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 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’773 (JP 2020-104773) in view of JP’563 (JP 2012-250563).
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 6, JP’773 teaches a pneumatic tire comprising belt ply containing steel cords (abstract). The structure of the steel cord 20 includes a core 11 having m = 2-4 filaments and a sheath 12 having n = 5-7 filaments (page 2 of the machine translation). This teaching includes the same structure disclosed by instant application’s Table 1 cord structure of 2+7.
While JP’773 is silent to the claimed “bending stiffness”, the tire of JP’773 including a belt ply having the claimed bending stiffness would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since JP’773 teaches a bending hardness per steel cord is 800 cN or less, preferably 100 to 800 cN, more preferably 100 to 500 cN, and particularly preferably 100 to 200 cN, page 2 of the machine translation (claim 4) and JP’563 teaches a tire comprising a belt layer with steel cords having an end count of 35 cords/50 mm or more, preferably 35-60 cords/50 mm, which is about 18 cords/ 25.4 mm to 30 cords/25.4 mm to obtain the necessary circumferential tensile rigidity and ensure the minimum necessary steel occupation ratio (page 4 of the machine translation) (claim 6).
100 cN x 0.01 N/cN x 20 cords/25.4 mm = 20 N/25.4 mm
While JP’773 is silent to the claimed “circumferential strength”, the tire of JP’773 including a belt having the claimed circumferential strength would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because JP’773 teaches a cord strength is 3600 N/mm2 or more, preferably 3600-4000 N/mm2, more preferably 3800-4000 N/mm2, the cord diameter being preferably 0.90 mm or less and more preferably 0.4 to 0.6 mm, page 2 of the machine translation wherein TABLE 1 teaches exemplary cross sectional areas of the steel cord includes 0.16 and 0.19 mm2, and the belt plies 6A and 6b are formed by inclining the steel cords at an angle of for example, 15 to 35 degrees with respect to the tire circumferential direction (page 2 of the machine translation) and JP’563 teaches a tire comprising a belt layer reinforced with steel cords having an end count of 35 cords/50 mm or more, preferably 35-60 cords/50 mm, which is about 18 cords/ 25.4 mm to 30 cords/25.4 mm to obtain the necessary circumferential tensile rigidity and ensure the minimum necessary steel occupation ratio (page 4 of the machine translation)
4000 N/mm2 x 0.19 mm2 x 20 cords/25.4 x cos (25) ≈ 13775.8 N/25.4 mm ≈ 13.8 kN/25.4 mm
Regarding claim 2, JP’773 teaches
a filament diameter of the core 11 is preferably 0.08-0.13 and a filament diameter of the sheath is preferably 0.13 mm to 0.20 mm (page 2 of the machine translation),
the cord occupancy is preferably 75% or less, more preferably 40 to 75% (page 3 of the machine translation), and
belt plies 6A and 6b are formed by inclining the steel cords at an angle of for example, 15 to 35 degrees with respect to the tire circumferential direction (page 2 of the machine translation).
Regarding claim 3, official notice is taken filaments which constitute the steel cords of a belt ply of a tire having a carbon content within the claimed range is well-known/conventional.
Regarding claim 5, the claimed breaking load per cord would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since JP’773 teaches a cord strength is 3600 N/mm2 or more, preferably 3600-4000 N/mm2, more preferably 3800-4000 N/mm2 and the cord diameter is preferably 0.90 mm or less and more preferably 0.4 to 0.6 mm, page 2 of the machine translation wherein TABLE 1 teaches exemplary cross sectional areas of the steel cord includes 0.16 and 0.19 mm2.
Regarding claim 7, the claimed bending stiffness per cord would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because JP’773 explicitly recites the bending hardness per steel cord is not particularly limited as long as it is 800 cN or less with a preferred range starting at 100 cN (page 2 of the machine translation) rendering obvious a nonpreferred range of less than 100 cN absent conclusive evidence of unexpected results and/or criticality to the claimed range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented in this office action.
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 KENDRA LY whose telephone number is (571)270-7060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-5:00PM.
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 B 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.
/KENDRA LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights