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) 1-5, 8-13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 6946720 (of record) and further in view of Ikeda (EP 1,201,414, of record), Hata (JP 2020-93691, newly cited), and Motogami (JP 2006-366161, newly cited).
As best depicted in Figure 1, JP ‘720 is directed to a motorcycle tire construction comprising a carcass 6, a bead core 5, an innerliner 10, a tread 2, a bead filler 8, and side portions 8, wherein a lower end of said side portions are curved. JP ‘720 further states that a center tread radius R1 is preferably as small as 60 mm (corresponds with claimed r3) and side tread radii R2 are at least 1.2 times R1 (and thus at least 72 mm- corresponds with claimed r4).
With further respect to claim 1, it is emphasized that the claims as currently drafted are directed to a tire construction, as opposed to a wheel assembly including a tire and a rim. Thus, a claim requirement that involves said rim fails to further define the structure eof the claimed tire article. Additionally, it is well taken that tire constructions are not limited to a single rim design. Thus, the tire of JP ‘720 has the capability of being mounted on a rim such that the upper portion or claimed side profile having a linear contour occupies at least 90% of a length between a tread outermost end and a radially outermost location of contact between said rim and said tire.
Additionally, regarding claim 1, while JP ‘720 is devoid of an insulation rubber layer, it is well known to include rubber layers (sometimes referred to as tie rubber layers or insulation rubber layers) between the innerliner and the carcass to prevent separation or delamination between the innerliner and the carcass, as shown for example by Ikeda (Paragraph 23). Ikeda, which is directed to motorcycle tire constructions, includes isolation rubber layer Gin between carcass 6 and innerliner Gil for the aforementioned benefits (Paragraph 10). More particularly, said insulation rubber includes a radially outer end in a crown region and a radially inner end in a bead region. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include insulation rubbers in the tire of JP ‘720 for the benefits detailed above.
Lastly, regarding the shape of the upper region of the side portions in JP ‘720, the figures of JP ‘720 generally depict a substantially flat contour having a radius of curvature that is substantially smaller than that of the lower region of the side portions. Hata is provided to evidence the slight curvature that is commonly associated with upper sidewall regions of motorcycle tires (emphasis on Figure 2) and Motogami is provided to evidence the general order of curvatures associated with highly curved regions of lower side portions (radius R2 is disclosed as being equal to or greater than 10 mm and such fully encompasses the claimed range between 10 mm and 17 mm). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the disclosure of JP ‘720 as including a highly curved lower sidewall region and a lightly curved upper sidewall region and in view of Motogami, the claimed radii of curvature in respective regions appear to be consistent with those commonly used in tire constructions. Again, JP ‘720 and Hata specifically teach upper sidewall regions having a greater radius of curvature as compared to lower sidewall regions and the broad ranges of the claimed invention appear to be consistent with those commonly used in the tire industry (Motogami does in fact discuss radii of curvature as high as 100 mm). Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed curvatures. Table 1, for example, is completely silent with respect to any r2 values and thus it is unclear what, if any, realized benefits are associated with r2 values. Additionally, a singular comparison between Reference 2 (r1=50 mm) and Example 2 (r2=58 mm) fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for values between 55 mm and 300 mm, it being further noted that additional factors, such as L1>L2, appear to significantly affect the properties (any realized benefits might be present when L1>L2 independent of r1 and r2).
Regarding claim 2, as noted above, r3 is preferably as small as 60 mmm.
With respect to claim 3, as noted above, r4 is at least 1.2 times r3, suggesting values of at least 72 mm.
As to claims 4 and 5, a first end of Gin is located in the tread/crown region.
With respect to claim 8, the claims define an extremely broad range of loss tangent values that are consistent with those associated with rubber compositions as defined in Paragraph 36 and demonstrating the disclosed modulus and hardness.
Regarding claim 9, Ikeda teaches JID hardness values between 40 and 65 (Paragraph 34).
As to claims 10 and 18, the claimed elongation at breaks are consistent with those conventionally associated with a majority of tire rubber compositions. It is further noted that the disclosed modulus and hardness values (by Ikeda) are similarly consistent with a majority of tire rubber compositions.
With respect to claim 11, when r3=60 mm, r4 is at least 72 mm and thus a difference in radii is at least 12 mm.
As to claims 12 and 13, Ikeda teaches an overlap LW between 0.2 and 0.5 times a belt width BW (Paragraph 23). When modifying the motorcycle tire of JP ‘720, the claimed relationship between belt layer 7 and the insulation rubber would be present (based on motorcycle tire curvature).
4. Claim(s) 1-3, 6-11, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misaki (JP 2023-94365, of record) and further in view of JP ‘720, Hata, Motogami, and Honbo (JP 2001-206027, of record).
Misaki is directed to a tire construction designed for motorcycles (among other vehicles) and including standard or fundamental components, including a carcass 6, belt layers 7, tread 2, sidewall 3, bead core 5, innerliner 8, and bead filler 10. It is further noted that while Figure 1 fails to depict a motorcycle tire, it is extremely well known and conventional to form motorcycles with highly curved tread portions (relatively small radius of curvature) and sidewalls with flat or small curvatures. JP ‘720 and Hata provide examples of common motorcycle designs in which a sidewall is defined by an upper region having a large radius of curvature and a curved lower portion having a small radius of curvature. Additionally, it is emphasized that the claims as currently drafted are directed to a tire construction, as opposed to a wheel assembly including a tire and a rim. Thus, a claim requirement that involves said rim fails to further define the structure eof the claimed tire article. Additionally, it is well taken that tire constructions are not limited to a single rim design. Thus, the tires of JP ‘720 and Hata have the capability of being mounted on a rim such that the upper portion or claimed side profile having a linear contour occupies at least 90% of a length between a tread outermost end and a radially outermost location of contact between said rim and said tire.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the motorcycle tire of Misaki with conventional contours, including a substantially flat or slightly curved portion in an upper sidewall region.
Motogami is further provided to evidence the general order of radii of curvature associated with lower and upper sidewall regions. More particularly, Motogami teaches a lower sidewall region having a radius of at least 10 mm and such fully encompasses the claimed range between 10 mm and 17 mm. Additionally, given that a radius of curvature in an upper sidewall region of JP ‘720 and Hata are considerably greater than that of the lower sidewall region, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the upper sidewall region with a radius of curvature that falls within the broad range of the claimed invention.
Misaki further states that, while not depicted, the tire may include common bead reinforcing layers and chafers. In such an instance, though, the tire of Misaki is devoid of insulation rubber layers.
Honbo is similarly directed to a tire construction including a bead reinforcing layer and a chafer. In such an instance, Honbo teaches the inclusion of a deformation absorbing rubber layer (claimed insulation rubber) between the rubber chafer and the carcass or bead reinforcing layer in order to eliminate separation or delamination between the rubber chafer and the carcass or bead reinforcing layer. As depicted in Figures 3 and 5-7, said insulation rubber is arranged between an innerliner (reference character 1 corresponds with innermost surface of innerliner) and carcass 4. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include an insulation rubber in the motorcycle tire of Misaki, as taught by Honbo, for the benefits detailed above. It is further noted that the benefits of reduced separation/delamination would be desired in a tire having a rubber chafer.
Regarding claim 2, as noted above, r3 is preferably as small as 60 mmm.
With respect to claim 3, as noted above, r4 is at least 1.2 times r3, suggesting values of at least 72 mm.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Figure 3, for example, depicts the claimed arrangement.
With respect to claims 8 and 9, the isolation rubber layer of Honbo has a JIS hardness between 55 and 73. Additionally, the claims define an extremely broad range of loss tangent values that are consistent with those associated with rubber compositions having the aforementioned hardness and having mechanical properties intermediate that of the chafer and the topping rubber of the carcass or bead reinforcing layer (as taught by Honbo). It is emphasized that the claimed range essentially encompasses a majority of tire rubber compositions.
Regarding claim 9, Honbo teaches JID hardness values between 40 and 65 (Paragraph 34).
As to claims 10 and 18, the claimed elongation at breaks are consistent with those conventionally associated with a majority of tire rubber compositions. It is further noted that the disclosed hardness values (by Honbo) are similarly consistent with a majority of tire rubber compositions.
With respect to claim 11, when r3=60 mm, r4 is at least 72 mm and thus a difference in radii is at least 12 mm.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, it is noted that the innermost end of the sidewall portion is defined in relation to the rim and as detailed above, it is well taken that a tire is not limited to a single rim design. Given that the figures of Honbo depict a wide variety of arrangements for the outer end of the outer portion of the isolation rubber layer, it reasons that the modified tire of Misaki has the capability of being mounted on a rim and satisfy the claimed quantitative relationship.
As to claims 16, 17, 19, and 20, see Figure 3 of Honbo. With specific respect to claim 17, a radial separation between 5 mm and 30 mm is consistent with the general order of radial spacings and the general order of tire dimensions (e.g. tire section height of motorcycles). It is further noted that tire carcass plies are not limited to a single location for the turnup end, further suggesting tire constructions that satisfy the broad range of the claimed invention. Lastly, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed radial spacing.
Response to Arguments
5. 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.
Applicant argues that JP ‘720 does not disclose a radius r1 between 55mm and 300 mm in an upper side region and a radius r2 between 10 mm and 17 mm in a sub profile or lower side region. JP ‘720 and Hata do in fact generally depict motorcycle tire designs in which larger radii of curvature are present in an upper side region, as compared to a lower side region. In terms of actually radii of curvature values, Motogami has been provided to evidence the common use of radii of curvature of at least 10 mm in a lower side portion and such fully encompasses the claimed range. It is further noted that Applicant has not provided comparative examples in which the radius of curvature is less than 10 mm or greater than 17 mm (would be required to establish a criticlaity of the claimed range).
As to Misaki, the depicted tire is not a motorcycle tire and thus the contours in the figures are not associated with motorcycle tires. JP ‘720 and Hata evidence the contours of well-known and conventional motorcycle tires. These references have been addressed above in relation to radii of curvatures r1 and r2.
Applicant also alleges that the claimed dimensions exhibit surprising advantages. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Table 1 fails to include r2 and thus, there is no clear indication as to how r2 affect the rigid impression and the vibration absorbing performance. Second, the best results are obtained in Example 1. This is the only example having L1>L2 (not a claimed feature in the independent claim) and as such, any realized benefits might simply be a function of using such a ratio (benefits could potentially be independent of r1 and r2). It is suggested that Applicant provide additional experimentation that clearly attributes any realized benefits to the claimed features.
Conclusion
6. 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 November 7, 2025