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) 1-3, 8-15, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoemaker (EP 0323895, of record) and further in view of Yonetsu (EP 2487052, newly cited).
Shoemaker is directed to a tire construction having an aspect ratio between 40 and 45 (Page 3, Lines 3+). In such an instance, though, the tire of Shoemaker is devoid of a protector on at least one buttress portion.
Yonetsu is similarly directed to a tire constriction and teaches the inclusion of conductive strips or protectors 12 to provide a conductive path between the ground contacting portion and the rim (eliminates buildup of static electricity). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include conductive strips in the tire of Shoemaker for the benefits detailed above. In such an instance, said strips do in fact extend radially inward from a tread end E.
Lastly, regarding claim 1, the claims are directed to a tire construction that is “mountable and usable on a rim”. This language refers to the intended use of the claimed tire and as such, fails to further define the structure of the claimed tire article. As such, the rim diameter and ratio of the rim diameter to the cross sectional width of the tire are separate from structural limitations associated with the claimed tire article.
With respect to claim 2, see Figure 1.
Regarding claim 3, it is well recognized that conductive are conventionally provided on a first and second tire side regions.
As to claim 8, Shoemaker teaches the inclusion of at least one carcass ply (Page 2, Lines 25+).
Regarding claims 9, 10, 12-14, and 18, carcass plies conventionally include turnup portions having any number of common heights (usually disclosed in terms of a range of values). Additionally, carcass turnup ends are conventionally staggered from one another in order to eliminate the buildup of stresses. One of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to form the tire of Shoemaker with first and second carcass plies having the claimed arrangement and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for said arrangement. Also, given that the conductive strips or protectors extend to a tread end E, it reasons that the carcass turnup ends of Shoemaker would be radially inward of the protector (an arrangement where at least some of the protector is radially beyond a carcass turnup end is seen to satisfy the claimed invention).
With respect to claims 11 and 19, Shoemaker teaches an aspect ratio of 40%-45%, a ratio between aspect ratio and rim diameter is between 1.8 and 2.8, and a ratio between rim diameter and rim width is between 2.5 and 3.5 (Page 2, Lines 60+). The totality of these teachings suggests tire construction having the claimed outer diameter and cross-sectional width, it being further noted that the claims are directed to a tire as opposed to an assembly including a tire and a rim (tire of Shoemaker has the capability of being mounted on any number of rims so as to satisfy the claimed quantitative relationships).
4. Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoemaker and further in view of Ferigo (US 9,987,886, newly cited).
Shoemaker is directed to a tire construction having an aspect ratio between 40 and 45 (Page 3, Lines 3+). In such an instance, though, the tire of Shoemaker is devoid of a protector on at least one buttress portion.
Ferigo is similarly directed to a tire constriction and teaches the inclusion of protectors 8 that extend radially inward from a tread end A and provide sidewall damage resistance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include protectors in the tire of Shoemaker for the benefits detailed above.
Lastly, regarding claim 1, the claims are directed to a tire construction that is “mountable and usable on a rim”. This language refers to the intended use of the claimed tire and as such, fails to further define the structure of the claimed tire article. As such, the rim diameter and ratio of the rim diameter to the cross sectional width of the tire are separate from structural limitations associated with the claimed tire article.
With respect to claims 2, 3, and 15, see Figure 1.
As to claims 4, 6, 7, 16, and 17, the general disclosure of Ferigo suggests a ratio that is greater than 100% and such fully encompasses the claimed invention. Additionally, a height or thickness is preferably between 3 mm and 10 mm (Column 4, Lines 19+). This suggests that a total width of the tire, in relation to the tire sectional width, can have a variety of ratios greater than 100% and such is seen to encompass the claimed range (overall width including protectors would be between 6 and 20 mm greater than a tire section width excluding the protectors). It is further noted that Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed ratio.
Regarding claim 5, an inner end of protectors 8 can be slightly radially inward of R1 that corresponds with a maximum section width of the tire (Column 3, Lines 25+-27). Given that a maximum section width is commonly arranged at a height that is greater than 0.5 times a tire section height, it reasons that a ratio DH/SH can be slightly less than 0.5. Additionally, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed ratio.
With respect to claim 6, when using common tread hardness values, it reasons that the modified tire of Shoemaker would satisfy the claimed invention (given that Ferigo teaches DH/SH and PH consistent with that consistent with the claimed invention).
As to claim 8, Shoemaker teaches the inclusion of at least one carcass ply (Page 2, Lines 25+).
Regarding claims 9, 10, 12-14, and 18, carcass plies conventionally include turnup portions having any number of common heights (usually disclosed in terms of a range of values). Additionally, carcass turnup ends are conventionally staggered from one another in order to eliminate the buildup of stresses. One of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to form the tire of Shoemaker with first and second carcass plies having the claimed arrangement and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for said arrangement.
With respect to claims 11 and 19, Shoemaker teaches an aspect ratio of 40%-45%, a ratio between aspect ratio and rim diameter is between 1.8 and 2.8, and a ratio between rim diameter and rim width is between 2.5 and 3.5 (Page 2, Lines 60+). The totality of these teachings suggests tire construction having the claimed outer diameter and cross-sectional width, it being further noted that the claims are directed to a tire as opposed to an assembly including a tire and a rim (tire of Shoemaker has the capability of being mounted on any number of rims so as to satisfy the claimed quantitative relationships).
5. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoemaker and further in view of (a) Suzuki (EP 1125700, newly cited) and (b) JP 4685281 (newly cited) and/or Matsuyama (JP 2012-6449, newly cited).
Shoemaker is directed to a tire construction having an aspect ratio between 40 and 45 (Page 3, Lines 3+). In such an instance, though, the tire of Shoemaker is devoid of a protector on at least one buttress portion.
Suzuki is similarly directed to a tire constriction and teaches the inclusion of a side protector 11 to provide improved tire durability against foreign objects (Paragraph 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a protector in the tire of Shoemaker for the benefits detailed above. In such an instance, Suzuki states that said protector can extend from the axial end B of the tread rubber and such would be recognized as corresponding with a tread end as claimed.
Also, regarding claim 20, the claims are directed to a tire construction that is “mountable and usable on a rim”. This language refers to the intended use of the claimed tire and as such, fails to further define the structure of the claimed tire article. As such, the rim diameter and ratio of the rim diameter to the cross sectional width of the tire are separate from structural limitations associated with the claimed tire article.
Lastly, regarding claim 20, while Suzuki fails to depict the presence of a plateau region having a smaller thickness, it is well known to form such regions in similar protector assemblies to provide optimized durability and reinforcement, as shown for example by JP ‘281 (Figures 1 and 2 and Abstract) and/or Matsuyama (Figures 1 and 2). It is emphasized that the presence of reduced thickness portions results in a plateau portion having a smaller thickness than a maximum thickness region. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include plateau portions in the modified tire of Shoemaker for the benefits detailed above.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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
7. 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.
7. 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 October 31, 2025