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 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamontia (US 2010/0108231) and further in view of Herrington (US 10,357,989), Houraiya (US 10,737,656), and Rosenbrien (US 2023/0340706).
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). More particularly, 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).
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.
Conclusion
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 June 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights