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) 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 17, 20, and 22 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), Baldwin (JP 2009-91713, of record), and Doisneau (US 9,840,644, 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.
Additionally, 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).
Lastly, regarding claim 1 (and claim 22), it is extremely well known and conventional to include an adhesive between a cord reinforcement (textile or metallic) and a topping or coating rubber in all cord reinforced tire components to promote adhesion between said cord reinforcement and said rubber. More particularly, Doisneau teaches an adhesive composition that provides sufficient adhesion, wherein said adhesive includes polyphenols different from resorcinol and an aromatic aldehyde (different from formaldehyde) (Column 1, Lines 20-45, Column 3, Lines 10-45, and Column 4, Lines 48+). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of conventional adhesives with the cord reinforcement of Reese absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
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).
4. Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 17, 20, and 21 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), Baldwin (JP 2009-91713, of record), and Nakamura (WO 2022/65206, 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.
Additionally, 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).
Lastly, regarding claim 1 (and claim 21), it is extremely well known and conventional to include an adhesive between a cord reinforcement (textile or metallic) and a topping or coating rubber in all cord reinforced tire components to promote adhesion between said cord reinforcement and said rubber. More particularly, Nakamura teaches an adhesive composition that provides sufficient adhesion while eliminating environmental impact, wherein said adhesive includes a latex of a synthetic rubber and a carbodiimide (Abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of conventional adhesives with the cord reinforcement of Reese for the benefits detailed above absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
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
5. Applicant's arguments filed June 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art wo he read Reese would not have been able to select aramid fibers, which Baldwin teaches to have poor ductility or stretchability, as a fiber having good stretchability to combine with polyamide 4,10.
First, it is emphasized that Reese is specifically directed to a hybrid cord comprising polyamide 4,10 (nylon 4,10) and an additional material. It is emphasized that hybrid cords are extensively used in modern day tire constructions since they combine beneficial properties of different materials. The very nature of a hybrid cord is the use of different materials having different properties. Second, as to the additional material in the hybrid cord of Reese, it is extremely well known and conventional in the tire industry to form hybrid cords with any number of combination of materials. One of the most common combination of materials is nylon and aramid, as shown for example by Baldwin, with aramid well recognized as providing superior strength and nylon well recognized as providing superior ductility. Again, hybrid cords are beneficial since they provide a combination of properties that are associated with individual materials. Thus, the inclusion of aramid as the additional material in the hybrid cord of Reese is not seen to depart from the inventive concept of Reese and in fact, is consistent with the conventional makeup of tire hybrid cords. Shepherd (US 4,155,394- Column 2, Lines 25+), Hopkins (US 4,722,381- Column 1, Lines 25-30), and Kindry (US 4,733,708- Column 4, Lines 45+) provide additional evidence of the extremely well known and conventional use of aramid in combination with nylon to form tire hybrid cords.
As to the amended claim language, a fair reading of Baldwin does not suggest the exclusive use of RFL adhesive compositions. It is widely recognized that RFL is one of the most common adhesive compositions used in the tire industry; however, the additionally cited references similarly evidence the known use of additional adhesive compositions that provide suitable adhesion and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed adhesive compositions.
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 June 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights