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 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai (EP 2749435, of record) and further in view of Yamamoto (EP 0655354, newly cited).
As best depicted in Figure 1, Mukai is directed to a passenger car tire construction comprising a pair of bead cores 5, a carcass layer 6, a pair of sidewall portions 3, and a belt layer 7, wherein a radius of curvature Ra (claimed as RP) in region radially beyond a maximum section width point M is 70 mm or less (Paragraph 7). This region is seen to correspond with the claimed region defined by points Ac, Au’, and An.
In such an instance, though, an exemplary tire construction (195/65R15) has a section width of 195 mm, a section height of approximately 127 mm (0.65*195), and an outer diameter of approximately 635 mm (1.3*195 +25.4*15) (Paragraph 43). While such an outer diameter is outside the claimed range, the disclosed tire construction is exemplary and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the disclosed radius of curvature values with any number of common tire constrictions consistent with passenger car tires, including that required by the claimed invention. Yamamoto provides one example of a passenger car tire construction (155/65R12) having a section width of 155 mm, a section height of approximately 101 mm (0.65*155), and an outer diameter of approximately 507 mm (Abstract and Page 3, Lines 44+). A fair reading of Mukai does not limit the exact passenger car tire construction as the inventive concept is concerned with the sidewall radius of curvature and its effect on the sidewall appearance (Paragraphs 1 and 7). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the passenger car tire of Mukai with dimensions that satisfy the claimed quantitative relationships, as taught by Yamamoto.
It is further noted that when using a tire section height of 101 mm (claimed as SH) and RP less than or equal to 70 mm, a ratio RP/SH is less than or equal to approximately 0.69 and such overlaps with the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a ratio between 0.65 and 0.69 (and thus satisfy the claims) absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results. In this instance, Applicant has not provided comparative examples with a ratio less than 0.65 in a manner that establishes a criticality for the lower end of the claimed range (Example 5 in Figure 13 is non-inventive in view of the claim amendments and demonstrates substantially the same properties as Example 4, which is inventive).
With respect to claim 2, RP can be as high as 70 mm and an aspect ratio in Yamamoto is 0.65 (claimed as SH/DW). This in turn suggests a ratio as claimed of less than or equal to approximately 108.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, given that the tire of Mukai in view of Yamamoto has a section height, an outer diameter, a section width, and a radius of curvature in an upper sidewall region that mimics that required by the claimed invention, it reasons that the claimed ratio between an unloaded condition and a loaded condition would be present in the tire of Mukai in view of Yamamoto.
As to claim 9, Mukai teaches belt cord angles between 15 and 40 degrees (Paragraph and such would result in a product (as claimed) between 1,050 and 2,800 (when RP is 70 mm).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, given an outer diameter of 507 mm, the claims are satisfied when a total gauge falls between approximately 5.1 mm and approximately 41 mm. Mukai states that a thickness t1 is preferably not more than 2.5 mm (Paragraph 25). Additionally, a total gauge (at a point Au) includes a thickness of side rubber 3g, a thickness of wing rubber WG, a thickness of tread rubber 2G, a thickness of carcass ply 6, and a thickness of an innerliner. As such, it reasons that the tire of Mukai includes embodiments in which the total gauge is at least 5.1 mm (combination of all the components would be expected to exceed a total thickness of 5.1 mm). It is further noted that the general disclosure of passenger car tires by Mukai is seen to encompass a wide variety of outer diameters and smaller outer diameters would require smaller minimum values for the claimed gauge. For example, narrow tires that are mounted on small rims would result in smaller outer tire diameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the modified tire of Mukai in accordance to the claimed invention.
With specific respect to claim 11, as noted above, a wing rubber and a tread define the total gauge or thickness associated with Au and as such, it reason that the claimed ratio is greater than 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed range obvious in view of the general disclosure/depiction of Mukai and the recognition that the wing rubber and tread have substantial thickness values so as to result in a ratio (as claimed) between 1.3 and 5.
As to claim 12, curvature Ra is present over a region that is radially inward of the maximum section width point M and such is seen to correspond with the claimed radius RO defined by points AI’, Am, and Ac. Thus, a ratio between RO and SH would be the same as a ratio between RP and SH as set forth above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a ratio between 0.2 and 0.69 (as taught by Mukai in view of Yamamoto) absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results. In this instance, Applicant has not provided comparative examples with a ratio less than 0.2 so establish a criticality for the lower end of the claimed range.
4. Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai and Yamamoto as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Head (WO 97/14566, of record).
As detailed above, Mukai is directed to a passenger car tire construction having a carcass ply 6 formed with cords inclined between 75 degrees and 90 degrees with respect to a tire circumferential direction (Paragraph 22). In such an instance, though, Mukai is completely silent with respect to the type of cords used in the carcass ply.
In any event, steel represents one of the most well-known and conventional reinforcing materials for a wide variety of cord reinforced tire components, including carcass plies. Head provides one example of a similar passenger car tire construction (Page 1, Lines 10-13) and teaches a wide variety of steel cord constructions that are commonly used in passenger car tires (Page 2, Lines 24+ and Page 8, Line 29-Page 9, Line 35). Head also states that an overall cord diameter is less than 0.75 mm (Page 2, Lines 29 and 30) and a cord density or loading is between 2 cords per cm and 39 cords per cm (10 cords per 50 mm and 195 cords per 50 mm) (Page 10, Lines 4-10). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use such a common steel cord construction in the passenger car tire of Mukai absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results. It is particularly noted that Applicant has not provided comparative examples formed with non-inventive steel cords (lack of criticality for the claimed steel cord and the associated properties).
Lastly, it appears that the claimed quantitative relationship would have been satisfied in the modified tire of Mukai since the disclosed outer diameter in Yamamoto is less than 600 mm and the disclosed steel cord diameter and cord loading in Head mimic those required by the invention. These features are seen to contribute to the claimed quantitative relationship and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the broad range of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, it appears that the term yarn is being used to correspond with filaments of a cord construction. Head discloses a plurality of exemplary steel cord constructions having a plurality of intertwined yarns or filaments that satisfy the claimed invention. For example, a 3x0.18 construction has a filament diameter of 0.18 mm and such is between 0.3 and 0.90 times an overall cord diameter (requires an overall cord diameter between 0.20 mm and 0.54 mm) (Page 10, Line 29-Page 11, Line 15). Head also teaches a wide variety of additional, exemplary cord constructions that would be expected to satisfy the claimed quantitative relationship (Page 9, Lines 19+).
5. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai and Yamamoto as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Kobayashi (US 4,848,431, of record) and Kuwayama (JP 2017-100727, of record).
As detailed above, Mukai is directed to a passenger car tire construction having a carcass ply 6 formed with cords inclined between 75 degrees and 90 degrees with respect to a tire circumferential direction (Paragraph 22). In such an instance, though, Mukai is completely silent with respect to the type of cords used in the carcass ply.
In any event, it is extremely well known and conventional to use organic fiber cords to form tire carcass plies (multiple carcass plies), as shown for example by Kobayashi (Column 2, Lines 4-6). Additionally, the specific use of cord diameters and cord loadings in accordance to the claimed invention is consistent with conventional carcass designs, as shown for example by Kobayashi (Column 2, Lines 19+; cord loadings between 20 and 65 cords per 50 mm) and Kuwayama (see machine translation- cord diameters are preferred between 0.4 mm and 0.8mm). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of conventional carcass cords, including those having diameters and cord loadings as required by the claimed invention, absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results. It is emphasized that a fair reading of Mukai does not limit the type of carcass cords and those required by the claimed invention are extensively used in a wide variety of tire constructions (provides suitable reinforcement).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 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
7. 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.
8. 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 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights