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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 11 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-10 and 12, drawn to a bicycle tire, classified in class 152, subclass 209.11.
II. Claim 11, drawn to a method of manufacturing a bicycle tire, classified in class 156, subclass 110.1.
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process, for example one in which the one or more ripstop fabrics are not coated with a polymer.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim11 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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) 1-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamontia (US 2010/0108231, of record) and further in view of Herrington (US 10,357,989, of record), Houraiya (US 10,737,656, of record), and Rosenbrien (US 2023/0340706, of record).
As best depicted in Figures 1-4, Lamontia is directed to a tire construction comprising a tread component 5 arranged radially outward of a base assembly or carcass structure (the combination of all elements separate from the tread constitute the claimed carcass structure). It is initially noted that the term “bicycle tire” fails to further define the structure of the claimed tire construction and as such, the tire of Lamontia can be broadly viewed as a “bicycle tire” (such language corresponds with the intended use of the tire rather than imparting specific structural limitations or characteristics). Additionally, reinforcing layers 6-9 constitute the claimed fabrics applied in the tire carcass. With further respect to said reinforcing layers, Lamontia teaches the use of a woven arrangement having any weave pattern, SUCH AS plain weave, crowfoot weave, basket weave, satin weave, twill weave, unbalanced weaves, AND THE LIKE (Paragraph 29). In this instance, though, Lamontia is silent with respect to a ripstop weave.
It is initially noted that Lamontia specifically directs one having ordinary skill in the art to use a woven structure and additionally, a woven structure that is different than those expressly disclosed in Paragraph 29. It is emphasized that the language “and the like” specifically encompasses woven arrangements that are in the same general class of the expressly disclosed woven arrangements. Herrington (Column 6, Lines 28+) describes the alternate use of plain weave, basket weave, satin weave, twill weave, and ripstop weave and Houraiya (Column 5, Lines 12+) describes the alternate use of a plain weave, a basket weave, a grid weave or ripstop weave, and a twill weave. As such, one having ordinary skill I the art would have found it obvious to use a ripstop weave in the woven assembly of Lamontia since it is widely recognized as constituting a woven pattern that falls under the classification of “and the like” as taught by Lamontia, there being a reasonable expectation of success. Rosenbrien is additionally cited to evidence the well-recognized benefits of improved resistance to tearing and ripping (hence the name ripstop) and high strength to weight ratio associated with ripstop fabrics (Paragraphs 20 and 21). Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a ripstop weave for the fabric of Lamontia (Applicant has not provided experimentation that compares inventive fabrics formed with ripstop weaves and non-inventive fabrics formed with additional woven arrangements). It is emphasized that a ripstop fabric is nothing more than a woven fabric in which multiple kinds of cords or yarns are used in the warp and weft directions and such is consistent with the general disclosure of Lamontia to include a woven fabric (benefits of improved resistance to tearing and ripping and high strength to weight ratio would be applicable to a woven fabric in a tire construction of Lamontia as it designed to provide cut resistance).
Regarding claims 2-5, Figure 4 depicts a tire construction in which a fabric 9 extends over a central wall of the carcass (beneath the tread) and respective sidewall regions.
With respect to claim 6, the entirety of the tire construction separate from the tread constitutes the claimed “carcass” and fabric 6-9 in Figures 1-4 are embedded in a thickness of said carcass (tire body).
As to claim 7, the claims are directed to a tire construction and limitations pertaining to the method of manufacture fail to further define the structure of the claimed tire article. Additionally, vulcanization is the predominant manner in which tires are processed (forms a cured tire article having the necessary rigidity).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the tire of Lamontia includes a pair of bead cores 2 disposed in respective bead regions (defined by inner ends of the sidewall that are mounted to a corresponding bead seat of a rim).
Regarding claim 10, the claimed materials are consistent with those that are conventionally used in a wide variety of woven fabrics used in the tire industry. Lamontia (Paragraphs 52-57) describes a wide variety of fabric materials, including several of those listed in the claims.
With respect to claim 12, Figure 1 depicts a tire construction in which woven fabrics 6 are embedded in the carcass thickness and said fabrics are not arranged in the tread and are not arranged between the tread and the carcass. Also, a crosshatch pattern would result from a woven fabric formed with warp reinforcing elements and weft reinforcing elements.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed September 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that nothing in Lamontia is concerned with a bicycle tire. It is emphasized that the term “bicycle tire” corresponds with an intended use of the tire and fails to impart any specific structural properties or characteristics. Thus, the tire of Lamontia, which is necessarily “configured” to be mounted on a rim, can be fairly characterized as a “bicycle tire”.
Applicant contends that a residual phrase closing a list of alternatives is not an instruction to depart from the list and it identifies no particular structure to depart to. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The term “and the like” clearly suggests that additional woven structures are within the scope of the invention. More particularly, Herrington and Houraiya suggests the alternative use of wide variety of woven fabrics, including the exemplary woven fabrics of Lamontia and ripstop fabrics. It is emphasized that ripstop fabrics are nothing more than woven fabrics including different types of reinforcing cords in each of the warp and weft directions. Thus, a ripstop fabric is consistent with the general teaching of Lamontia to form the layers as woven structures. Additionally, Rosenbrien evidences the known benefits of ripstop fabrics and said benefits would be directedly applicable to the woven structure of Lamontia that provides cut resistance.
Applicant argues that Lamontia requires a woven fabric having a free area of 18 to 65 percent and a proposed modification of Lamontia to include a ripstop fabric would change the principle operation of Lamontia. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Lamontia (Paragraph 31) includes the following language:
In one embodiment, the textile fabric and the sidewall component have a free area of from 18 to 65 percent.
Thus, there is no requirement that the free area is between 18 and 65 percent. Second, the inclusion of different types of reinforcing elements in respective warp and weft directions does not preclude the formation of woven fabrics with fill areas between 18 and 65 percent.
Applicant contends that the fact that a weave has known merits in other articles is not a reason to introduce it into the particular fabric of Lamontia. As detailed above, the benefits of improved resistance to tearing and ripping and high strength to weight ratio would be applicable to a woven fabric in a tire construction of Lamontia as it designed to provide cut resistance. The disclosure of cut resistance suggests that the woven fabric is designed to provide an anti-puncture property and the aforementioned benefits would be highly desirable in an application designed to provide an anti-puncture property. Additionally, reduced weight, while providing suitable reinforcement, is well recognized as being highly desirable in essentially all tire constructions.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art seeking to make a bicycle tire carcass lighter while keeping it resistant to tearing would have had no occasion to consult a payment card, an air bag, or a camping tent. It is initially noted that air bags and tires are commonly disclosed in the same disclosures as pertains to a wide variety of structural features or characteristics. Furthermore, it is emphasized that a ripstop fabric is nothing more than a woven fabric in which different types of reinforcing elements are included in each of the warp and weft directions. The totality of the prior art recognizes that ripstop fabrics provide certain benefits and said benefits would be recognized as being highly desirable in a woven tire component designed to provide cut resistance. Again, the tire component of Lamontia includes a woven fabric structure- the specific use of different cords in each of the warp and weft directions (corresponds with ripstop fabric) in Lamontia would have been expected to provide improved resistance to tearing and ripping (hence the name ripstop) and high strength to weight ratio. Again, the question is whether or not it would have been obvious to modify the woven fabric of Lamontia in accordance to the claimed invention. In this instance, the prior art specifically identifies benefits of using ripstop woven fabrics, as opposed to basic woven structures, and there is a reasonable expectation of success when using such a fabric as the woven fabric in Lamontia.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hannigan (US 2003/0111128) recognizes the use of processing yarns and product reinforcing yarns in both the warp and weft directions to impart a bi-modulus property to a woven fabric have applicability in the tire industry (Abstract and Paragraphs 51 and 60).
7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 September 22, 2026
