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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed November 5, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-13 and 20 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 3868573 (Yamaguchi et al.).
Yamaguchi disclose a pneumatic tire comprising a belt layer composed of three layers of belts disposed between a carcass ply (6) and a tread (2) (see Figures 4(a), 4(b)), each belt having a plurality of cords and a topping rubber covering the plurality of cords (see Figure 4(b)),
Wherein the belt layer includes:
A first belt (8A) stacked on an outer side of the carcass ply (6) in a tire radial direction (see Figures 4(a), 4(b));
A second belt (8B) stacked on an outer side of the first belt (8A) in the tire radial direction (see Figures 4(a), 4(b)); and
A third belt (15) stacked on an outer side of the second belt (8B) in the tire radial direction and stacked on an inner side of the tread in the tire radial direction (see Figure 4(a)),
Wherein the plurality of cords of the first belt (8A) are disposed outside, in the radial direction, a radial center of the first belt (see Figure 4(b)), and
Wherein the topping rubber of the first belt includes:
An outer portion disposed radially outside of the radial center in the tire radial direction and covering the plurality of cords (see Figure 4(b)); and
An inner portion disposed radially inside of the radial center in the tire radial direction and integrally formed with the outer portion, wherein the composition of the outer portion is the same as the composition of the inner portion (see Figure 4(b)).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0048172 (Tanada) in view of US 2024/0246362 (Catana et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Tanada discloses a pneumatic tire for heavy loads comprising a belt layer composed of three layers of belts (50b, 50c, 50d); and a rubber layer (50a, belt layer which includes topping rubber), (see paragraph 0032), the belt layer and the rubber layer being disposed between a carcass ply (10) and a tread (4) (see Figure 1, paragraph 0018), each belt having a plurality of cords and a topping rubber covering the plurality of cords (see paragraph 0032),
Wherein the rubber layer (50a) is stacked on an outer side of the carcass ply (10) in the tire radial direction (see Figure 1, paragraph 0032),
Wherein the belt layer includes:
A first belt (50b) stacked on an outer side of the rubber layer (50a) in the tire radial direction (see Figure 1, paragraph 0032);
A second belt (50c) stacked on an outer side of the first belt (50b) in the tire radial direction (see Figure 1, paragraph 0032); and
A third belt (50d) stacked on an outer side of the second belt (50c) in the tire radial direction and stacked on an inner side of the tread (4) in the tire radial direction (see Figure 1, paragraph 0032), and
A width of the rubber layer (50a) in the tire axial direction is within the range of less than 100% and greater than 50% of a width of the first belt (50b) in the tire axial direction (see Figure 1).
Tanada does not specifically state that a modulus of the rubber layer is the same as a modulus of the topping rubber of the first belt; however, paragraph 0032 discusses “a topping rubber”, which suggests all of the layers 50a-50d are coated with the same topping rubber. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the same topping rubber for layers 50a-50d due to this statement. Upon use of the same topping rubber for each of these layers would produce an embodiment where the modulus of the rubber layer is the same as a modulus of the topping rubber of the first belt as claimed.
Tanada also does not state the thickness of the rubber layer; however, in the same field of endeavor Catana discloses providing belt plies having a thickness from 0.10-2.00 mm (see paragraph 0005). Catana teaches that such a belt ply thickness helps to achieve the object of low weight and high durability tires (see paragraphs 0004-0005). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the rubber layer (essentially a first belt including topping rubber ) of Tanada with a thickness in the range of 0.10-2.00 mm in order to achieve low weight and high durability tires. Providing such a belt thickness in this range would produce an embodiment with a rubber layer that overlaps the claimed range of 1.5-2.0 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 2, Tanada also discloses that a cord angle of each belt is from 15 to 70 degrees (see paragraph 0032), encompasses the claimed ranges of 22 to 24 degrees and 19 to 21 degrees. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, while Tanada does not specifically state that a thickness of the first belt (50b) or a thickness of the second belt (50c) is the same as the thickness of the rubber layer (50a); however, this claimed relationship would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art since Figures 1 and 3 show that the thickness of these layers are the same. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
Claims 3, 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0048172 (Tanada) in view of US 2024/0246362 (Catana et al.) further in view of US 5,804,002 (Nakano).
Tanada in view of Catana disclose a tire as discussed above.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Tanada does not disclose the thickness of the third belt in relation to the thickness of the first belt or second belt; however in the same field of endeavor Nakano discloses a belt configuration for a truck or bus (heavy duty) where the thickness of the third (outer) belt is larger than a thickness of the first belt or a thickness of the second belt (see Figures 1 and 3; column 3, lines 10-22). Nakano teaches that such a configuration helps mitigate strain and decreases heat generation (see column 3, lines 17-22 and 30-39). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the belt of Tanada with a configuration where the third (outer) belt has a thickness that is larger than a thickness of the first or second belt, in order to mitigate strain and decrease heat generation, as taught by Nakano.
While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
Regarding claim 11, while Tanada does not specifically state that a thickness of the first belt (50b) or a thickness of the second belt (50c) is the same as the thickness of the rubber layer (50a); however, this claimed relationship would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art since Figures 1 and 3 show that the thickness of these layers are the same. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
Claims 5, 6, 8, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0048172 (Tanada) in view of US 2024/0246362 (Catana et al.) further in view of US 2015/0136296 (Kotoku et al).
Tanada in view of Catana discloses a tire as discussed above.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Tanada does not disclose the end count of the first, second or third belts; however, in the same field of endeavor Kotoku discloses a belt configuration for a heavy duty tire where the end count of the third (outer) belt is smaller than an end count of the first belt or an end count of the second belt (see paragraph 0073 where it is disclosed that the inner belts 142 and 143 have an end count of 20-25 strands/mm, and paragraph 0098 where it is disclosed that he outer belt 144 has an end count of 15-25 strands/mm, allowing for an embodiment where the outer belt end counter is smaller than the inner belt end count). Kotoku teaches that such a configuration provides appropriate strength and rigidity (see paragraphs 0073 and 0098). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the third (outer) belt of Tanada with a smaller end count than the first or second belt, in order to provide appropriate strength and rigidity to the heavy duty tire.
Regarding claim 8, modification of Tanada in view of Kotaku as discussed above teaches an embodiment is possible where the inner belts have an end count of 20 strands/mm, while the third (outer) belt has an end count of as few as 15 strands/mm, producing an embodiment where the third belt has 15/20 * 100% = 75% of the end count of the first belt or second belt, which is within the claimed range of 70-80%.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, while Tanada does not specifically state that a thickness of the first belt (50b) or a thickness of the second belt (50c) is the same as the thickness of the rubber layer (50a); however, this claimed relationship would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art since Figures 1 and 3 show that the thickness of these layers are the same. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0048172 (Tanada) in view of US 2024/0246362 (Catana et al.) further in view of US 5,804,002 (Nakano) further in view of US 2015/0136296 (Kotoku et al).
Tanada in view of Catana and Nakano discloses a tire as discussed above.
The references do not disclose the end count of the first, second or third belts; however, in the same field of endeavor Kotoku discloses a belt configuration for a heavy duty tire where the end count of the third (outer) belt is smaller than an end count of the first belt or an end count of the second belt (see paragraph 0073 where it is disclosed that the inner belts 142 and 143 have an end count of 20-25 strands/mm, and paragraph 0098 where it is disclosed that he outer belt 144 has an end count of 15-25 strands/mm, allowing for an embodiment where the outer belt end counter is smaller than the inner belt end count). Kotoku teaches that such a configuration provides appropriate strength and rigidity (see paragraphs 0073 and 0098). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the third (outer) belt of Tanada with a smaller end count than the first or second belt, in order to provide appropriate strength and rigidity to the heavy duty tire.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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 WENDY L BOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-7466. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-6:30.
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.
/WENDY L BOSS/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749