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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomidaka (JP 2018-103854, newly cited) and further in view of Hatanaka (US 9,511,630, of record) and Suzuki (US 5,759,315, of record).
As best depicted in Figures 1-3, Tomidaka is directed to a passenger tire construction (225/40R18 detailed in Paragraphs 10 and 37) including a pair of bead portions 3, a carcass 4, and inclined belt layers 11A,11B (cords inclined between 10 and 35 degrees with respect to a tire circumferential direction), wherein said carcass includes turnup portions that are located inward of the tire maximum width portion in the radial direction (reference character 24 is associated with maximum width position). Tomidaka further states that said carcass (e.g. carcass ply 41) (a) is formed with radial cords (approximately 90 degree inclination with respect to the circumferential direction) in a region 41D that is present at an equatorial plane of the tire and (b) is formed with cords inclined between 70 and 80 degrees with respect to the circumferential direction in a region 41C (Paragraph 21). In terms of the claimed structure, region 41D extends beyond belt assembly 11 and corresponds with a first tire widthwise portion and region 41C (or 43) corresponds with a second tire widthwise portion. It is further noted that either tire side can be viewed as “an outer side when the tire is mounted on a vehicle” (any tire has the capability of being mounted such that a given tire side is an inner side or an outer side).
Tomidaka, though, simply teaches an exemplary passenger car tire construction (as detailed above) that does not satisfy the claimed quantitative relationships. In any event, the use of tires having section widths (SW) and outer diameters (OD) that satisfy the claimed quantitative relationships are common in the tire industry since it provides, for example, good fuel efficiency and wide free space in a vehicle, as shown for example by Hatanaka (Column 2, Lines 40+ and Column 3, Lines 15-50). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the tire of Tomidaka with any number of common passenger tire dimensions, including those required by the claimed invention, for the benefits detailed above. It is emphasized that a fair reading of Tomidaka does not restrict the tire dimensions (singular construction in Tomidaka would have been well recognized as being exemplary) and as detailed above, the claimed dimensions are consistent with those that are commonly used in the tire industry.
Lastly, regarding claim 1, while Figure 1 depicts the presence of a first and second belt layer 11A,11B, Tomidaka states that belt 11 is “usually” constituted with at least two belt plies (Paragraph 14). It is extremely well known and conventional, though, that tires, including passenger car tires, are conventionally disclosed as including at least one belt ply formed with belt cords inclined at small acute angles, as shown for example by Suzuki (Column 3, Lines 15-35). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include at least one belt ply in the tire of Tomidaka as such is consistent with the general manner in which tires are described (singular disclosure of 2 belt plies in the figures of Tomidaka would have been recognized as being exemplary and not limiting in terms of the number of belt plies). In such an instance, a cord angle in the belt layer (10-35 degrees) is significantly smaller than a cord angle in the carcass layer (in relation to the tire circumferential direction) and thus, cords in respective layers would intersect one another (belt cords necessarily intersect with carcass cords in one of the second widthwise portions based on figures).
With respect to claim 2, belt cords are inclined between 10 and 35 degrees with respect to a tire circumferential direction and carcass cords in the second widthwise portion are inclined between 70 and 80 degrees with respect to a tire circumferential direction (inclination angle prior to vulcanization, with angles as high as 75 degrees after vulcanization being preferred).
With respect to claims 4 and 9, Tomidaka teaches a tire construction in which end 43a is preferably positioned beyond a line 23a (Paragraph 29). It is well taken that a reference may be relied upon for all that it would reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Thus, it reasons that Tomidaka encompasses tire constructions in which a distance between a belt end and an upper end (or inner end) of the second portion 41C is between 0.10 and 0.40 times a maximum belt width. Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a spacing in accordance to the broad range of the claimed invention.
As to claims 5, 11, and 13, either region 41C (or 43) can be viewed as the claimed second widthwise portion and either region can be viewed as the claimed third widthwise portion. Also, the language “inner side when the tire is mounted on a vehicle” fails to further define the structure of the claimed tire since any tire has the capability of being mounted with a given side facing inside or outside. Lastly, there are only 2 possible configurations for the inclination direction of the belt cords and each would have been well recognized as being consistent with the well-known and conventional arrangement of tire belts.
With respect to claims 6, 14, 16, and 17, said carcass extends between respective portions and such is seen to satisfy the claimed arrangement.
Regarding claims 7, 18, and 20, the tire of Tomidaka includes multiple carcass plies (see Figures) that extend from respective bead portions to the inner side in the tire radial direction of the belt (and continue to an opposite sidewall and bead region).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16-18, and 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
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 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 May 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights