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.
Claim(s) 1-18, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 3803174 (newly cited) and further in view of Saito (US 5,445,203, newly cited), JP 7200680 (of record), and JP 4170821 (of record).
JP ‘174 is broadly directed to a tire construction designed to reduce noise. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to manufacture any number of tire constructions, including those that constitute “a high load capacity tire”.
With respect to the specific makeup of the tire in JP ‘174, Figures 1 and 2 depict a single carcass ply 6, a bead filler or apex 8, a bead core 5, a chafer 13, a sidewall layer defined by sidewall body 3 and a clinch 14, and a belt 7. It is evident from Figure 2 that chafer 13 is present on an axially inside of said carcass ply, along a rim J, and on an axially outside of a carcass turnup portion 6B while directly contacting said apex.
JP ‘174 further states that a carcass turnup end is located at height Hc as small as 0.30 times a height H that corresponds with a maximum tire section width. It is well recognized that height H is commonly on order of 0.5 times an overall tire section height, such that a carcass turnup end would be located at a height approximately equal to 0.15 times an overall tire section height.
With further respect to claim 1, the tire of JP ‘174 includes a conventional belt assembly. Figure 1 of JP ‘174 simply depicts a belt assembly width as being less than a tire section width- there is no discussion, though, in regards to the exact width of the belt assembly in relation to the tire section width (claimed ratio BW/SW). In any event, it is extremely well known and conventional to form belt assemblies with widths that are between, for example, 0.6 and 1.0 times a tire section width. Saito, for example, is directed to similar tire constructions having a ratio between the belt width and tire section width of approximately 0.75 (Table 1). These examples evidence the general order of ratios between the belt width and the tire section width. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the belt width of Maiocchi with common widths in relation to the tire section width absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Given an aspect ratio of 65% in JP ‘174 (exemplary tire design of 195/65R15) and a common ratio BW/SW (e.g. 0.75- Table 1), the claims require an average sidewall rubber thickness between approximately 4.02 mm and 6.02 mm at heights between 20 mm and 30 mm. Thes values are consistent with the general order of thickness dimensions commonly associated with sidewall rubber layers adjacent a bead portion. JP ‘680, for example, teaches a sidewall rubber thickness Tsw that is preferably between 2.5 mm and 6.5 mm. JP ‘821 similarly teaches a rubber thickness t that is preferably at least 5 mm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the tire of JP ‘174 in a manner that satisfies formulas (1) and (2) since the disclosed aspect ratio and a ratio between the belt width and the tire section width require a sidewall rubber thickness that is consistent with that which is conventionally used in tire constructions. It is further noted that Applicant has not provided any comparative examples or inventive to potentially provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a tire that satisfies formulas (1) and (2).
Regarding claim 2, an exemplary tire section height in Maiocchi is approximately 127 mm. As detailed above, a carcass turnup end would be located at a height as small as 0.15 times a tire section- this corresponds with carcass turnup height of approximately 19 mm.
With respect to claims 3, 6, 12, 13, 18, and 19, see the modified figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
875
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The carcass turnup portion 6B is depicted as being inclined at a small acute angle in relation to the radial direction of the tire and such is consistent with the claimed inclination angles. It is emphasized that the tire construction of JP ‘174, in terms of the inclination of the carcass turnup portion, appears to be substantially the same as that depicted by Applicant and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed invention.
As to claims 4, 15, and 18, JP ‘174 teaches belt inclination angles between 10 and 35 degrees (Paragraph 23).
Regarding claims 7, 14, 16, and 20, the tire of JP ‘174 includes a single carcass ply 6.
With respect to claim 8, as detailed above, Saito teaches a plurality of tire designs in which the claimed ratio falls between 0.65 and 1.00 as is consistent with conventional tire constructions.
As to claims 9 and 20, the tire of JP ‘174 includes a sidewall 3 and a clinch 14.
With respect to claims 10 and 20, a maximum thickness of clinch 14 is present in a region slightly radially beyond a rim flange height (at a height slightly above Ht) and such appears to be within the zone of JP ‘174 (20 mm – 30 mm). It is further noted that the claims are directed to absolute dimensions and it is well taken that tire dimensions vary as a function of the tire size and ultimately the intended use. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the tire construction of JP ‘174 in accordance to the claimed invention absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claims 11 and 17, the sidewall rubber layer of JP ‘174 (combination of sidewall body and clinch) has a decreasing width when moving in a radially inward direction.
As to claim 21, chafer 13 directly contacts rim J and is positioned such that a carcass main body 6A is between said chafer and an axially innermost point of the bead. Additionally, a tire aspect ratio of 65% is exemplary in JP ‘174- one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use additional aspect ratios as it is extremely well known that tire disclosures are not limited to a single aspect ratio. The use of an aspect ratio of 55% is on the same general order as that in the exemplary tire of JP ‘174, further suggesting that one would have found it obvious to for the tire of JP ‘174 in accordance to the claimed invention. Additionally, when using an aspect ratio of 55%, the parameter B does not change significantly from that when the aspect ratio is 65%. Thus, the modified tire of JP ‘174 would be expected to have a thickness between 4 mm and 6 mm in a zone between radial heights as set forth by the claims (this is particularly the case in view of the disclosures by JP ‘680 and JP ‘821) .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18, 20, and 21 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
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.
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 2, 2026