (Fig. 2: 5, 5a, P) that is below a rim flange (Fig. 15, A) (Col. 3 lines 55-58). Since each height of the bead filler ply, carcass and chafer from the bead bottom is smaller than that of the rim flange, the edge portions thereof have small compressive stress even when subjected to a large deformation, and thereby there is little possibility that the edge will be separated (Col. 2 lines 25-30). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Maiocchi in order to provide the one edge of the carcass below a rim flange of the tire as taught by Shinmura for the advantages as discussed above.
The limitation “for improving transverse rigidity and durability” is a recitation of intended use that does not require any additional structure to the tire or additional steps that differentiate them from the steps disclosed by modified Okabe. The recitation does not result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art because modified Maiocchi discloses a tire having a bead portion comprising the claimed structure which is capable of improving transverse rigidity and durability.
Regarding claim 2, Maiocchi further discloses an upper end portion of the bead filler rubber (Fig. 1: 9) and a lower end portion of the profile-type rubber (Fig. 1: 8) have first rubber coupling surfaces that are coupled each other in an inclined and staggered manner when viewed in a cross-section of the tire.
Regarding claim 3, Maiocchi further discloses the upper end portion of the bead filler rubber (Fig. 1: 9) is coupled to an inner surface of the rim cushion rubber (Fig. 1: 6), and a lower portion of the bead filler rubber (Fig. 1: 9) is coupled to the carcass (Fig. 1: 1) to support the one edge of the carcass (Fig. 1: 3).
Regarding claim 4, Maiocchi further discloses an upper end portion of the rim cushion rubber (Fig. 1: 6) and a lower end portion of the side wall rubber have second rubber coupling surfaces that are coupled in an inclined and staggered manner when viewed in the cross-section of the tire (Fig. 1: see where sidewall rubber contacts 6 on radially outer surface).
Regarding claim 5, Maiocchi further discloses one surface of an upper end portion of the profile-type rubber (Fig. 1: 8) is coupled to the carcass (Fig. 1: 8) and another surface of the upper end portion of the profile-type rubber is coupled to a boundary area of the second rubber coupling surfaces (Fig. 1: see where 8 contacts 6 and sidewall rubber).
Regarding claims 6-9, Maiocchi further discloses that the details of construction of the invention may be varied as necessary ([0089]). Moreover, the dimensions of the bead portion components are variables that affect tire performance, such as rigidity, durability, fit on the rim, etc. ([0014], [0016], [0029], [0046]: describing the manner in which bead portions and their components conventionally affect tire durability, buckling, flexibility/rigidity, etc., and describing the invention and its advantages in structure for rigidity, durability, tensile stresses, sliding, etc.). In other words, the dimensions of the bead portion and its components are considered to be result effective variables that affect tire performance, and thus adjusting such dimensions would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization. While modified Maiocchi does not expressly disclose the height Y1 from the upper end of the profile-type rubber to the upper end of the bead filler rubber is set to 10 mm to 55 mm, the height Y2 from the upper end of the bead filler rubber to the upper end of the bead bundle is set to 15 mm to 35 mm, the height Y3 of the edge of the carcass on the bead bundle is set to 5 mm to 15 mm, the height Y4 from the lower end of the profile-type rubber to the upper end of the bead filler rubber is set to 7 mm to 30 mm, the height Y1+Y2 from the upper end of the profile-type rubber to the upper surface portion of the bead bundle to which the bead filler rubber is coupled is set to 36% to 50% of a tire cross-section height, the profile-type rubber is provided with a thickness of 0.01 mm to 5.5 mm, the thickness of the profile-type rubber is 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm at a lower side 5 mm away from the upper end of the profile-type rubber and is 1.2 mm to 2.8 mm at a lower side 10 mm away from the upper end of the profile-type rubber, the thickness of the rim cushion rubber measured at the lower end of the side wall rubber is 4.8 mm to 9 mm, and the thickness of the rim cushion rubber measured at the edge of the carcass is 2 mm to 5 mm, it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for height Y1, height Y2, height Y3, height Y4, height Y1+Y2, the profile-type rubber thickness, and the rim cushion rubber thickness. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). In the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the aforementioned values in order to improve tire performance as suggested by Maiocchi.
Regarding claim 10, Maiocchi further discloses the profile-type rubber (Fig. 1: 8) has lower hardness than the bead filler rubber (Fig. 1: 9) ([0069]).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe (US 20150239300) and any one of Takagi (US 20020195186) (of record) and/or Shinmura (US 5111865) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Okabe discloses a tire (Fig. 1: 12) having a bead portion (Fig. 1: 18) ([0014]), the tire comprising: a bead bundle (Fig. 1: 30) positioned in the bead portion of the tire; a bead filler (Fig. 1: 32, 34, 36) having a lower end portion coupled to an upper surface portion of the bead bundle (Fig. 1: 30) and
Although Okabe illustrates that the one edge of the carcass at the one end portion of the carcass (Fig. 1: 38e) is positioned above and near to the bead bundle (Fig. 1: 30) and is configured to be disposed above a rim flange of the tire, there is no disclosure as to the advantages or disadvantages of providing the turn-up in said position. Accordingly, this is merely a preferable example and does not explicitly limit the disclosure to such a limitation. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. It is also well settled that an applied reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one of the ordinary skill in the art, including not only preferred embodiments, but less preferred and even non-preferred. See MPEP 2123.
Takagi discloses a tire comprising a carcass (Fig. 6: 25) with a turn-up end (Fig. 6: 25b, L1) that is that is below a rim flange (Fig. 6: 40a, H) ([0082], [0097]). The bead portion supported by the wheel rim experiences small dynamic strains, and since the carcass edge susceptible to concentration of stress is disposed within the bead portion having small dynamic strains, the tire is improved in strength and durability ([0097]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Okabe in order to provide the one edge of the carcass below a rim flange of the tire as taught by Takagi for the advantages as discussed above.
Additionally or alternatively, Shimura discloses a tire comprising a carcass with a turn-up end (Fig. 2: 5, 5a, P) that is below a rim flange (Fig. 15, A) (Col. 3 lines 55-58). Since each height of the bead filler ply, carcass and chafer from the bead bottom is smaller than that of the rim flange, the edge portions thereof have small compressive stress even when subjected to a large deformation, and thereby there is little possibility that the edge will be separated (Col. 2 lines 25-30). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Okabe in order to provide the one edge of the carcass below a rim flange of the tire as taught by Shinmura for the advantages as discussed above.
The limitation “for improving transverse rigidity and durability” is a recitation of intended use that does not require any additional structure to the tire or additional steps that differentiate them from the steps disclosed by modified Okabe. The recitation does not result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art because modified Okabe discloses a tire having a bead portion comprising the claimed structure which is capable of improving transverse rigidity and durability.
Regarding claim 2, Okabe further discloses an upper end portion of the bead filler rubber (Fig. 1: 32, 34) and a lower end portion of the profile-type rubber (Fig. 1: 36) have first rubber coupling surfaces that are coupled each other in an inclined and staggered manner when viewed in a cross-section of the tire.
Regarding claim 4, Okabe further discloses an upper end portion of the rim cushion rubber (Fig. 1: 16) and a lower end portion of the side wall rubber (Fig. 1: 14) have second rubber coupling surfaces that are coupled in an inclined and staggered manner when viewed in the cross-section of the tire.
Regarding claim 5, Okabe further discloses one surface of an upper end portion of the profile-type rubber (Fig. 1: 36) is coupled to the carcass (Fig. 1: 20) and another surface of the upper end portion of the profile-type rubber is coupled to a boundary area of the second rubber coupling surfaces (Fig. 1: boundary between 14 and 16).
Regarding claims 6-8, Okabe further discloses that the disclosed bead portion of the tire provides a short filler structure, and thereby light weight is achieved and durability of the bead is improved, as well as improved ply turn-up loose resistance and fuel economy ([0062]-[0064], [0072]). In other words, the dimensions of the bead portion and its components are considered to be result effective variables that affect tire performance, and thus adjusting such dimensions would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization. While modified Okabe does not expressly disclose the height Y1 from the upper end of the profile-type rubber to the upper end of the bead filler rubber is set to 10 mm to 55 mm, the height Y2 from the upper end of the bead filler rubber to the upper end of the bead bundle is set to 15 mm to 35 mm, the height Y3 of the edge of the carcass on the bead bundle is set to 5 mm to 15 mm, the height Y4 from the lower end of the profile-type rubber to the upper end of the bead filler rubber is set to 7 mm to 30 mm, the height Y1+Y2 from the upper end of the profile-type rubber to the upper surface portion of the bead bundle to which the bead filler rubber is coupled is set to 36% to 50% of a tire cross-section height, the profile-type rubber is provided with a thickness of 0.01 mm to 5.5 mm, and the thickness of the profile-type rubber is 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm at a lower side 5 mm away from the upper end of the profile-type rubber and is 1.2 mm to 2.8 mm at a lower side 10 mm away from the upper end of the profile-type rubber, it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for height Y1, height Y2, height Y3, height Y4, height Y1+Y2, and the profile-type rubber thickness. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). In the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the aforementioned values in order to improve tire performance as suggested by Okabe.
Regarding claim 9, while Okabe does not expressly recite a thickness of the rim cushion rubber measured at the lower end portion of the side wall rubber is 4.8 mm to 9 mm and another thickness of the rim cushion rubber measured at the one edge of the carcass is 2 mm to 5 mm, Okabe does disclose other location thicknesses (Fig. 2: Tb, Tc) for the rim cushion rubber (Fig. 2: 16) and states that varying the ratio of thicknesses to one another affects contact pressure, movement of the bead, and deformation of the tire ([0042]-[0043]). In other words, the thicknesses of the rim cushion at various locations are considered to be result effective variables that will affect the aforementioned characteristics. While Okabe does not explicitly disclose the value for a thickness of the rim cushion rubber measured at the lower end portion of the side wall rubber or another thickness of the rim cushion rubber measured at the one edge of the carcass, it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for said thicknesses. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). In the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize a thickness of the rim cushion rubber measured at the lower end portion of the side wall rubber and another thickness of the rim cushion rubber measured at the one edge of the carcass in order to increase contact pressure, suppress bead movement, and decrease tire deformation.
Regarding claim 10, Okabe further discloses the profile-type rubber (Fig. 1: 36) has lower hardness than the bead filler rubber (Fig. 1: 34) ([0020]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner notes that a different Maiocchi reference is relied upon in the detailed rejection above, wherein it is illustrated that the profile rubber and rim cushion rubber are in contact.
However, as both Maiocchi references have similar illustrations, upon which Applicant has based the Remarks, the examiner has provided a response below in an effort to promote compact prosecution and address any overlapping similarities between the prior art. On page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that “FIG. 1 of Maiocchi … fails to show the alleged rim cushion rubber 6 directly coupled to a lower inner surface of the inner liner. Maoiocchi also fails to disclose a continuous structure of the alleged rim cushion rubber 6 where the alleged rim cushion rubber 6 extends from the lower inner surface of the inner liner to an upper portion 8 of the alleged bead filler 7.”
The examiner notes that “a lower inner surface of the inner liner” is broad and does not expressly recite in which direction or boundary the inner surface of the inner liner lies, or how else it is disposed and positioned in the tire. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the inner liner in Maiocchi goes from the inner side of the tire, around the bead, until reaching the rim cushion rubber 6. The inner surface of the inner liner is considered to be that radially inner surface, which is in contact with rim cushion 6.
The examiner also notes that “an upper portion of the bead filler” is broad and does not expressly recite in which direction or boundary the upper portion of the bead filler lies, or how else it is disposed and positioned in the tire. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the rim cushion rubber goes from being in contact with the inner liner and up to a portion of the bead filler which is on the upper half of the bead filler, and thereby is considered to be an upper portion of the bead filler.
It is further noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., a continuous structure of the rim cushion rubber) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEDEF PAQUETTE whose telephone number is (571) 272-5031. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST - 4:00 PM EST.
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 on (571) 270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. The fax phone number for the examiner is (571) 273-5031.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights