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) 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reese (DE 102016204423, of record) and further in view of the Admitted Prior Art (of record) and Baldwin (JP 2009-91713, newly cited).
Reese is directed to a tire construction including a hybrid cord (e.g. belt hybrid cord) having at least one multifilament yarn formed with polyamide 4,10 (nylon 4,10) (corresponds with claimed fiber comprising a component derived from biomass). The Admitted Prior Art recognizes that such a polyamide material has an amide density of 12.5 (Paragraph 21 of original disclosure).
Additionally, the general disclosure of a hybrid cord suggests the inclusion of at least one additional multifilament yarn not formed with polyamide 4,10. In such an instance, though, Reese is silent with respect to the materials of said additional multifilament yarn and thus necessarily fails to teach an average amide density of the hybrid cord.
It is extremely well known and conventional to form tire hybrid cords, such as belt hybrid cords, as a combination of aramid (aromatic polyamide) and nylon, as shown for example by Baldwin (Paragraphs 1-5, 47, and 52). More particularly, the specific combination of such materials provides desired mechanical properties (as a function of aramid- high strength) and resistance to flex and cyclic fatigue (as a function of nylon) (Paragraphs 3 and 4). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the hybrid cord of Reese with a combination of polyamide 4,10 and aramid.
Also, regarding claim 1, the Admitted Prior Art recognizes that aramid has an amide density of 12.5 (based on Example 1 in Table 1 in which the overall average density is 12.5 and the amide density of polyamide 4,10 is expressly disclosed as being 12.5). Thus, an average amide density in the modified hybrid cord of Reese would be 12.5.
Lastly, with respect to claim 1, Baldwin teaches a cord including one or more aramid yarns and one nylon yarn (Paragraphs 47 and 48), with a specific example including 2 aramid yarns and one nylon yarn (claim 12 on last page of Baldwin).
Regarding claims 2, 4, 6, 13, 15, and 20, as detailed above, each of polyamide 4,10 and aramid have an amide density of 12.5.
With respect to claims 3, 4, 6, 13, 15, and 20, (a) Reese teaches individual yarns having a linear density between 100 and 5,000 dtex and (b) Baldwin teaches a cord including one or more aramid yarns and one nylon yarn. Thus, it reasons that the modified hybrid cord of Reese can have a greater volume of aramid. It is emphasized that a critical aspect of Reese is the inclusion of polyamide 4,10 in order to provide environmental benefits and such includes a cord entirely formed with such a polyamide and a cord formed with at least some of said polyamide. In terms of the results in Table 1, the closest prior art of record is a hybrid cord including polyamide 4,10 (Reese), while Comparative Example 1 is devoid of polyamide 4,10 and Comparative Examples 2 and 3 are not hybrid cords. As such, Table 1 fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed hybrid cord.
As to claims 8, 11, and 17, Reese describes belt layers and bead reinforcing layers formed with hybrid cords and it is well recognized that cord reinforced tire components are defined by cords embedded in a topping or coating rubber (defines a rubber-fiber composite).
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 5 and 6, filed March 17, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 103 with Shepherd have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Baldwin.
Conclusion
5. 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 March 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights