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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto (EP 0318128, of record) and further in view of Maeda (US 4,047,552, of record).
Fukumoto is directed to a heavy-duty tire construction (and associated method) 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+). The greater distance between cords is a function of including a plurality of end rubber layers at respective belt ends. In such an instance, though, Fukumoto fails to specifically describe (a) a specific quantitative relationship between cord-to-cord distances in a belt center and a belt end and (b) an overall belt layer thickness of 1.00 mm or less.
Regarding (a), the claimed ratio between 1.8 and 4.0 is consistent with that which is commonly associated with tires in which a greater cord-to-cord spacing is present at respective belt ends, as compared to a belt center. Maeda, for example, states that a cord-to-cord distance D at a center belt region is between 0.2 and 0.4 times a cord diameter and a cord-to-cord distance at respective belt ends is between 0.3 and 4 times a cord diameter. More particularly, these values correspond with a cord-to-cord distance at respective ends that is between 1.5 and 7.5 times a cord-to-cord distance at a belt center portion and such fully encompasses the claimed range. This arrangement is designed to prevent separation at belt ends (Column 5, Lines 25+). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the claimed ratio in the tire of Fukumoto for the benefits detailed above, it being emphasized that Fukumoto is directed to a tire construction in which a ratio is greater than 1.
With respect to (b), an overall belt thickness (as measured to the belt center in Maeda) is d+D. Given that D=(0.2-0.4)d, said belt thickness varies between 1.2d and 1.4d. In order to have a belt thickness equal to or less than 1 mm, a belt cord diameter must be less than approximately 0.83 mm. It is well recognized that cord diameters less than 0.83 mm are consistent with those that are conventionally used in tire belt layers. This position was set forth in the previous communication and remains unchallenged by Applicant- as such, it is taken to be Admitted Prior Art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of conventional belt cord diameters (and thus belt thickness values) in the tire of Fukumoto, as modified by Maeda, absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Lastly, regarding claim 11, Figures 1a and 1b of Fukumoto suggest that (a) a first end rubber associated with belt layer 12 can have first and second sides that have the same axial extent (Figure 1a) or different axial extents with a side located between belt layers 12 and 13 having a greater axial extension (Figure 1b) and (b) a second end rubber associated with belt layer 13 can have first and second sides that have the same axial extent (Figure 1b) or different axial extents with a side located between belt layers 12 and 13 having a greater axial extension (Figure 1a). It is emphasized that Figures 1a and 1b do in fact suggest the use of a first end rubber and a second end rubber in which greater axial extents are present between respective belt layers (as opposed to on opposing sides of the belt layers)- the specific manufacture of a single tire having both axial extents would have been obvious given the extremely limited number of possible configurations and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed arrangement (rubber would be expected to flow and completely occupy the space with all of the possible configurations). It is also noted that Figures 1a and 1b suggest that either the first end rubber or second rubber can be located closer to an equatorial plane or center of the tire.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11 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 contends that in Figure 1b of Fukumoto, an inner first rubber layer is provided closer to the center and such is opposite to the claimed configuration. It is noted, though, that Figure 1a specifically depicts a belt arrangement in which a second rubber that covers the second belt is provided closer to the center as required by the claimed invention. It is emphasized that Fukumoto suggests that either a first end rubber or a second end rubber can have an axially inner end that is closer to the tire center- the specific combination of a second end rubber that is closer to a tire center and a first and second end rubbers in which greater axial extents are located between respective belt layers, as opposed to inside and outside of said belt layers, would have been obvious given the general disclosure of Fukumoto and the extremely limited number of possible configurations.
Conclusion
5. 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.
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 May 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights