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.
3. Claim(s) 16-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 4064688 (of record) and further in view of Peric (US 2012/0211310, of record).
As best depicted in Figures 2 and 25, Peric is directed to a cord construction formed with two multi strand layers. More particularly, (a) an internal layer 7 is formed with a single multi strand element having 7 strands and (b) an external layer is formed with 6 multi strand elements 8, wherein each multi strand element includes 7 strands. Additionally, respective strands are defined by an innermost layer of 1 steel wire and an outermost layer of 6 steel wires (Figure 25). In such an instance, though, JP ‘688 is silent with respect to an endurance criterion and a structural elongation.
It appears, though, that the claimed criterion and elongation result from using a cord construction formed with two multi strand layers (as opposed to a 1xN construction), wherein (a) respective wires have a diameter in the range of 0.12 mm-0.26 mm and (b) said cord has a diameter in the range of 3 mm-9mm (see Table 1). As detailed above, the cord of JP ‘688 is in fact formed with two multi strand layers. In terms of the wire diameter and the cord diameter, the aforementioned ranges are consistent with those that are commonly associated with cord construction used in a wide variety of industries, including elevator assemblies and tire assemblies, as shown for example by Peric (Paragraph 7). It is further noted that the wires in JP ‘688 have a tensile strength of approximately 2746 MPa (280 kgf/mm2) and a carbon content of 0.80% or more (Paragraph 18). These properties are substantially the same as those disclosed by Applicant as contributing to the claimed properties (Paragraphs 105 and 106 in Applicant’s original specification). Thus, it appears that the cord construction of JP ‘688, as modified by Peric, would demonstrate an endurance criterion and a structural elongation in accordance to the claimed invention (lack of evidence that additional features or processing result in the claimed properties).
Lastly, regarding claim 16, the lone comparative example is a multi-strand cord (single layer of strands- 4 strands twisted together) and such does not constitute the closest prior art of record. As detailed above, the cord of JP ‘688 includes a first layer defined by multiple strands (core) and a second layer defined by multiple strands (sheath).
Regarding claim 17, 19, and 20, as detailed above, the claimed properties (elongation and criterion) appear to result from (a) a specific construction including two multi strand layers, (b) wire diameters on the order of 0.12 mm-0.26 mm, (c) cord diameters on the order of 3 mm-9mm, (d) wire tensile strengths between 2,500 and 3,100 MPa, and (e) carbon contents of at least 0.82 weight %. These features are taught by JP ‘688 as modified by Peric and as such, it reasons that the claimed properties would be satisfied.
With respect to claim 21, given the extreme similarities between the construction of JP ‘688 and that of the claimed invention, it reasons that the product of the sum of cross sections of metal of all the metal wires and the steel density in JP ‘6588 would mimic that required by the broad range of the claimed invention.
As to claims 22 and 23, Peric recognizes the common range of wire diameters and cord diameters in a wide variety of industries, including elevators and tires.
Regarding claim 24, Y= 6 in the exemplary constructions of JP ‘688.
As to claims 25 and 26, a fair reading of JP ‘688 suggests that the depicted cord constructions are exemplary. Additionally, as evidenced by Peric, similar cord constructions having utility in elevators and tires commonly have diameters between 3 mm and 20 mm. Given the wide range of cord diameters and the fact that the depicted cords are example, it reasons that additional cord construction would be within the scope of JP ‘688. For example, a smaller number of strands in each multi strand element would correspond with smaller cord diameters and a larger number of strands in each multi strand element would correspond with larger cord constructions. It is emphasized that the basic cord construction in Figures 2 and 25 includes first and second multi strand layers in an analogous manner to the claimed invention- the particular selection of K or L values between 2 and 4 remains consistent with the basic construction detailed above (and would result in smaller cord diameters, as compared with the exemplary depictions of JP ‘688).
With respect to claims 27 and 28, each strand in the cord of JP ‘688 has two layers.
As to claims 29-31, the cord construction of JP ‘688 includes a polymer compound 10. Furthermore, while JP ‘688 simply discloses an elevator application, Peric recognizes the known use of larger cord constructions in a wide variety of industries, including elevators and tires. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the large cord construction of JP ‘688 in tires given that similar large cord constructions are commonly disclosed as having suitability in elevators and tires.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed January 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that if the Examiner’s argument is true (regarding the similarity of the modified cord and that of the claimed invention and such resulting in the claimed endurance criterion and structural elongation), then Pironneau would have an endurance criterion less than 3,000 N-m/g (based on the same rationale) and such is not the case. More particularly, Applicant states that the Examiner’s reasoning demonstrably does not lead one skilled in the art to the endurance criterion inequality as recited in independent claim 16 and similarly recited in independent claim 18. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As stated in the previous communication and maintained in the rejection above, a primary contribution to the claimed endurance criterion and structural elongation appears to be the presence of multiple multi strand layers as opposed to a 1xN cord construction. The statement in Paragraph 3 of the Non-Final Rejection was as follows:
It appears, though, that the claimed criterion and elongation result from using a cord construction formed with two multi strand layers (as opposed to a 1xN construction)…..
This position is supported by Applicant’s original disclosure in which improvements in endurance criterion are desired over the 1xN cord construction of Pironneau and such is achieved by the inventive cord including multiple multi strand layers (Paragraphs 3-6). Thus, contrary to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner’s reasoning is supported in regards to smaller endurance criterion values in cords formed with multiple multi strand layers, as compared with 1xN cord constructions (such as that in Pironneau).
Applicant also contends that the endurance criterion depends on not only the diameters of the metal threads and the cord, but also Msteel and M (which is a product of steel density and a sum of all the thread cross-sections). First, Msteel is disclosed as being a constant value in claim 1 (200,000 MPa). Second, Rho is disclosed as being a constant value in claim 1 (Rho=7.79 g/cm3). Lastly, the sum of all the thread cross-sections in the modified tire of JP’688 appears to be extremely similar to that of the claimed invention since the cord construction includes first and second layers formed with multi strands in an analogous manner to the claimed invention (corresponds with actual number of threads) and the thread diameters are extremely similar to those required by the claimed invention (claimed range between 0.15 mm and 0.50 mm is fully encompassed by the range of Peric). It is emphasized that an exemplary cord construction of JP ‘688 includes a single multi strand core element (X=1 as claimed) surrounded by 6 multi strand sheath elements (Y=6 as claimed)- this is directly analogous to the claimed cord construction in which X=1 and Y=6 (see claim 24). Given an extremely similar number of threads (as a result of multiple multi strand layers) and an extremely similar thread diameter (in view of Peric), it reasons that M (linear mass of the extracted cord) in the modified tire of JP ‘688 would be extremely similar to that present in the Applicant’s inventive cord and thus result in a quantitative relationship that falls below 3,000 N-m/g.
Applicant further argues that the Examiner’s statement of common knowledge is an undue assumption based on the actual text in Paragraph 7 of Peric. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Peric is provided as evidence to support the Examiner’s statement of common knowledge- it is not a singular reference from which a broad, general statement is made.
In summary, the modified tire cord of JP ‘688 is extremely similar to that of the claimed invention in terms of thread materials, thread properties, and cord construction (multiple layers of multi strand elements) and as such, it reasons that the claimed endurance criterion and structural elongation would be present in the modified cord construction of JP ‘688. It is emphasized that the original specification describes prior art cord constructions having a 1xN arrangement and states that improvement in endurance criterion is desirable- such improvement appears to primarily be a function of using two layers of multi strand elements, as is the case in the cord of JP ‘688.
Conclusion
5. 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.
6. 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 January 30, 2026