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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of implied phraseology (i.e., “To provide a motorcycle tire…”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “toroid manner” in line 2 should be written as –toroidal manner— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “not only the belt cord has a 1 x N structure, but also an elongation” in line 5 should be written as –the belt cord has a 1 x N structure, and wherein an elongation— for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “motorcycle tire” in line 1 of each respective claim should be written as –motorcycle rear tire— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “10 to 25/25 mm” in line 2 should be written as –10 cords/25 mm to 25 cords/25 mm— for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “10 to 25/25 mm” in line 2 should be written as –10 cords/25 mm to 25 cords/25 mm— for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isaka (US 20130160915) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Isaka discloses a motorcycle rear tire comprising a spiral belt (Fig. 1: 10) in which a carcass (Fig. 1: 6) striding between paired bead portions (Fig. 1: 4) and extending in a toroidal manner serves as a skeleton and a belt cord (Figs. 1, 2a, 2b: 11) is formed outside in a tire radial direction of the carcass with being wound in a spiral manner in a tire circumferential direction ([0026], [0028]- [0030], [0032]-[0033], [0071]), wherein the belt cord has a 1 x N structure (Figs. 2a, 2b: 11) ([0037]-[0038]).
Isaka further discloses an elongation in application of a load of 50 N on the belt cord is from 0.5% to 1.5% ([0014]), which overlaps with the claimed range of more than 0.3% and less than 0.7%. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for an elongation in application of a load of 50 N on the belt cord.
The examiner notes that the claim is directed to a motorcycle rear tire comprising the belt cord. Thereby, the limitation “an elongation in application of a load of 50 N on the belt cord taken out from the tire” is a recitation of intended use that does not require any additional structure to the tire disclosed by Isaka that differentiates it from the tire disclosed by Isaka. The recitation does not result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art because Isaka discloses a tire comprising a spiral belt including a steel belt cord having the claimed structure and an elongation at 50N overlapping with the claimed range, which is capable of having the claimed elongation in application of a load of 50 N on the belt cord when taken out from the tire. Accordingly, the elongation of the belt cord at a particular load when it is cut out from the tire is not considered to be relevant to the claimed motorcycle rear tire structure.
Regarding claim 2, Isaka further discloses the belt cord is formed by twisting N steel filaments (Figs. 2a, 2b: 11) ([0038]), and a twisting pitch length (Fig. 2a: P1) in the belt cord (Fig. 2a: 11) is not more than 13 mm and not less than 5 mm ([0044]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 5.2 to 8.8 mm. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the twisting pitch of the belt cord.
The examiner notes that the claim is directed to a motorcycle rear tire comprising the belt cord. Thereby, the limitation “a twisting pitch in the belt cord not covered with rubber before vulcanization” is a recitation of intended use that does not require any additional structure to the tire disclosed by Isaka that differentiates it from the tire disclosed by Isaka. The recitation does not result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art because Isaka discloses a tire comprising a spiral belt including a steel belt cord having the claimed structure and twist pitch overlapping with the claimed range, which is capable of having the claimed twisting pitch in the belt cord when it is not covered with rubber before vulcanization. Accordingly, the twisting pitch in the belt cord not covered with rubber before vulcanization is not considered to be relevant to the claimed motorcycle rear tire structure.
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Isaka further discloses a groove width (Fig. 1: W3) in a range of from about 3.0 mm to about 5.5 mm ([0035]), and illustrates about 3 cords (Fig. 1: 11) per the groove width (Fig. 1: W3). While Isaka does not state whether the figure is drawn to scale, one of ordinary skill in the art would have nonetheless found it obvious that the cord count would be reasonably in the range of 3 cords per groove width as it is an illustrated example embodiment. Accordingly, a cord count in the belt cord in the spiral belt is about 3 cords per 3 mm to 3 cords per 5.5 mm (i.e., 25 cords per 25 mm to 13.63 cords per 25 mm), which overlaps with the claimed range of 10 cords per 25 mm to 25 cords per 25 mm. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a cord count in the belt cord in the spiral belt.
Claim(s) 4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isaka (US 20130160915) (of record) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Ishiyama et al. (US 20090159164).
Regarding claims 4 and 6-7, Isaka does not expressly recite a belt width of the spiral belt, as measured along a tire surface.
Ishiyama also discloses a motorcycle rear tire ([0158], [0191]), comprising a spiral belt (Fig. 1: 22) with twisted steel belt cords ([0027], [0119]-[0121]), wherein a belt width of the spiral belt measured along a tire surface (Fig. 1: SW) is 230 mm ([0127]), which falls within the claimed range of 100 mm to 240 mm. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a belt width of the spiral belt. Moreover, Isaka discloses an embodiment wherein the rear tire may be 180/55ZR17 ([0098]), and Ishiyama discloses a substantially similar embodiment wherein the rear tire may be 190/50ZR17 ([0158]). In other words, both references disclose examples that are substantially similar in overall size and will both fit 17 inch motorcycle wheel rims. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Isaka in order to provide a known belt width for the spiral belt as is generally known in the motorcycle rear tire art, as taught by Ishiyama.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isaka (US 20130160915) (of record) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and optionally further in view of Armellin et al. (US 20040069394).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Isaka discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 3 as discussed above.
Optionally, Armellin also discloses a motorcycle rear tire comprising a spiral belt (Fig. 3: 6) in which a carcass (Fig. 3: 3) striding between paired bead portions (Fig. 3: 10) and extending in a toroidal manner serves as a skeleton and a belt cord (Fig. 3: 7) is formed outside in a tire radial direction of the carcass with being wound in a spiral manner in a tire circumferential direction ([0087]), wherein the belt cord has a 1 x N structure (Fig. 1) ([0065]), and wherein a cord count in the belt cord in the spiral belt is a maximum of 10 cords per cm (i.e., a maximum of 25 cords per 25 mm) ([0046], [0055], [0057]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 10 cords per 25 mm to 25 cords per 25 mm. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a cord count in the belt cord. Armellin discloses such belt cords have not only a lower weight, but also, and unexpectedly, a higher safety factor due to the unforeseen breaking strength of the reinforcing cords ([0032]). Moreover, the performance in tires, particularly in those for two-wheeled vehicles, is improved, especially in respect of the "contact feeling" characteristic ([0033]). The preferable range of cord count for the belt cord takes part in providing such an advantageous structure. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to provide the cord count in the belt cord in the spiral belt of Isaka within the range taught by Armellin from the substantially similar motorcycle rear tire art for the advantages as discussed above.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isaka (US 20130160915) (of record) and optionally Armellin et al. (US 20040069394) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Ishiyama et al. (US 20090159164).
Regarding claim 7, Isaka does not expressly recite a belt width of the spiral belt, as measured along a tire surface.
Ishiyama also discloses a motorcycle rear tire ([0158], [0191]), comprising a spiral belt (Fig. 1: 22) with twisted steel belt cords ([0027], [0119]-[0121]), wherein a belt width of the spiral belt measured along a tire surface (Fig. 1: SW) is 230 mm ([0127]), which falls within the claimed range of 100 mm to 240 mm. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a belt width of the spiral belt. Moreover, Isaka discloses an embodiment wherein the rear tire may be 180/55ZR17 ([0098]), and Ishiyama discloses a substantially similar embodiment wherein the rear tire may be 190/50ZR17 ([0158]). In other words, both references disclose examples that are substantially similar in overall size and will both fit 17 inch motorcycle wheel rims. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Isaka in order to provide a known belt width for the spiral belt as is generally known in the motorcycle rear tire art, as taught by Ishiyama.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEDEF PAQUETTE whose telephone number is (571) 272-5031. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST - 4:00 PM EST.
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 on (571) 270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. The fax phone number for the examiner is (571) 273-5031.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights