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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 1,144,554 and further in view of Kuwayama (US 2014/0138003, of record).
GB ‘554 is directed to tires designed for modern cars and such would be recognized as correspond with passenger car tires (Page 1, Lines 35+). More particularly, the tire of GB ‘554 includes first and seconds bead cores 20,21, at least one belt ply 14, a pair of sidewalls 15,16, a tread 13, and a radial carcass ply 19, wherein respective turnup ends of said carcass ply are located at different radial heights (Figure 2 and Page 2, Lines 75+). In such an instance, though, GB ‘554 is silent with respect to the dimensions of said tire.
In any event, the claimed quantitative relationships are consistent with those that are conventionally associated with passenger car tire constructions, as shown for example by Kuwayama (Paragraphs 6-13). Kuwayama specifically states that tires satisfying the claimed quantitative relationships promote reduced rolling resistance and reduced tire weight. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the tire of GB ‘554 with dimensions in accordance to the claimed invention in view of Kuwayama for the benefits detailed above.
Lastly, regarding claim 1, the language “ on the inner side when the tire is mounted on a vehicle” and “on the outer side when the tire is mounted on a vehicle” corresponds with an intended use of the claimed tire construction and as such, fails to further define the structure of the claimed tire construction (any tire has the capability of being mounted on a rim such that a first sidewall is an inner sidewall or an outer sidewall).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB ‘554 and Kuwayama as applied in the previous paragraph and further in view of Miyazono (US 2010/0314017).
As detailed above, GB ‘554 is directed to an asymmetric tire construction formed with carcass turnup ends having different heights. More particularly, carcass turnup 19 extends into a crown region and corresponds with a high turnup portion and carcass turnup 18 extends into a bead or lower sidewall region and corresponds with a low turnup portion. In such an instance, the low turnup portion of GB ‘554 is not described expressly disclosed as terminating in the bead portion.
It is well known, however, that low turnup portions can have a multitude of arrangements, as shown for example by Miyazono (e.g. Figure 4). It is particularly noted that Miyazono teaches the alternative use of carcass turnup ends that extend radially beyond a bead core (Figure 3) or carcass turnup ends that are directly folded on an outer surface of the bead core (Figure 4). This disclosure suggests that suitable tire properties can be achieved when a low turnup portion is formed with either of the disclosed carcass turnup arrangements, including that required by the claimed invention (Figure 4). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the low turnup portion of GB ‘554 in accordance to the claimed invention in view of Miyazono as it constitutes a known alternative to the exemplary low turnup design of GB ‘554 and there is a reasonable expectation of success when making such a modification. It is particularly noted that Miyazono states that the inventive carcass turnup arrangement is preferred since it provides a strong locking force between the carcass and the bead core (Paragraph 56).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB ‘554 and Kuwayama as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Ito (WO 2009/057780).
As detailed above, GB ‘554 is directed to an asymmetric tire construction in which a first tire side portion (can be arbitrarily defined as an outer tire side portion) has a greater rigidity or stiffness than a second tire side portion. GB ‘554 further describes a multitude of techniques that provides said asymmetric design, including varying a carcass turnup height (larger carcass turnup height corresponds with tire side portion demonstrating greater rigidity). Additionally, GB ‘554 teaches that the individually disclosed techniques can be used in combination to further provide a desired difference in rigidity (Page 2, Lines 120+). While GB ‘554 fails to specifically disclose the ability to vary the radius of curvature in respective tire side portions, such is recognized as a known means to provide a desired rigidity difference, as shown for example by Ito. Ito states that greater radii of curvature (would be present in both the carcass and the side surface) results in increased rigidity and this lower deformation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the first tire side portion of GB ‘554 (that side portion with greater rigidity as a result of greater turnup height) with a greater radius of curvature to further promote the desired rigidity variation. It is emphasized that a fair reading of GB ‘554 suggests the use of individual techniques or a combination of techniques to provide a desired rigidity variation and Ito recognizes the known ability to use different radii of curvature to obtain a desired rigidity variation (greater radius of curvature corresponds with greater rigidity and thus, one would have found it obvious to use such a radius of curvature in a tire side portion formed with a high turnup).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB ‘554, Kuwayama, and Miyazono as applied in claim 2 above and further in view of Ito.
As detailed above, GB ‘554 is directed to an asymmetric tire construction in which a first tire side portion (can be arbitrarily defined as an outer tire side portion) has a greater rigidity or stiffness than a second tire side portion. GB ‘554 further describes a multitude of techniques that provides said asymmetric design, including varying a carcass turnup height (larger carcass turnup height corresponds with tire side portion demonstrating greater rigidity). Additionally, GB ‘554 teaches that the individually disclosed techniques can be used in combination to further provide a desired difference in rigidity (Page 2, Lines 120+). While GB ‘554 fails to specifically disclose the ability to vary the radius of curvature in respective tire side portions, such is recognized as a known means to provide a desired rigidity difference, as shown for example by Ito. Ito states that greater radii of curvature (would be present in both the carcass and the side surface) results in increased rigidity and this lower deformation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the first tire side portion of GB ‘554 (that side portion with greater rigidity as a result of greater turnup height) with a greater radius of curvature to further promote the desired rigidity variation. It is emphasized that a fair reading of GB ‘554 suggests the use of individual techniques or a combination of techniques to provide a desired rigidity variation and Ito recognizes the known ability to use different radii of curvature to obtain a desired rigidity variation (greater radius of curvature corresponds with greater rigidity and thus, one would have found it obvious to use such a radius of curvature in a tire side portion formed with a high turnup).
Conclusion
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 August 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights