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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Astaix (US 2016/0193879) in view WO’006 (WO 2022/025006) and Mukai (US 2008/0000564).
US 2023/0264518 is a U.S. equivalent to WO’006 and is relied as an English translation to WO’006.
Regarding claims 1-3, Astaix teaches a pneumatic tire for passenger vehicle comprising a tread (3) and a belt structure (10: 10a, 10b, 10c) including belt plies reinforced with monofilaments of high tensile steel (120, 130) and a cap ply reinforced with heat-shrinkable textile cords (110). See FIG. 1, Fig.2, and abstract.
Astaix is silent to a product: T1 x T2 x La x tanδ1. However, Astaix teaches the diameter of the first reinforcers D1 is between 0.20 mm to 1.20 mm [0015] and the second 120 and third 130 reinforcers of steel monofilaments having a diameter D2 and D3, respectively between 0.20 mm and 0.50 mm [0017]. The mean thickness Ez1 is between 0.20 mm and 0.40 mm and the mean thickness Ez2 is between 0.35 mm and 0.60 mm and the total thickness of the three layers (C1, C2, C3) is between 1.8 and 2.7 mm [0061]-[0064].
For example: D1 =D2 = D3 = 0.50 mm and Ez1 = Ez2 = 0.4, the average thickness of each belt ply is = 0.9 mm (“T2”) (claim 2).
In the same field of endeavor of passenger car tires, WO’006 teaches a tire comprising a tread having a 30°C tanδ = 0.200 (“tanδ1”) and a thickness of the tread = 7.6 mm (“T1”) (TABLE 7: example 4-1) for rolling resistance and chipping resistance. In the same field of endeavor of passenger car tires, Mukai teaches a tire having a tread with a land ratio for 60%-70% (“La”) for enhanced steering stability and drainage [0077]. The tire of Astaix et al. satisfying T1 x T2 x La x tanδ1 in a range of 0.33 to 1.10 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by providing known dimensions for the same class of tires as shown by Astaix et al, WO’006, and Mukai to obtain the known and expected benefits of rolling resistance, chipping resistance, and steering stability and drainage respectively.
For example:
T1 = 7.6 mm (WO’006),
T2 = 0.9 mm (Astaix et al.),
La = 0.70 (Mukai), and
tanδ1 = 0.20 (WO’006)
T1 x T2 x La x tanδ1 = 7.6 mm x 0.9 mm x 0.70 x 0.20 ≈ 0.96.
T1 x La x tanδ1 = 7.6 mm x 0.70 x 0.20 ≈ 1.06 (claim 3)
Regarding claims 4-5, see [0042]-[0046] of Astaix et al.
Regarding claims 6-16, the second 120 and third 130 reinforcers are steel monofilaments (1x1) having a diameter D2 and D3, respectively between 0.20 mm and 0.50 mm [0017] rendering obvious the claimed outer diameter.
Regarding claim 17, Astaix et al. teaches the same material, same cord construction used in the same tire component of the same class of tire as the instant application [0085]. There is a reasonable expectation and basis to conclude the claimed limitation is satisfied.
Regarding claim 18, see [0085] of Astaix et al.
Regarding claims 19-20, [0018] of Astaix et al. teaches the second and third reinforcers has a density of 100-180 threads/dm which is 50-90 cords/5cm, overlapping and rendering the claimed limitation obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of the remarks, Applicant states a person of ordinary skill in the art would not combine the three references in an effort to achieve or conceive the claimed invention because the three references completely addresses different technical problems with different solution, and thus each reference is based on subject matter that is different from one another and from the present invention.
This argument is unpersuasive because providing the same technical problem and the same solution as the present invention is not a requirement for a proper 103. Providing known tread properties and dimensions as disclosed by WO’006 and Muaki to the passenger car tire of Astaix et al. yields the known, predictable, and expected results of low rolling resistance, chipping resistance, steering stability and drainage.
On page 10 of the remarks, Applicant argues that there is no proper motivation for the person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the three cited documents, and then somehow extract the claimed four specific parameter therefrom, multiply them together, and then limit the product to the claimed specific ranges.
This is argument is unpersuasive because WO’006 provides motivation to use a tire tread having a 30°C tanδ = 0.200 and a thickness of the tread = 7.6 mm for rolling resistance and chipping resistance benefits and Mukai provides motivation to provide the tread of a tire with a land ratio of 60%-70% for enhance steering stability and drainage. The rejection of record does not take the position that one of ordinary skill would extract, multiply, and limit the product of (T1 x T2 x La x tanδ1) in a range from 0.33 to 1.10. More properly, when one of ordinary skill in the art provides the tire of Astaix with the known tread properties and dimensions of WO’006 and Mukai to obtain the known, predictable, and expected benefits of low rolling resistance, chipping resistance, steering stability and drainage, the claimed product of (T1 x T2 x La x tanδ1) would reasonably be satisfied. While the Examiner acknowledges none of the prior art recites a product of (T1 x T2 x La x tanδ1), the claimed invention reads on an obvious tire construction, i.e. a tire of Astaix et al. provided with known tread properties and dimensions of WO’006 and Mukai rendering the claimed invention unpatentable.
On page 11 of the remarks, the Applicant argues all inventive examples have unexpectedly improved ride comfort while simultaneously achieving improved rolling resistance.
In response, Table 1 and Table 2 does not demonstrate unexpected results. When reviewing Ref1-Ref4, when the product of (T1 x T2 X La x tanδ1) increase, rolling resistance benefits are reduces while riding comfort is improved and the working example shows that same trade off in performance between rolling resistance and ride comfort. Further, Astaix teaches a pneumatic tire having a belt structure that reduces rolling resistance, WO’006 teaches a tire tread comprising a tanδ = 0.200 and a thickness of 7.6 mm results in improved rolling resistance and chipping resistance, and Mukai teaches a tread with a land ratio of 60%-70% enhances steering stability and drainage (related to riding comfort) suggesting the Applicant’s results are expected results.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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