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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 13, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-14, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto (EP 0318128, newly cited) and further in view of Matsumaru (JP 7-279067, of record) and Maeda (US 4,047,552, of record).
Fukumoto is directed to a heavy duty tire construction comprising a first belt layer 12 formed with cords inclined between 10 and 70 degrees and a second belt layer 13 formed with cords inclined between 10 and 70 degrees (Page 3, Lines 31+), wherein a cord to cord distance between cords in belt layers 12 and 13 is greater in respective shoulder regions, as compared to a center region (distance γ is 1.5 mm-4.5 mm; Page 3, Lines 50+). In such an instance, though, Fukumoto fails to specifically describe a belt cord diameter between 0.62 mm and an overall thickness of 1.00 mm or less.
A wide variety of cord diameters are conventionally used in tire belt layers, including those required by the claimed invention. This is particularly the case since a wide number of parameters can be varied to obtain the desired amount of reinforcement. For example, larger cord densities can be used with small cord diameters. Matsumaru is provided to specifically evidence the wide variety of cord constructions and dimensions used to form cord reinforced tire components, such as belt layers (Paragraph 3). More particularly, Matsumaru teaches a wide variety of conventional 1xN cord constructions (N= # of filaments) in which the filament diameter varies between 0.1 mm and 0.45 mm (Paragraphs 6 and 8). Matsumaru also teaches exemplary cord constructions having diameters of 0.828 mm and 0.856 mm (Paragraph 20). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of conventional steel cord constructions, including those having a diameter between 0.62 mm and 1.2 mm, in the tire of Fukumoto absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Maeda, which is similarly directed to a heavy duty tire construction, is further provided to evidence a general relationship between cord diameters and belt thicknesses (Column 3, Lines 24+). More particularly, Maeda states that a ratio D (cord to cord distance)/d (cord diameter) is between 0.2 and 0.4 to provide a desired circumferential rigidity. Given that an overall belt thickness is d+D and D/d varies between 0.2 and 0.4, the claims are satisfied when a cord diameter is less than approximately 0.83 mm (when D/d is 0.2) or less than approximately 0.71 mm (when D/d is 0.4). These cord diameters are consistent with those that are conventionally used in tire belt layers (and consistent with those disclosed by Matsumaru) and would result in belt layers having a thickness less than or equal to 1.00 mm (smaller thickness would necessarily contribute to reduced tire weight). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the belt layers of Fukumoto with a thickness less than or equal to 1.00 mm absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Maeda also states that a rubber at respective shoulder portions is between 1.5 and 7.5 times a ratio D/d (disclosed as being 0.2-0.4) (Column 5, Lines 25+). Thus, a rubber thickness can be as small as 0.3 mm and as large as 3 mm at respective shoulder portions and such is seen to encompass the claimed ratio between cord to cord distances in the shoulder portion and the center portion (consistent with the disclosure of Fukumoto that a rubber thickness at respective shoulder portions is between 1.5 mm and 4.5 mm). It is emphasized that a cord to cord distance must vary between 0 mm and 0.38 mm based on a cord diameter being at least 0.62 mm and an overall belt thickness of 1.00 mm or less (in order to satisfy the claims). Thus, a multitude of rubber thicknesses disclosed by Maeda would result in a quantitative relationship in accordance to the claimed invention. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed invention.
Lastly, an axial extension of an end rubber positioned between said belt layers is larger than either the axial extension of the end rubber positioned inward or outward of the first belt layer and second belt layer, respectively (see Figure 1b).
Regarding claim 2, Figure 1b depicts a tire construction in which an axial extent of an end rubber positioned between belt layers is significantly larger than an axial extent of an end rubber positioned radially inside a first belt layer and an end rubber positioned radially outside a second belt layer (suggests a design that satisfies the claimed quantitative relationship).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, an interface-cord distance in respective belt layers would correspond to 0.5 times the distance D. This in turn would mean that the interface-cord distance is between 0.1 and 0.2 times a cord diameter. Given a cord diameter of 0.8 mm for example, an interface-cord distance in Maeda would fall between 0.08 mm and 0.16 mm and such substantially overlaps the claimed values. Additionally, given a cord diameter of 0.9 mm, an interface-cord distance in Maeda would fall between 0.09 mm and 0.18 mm. It is evident that a wide variety of embodiments taught by Maeda in view of Matsumaru would satisfy the broad range of the claimed invention and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed thickness values.
With respect to claims 4 and 14, as noted above, Matsumaru teaches a 1xN cord construction, wherein N is at least 3.
As to claim 5, the claimed cord loadings correspond with approximately 15 ends per inch-24 ends per inch and such values are consistent with those that are conventionally used in a wide variety of tire components, including belt layers.
Regarding claims 10, 16, and 20, the claimed grade of steel filaments is consistent with those that are conventionally used in tire working belt layers and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed grade of steel filaments. It is further noted that this position was set forth in the previous communication and remains unchallenged by Applicant and as such, said position constitutes Admitted Prior Art.
With respect to claims 11, 12, and 17, Figures 1a and 1b suggests that respective end rubbers can have first and second sides that have the same axial extent (Figure 1a) or different axial extents (Figure 1b). Given the extremely limited number of configurations, it reasons that a method in which both end rubbers have greater axial extents between the belt layers (as opposed to on sides distant from an interface between belt layers) would have been well within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art. It is emphasized that Figure 1b of Fukumoto specifically depicts a first end rubber that satisfies the claimed relationship- the particular use of a second end rubber that mimics such a configuration would have been obvious, especially in light of the fact that there are only 3 possible configurations (same axial extent, greater axial extent on an inside, or greater axial extent on an outside).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 10-14, 16-18, and 20 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
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 February 19, 2026