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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 2,2026 has been entered.
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, 9-11, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight (US 3,542,107, newly cited) and further in view of Yamamoto (EP 0655354, of record).
As best depicted in Figure 1, Knight is directed to a passenger car tire construction comprising a pair of bead cores 17, a carcass layer 12, a pair of sidewall portions (no reference character provided), and a belt layer (not depicted but described in Column 1, Lines 30-40), wherein a radius of curvature R1 (claimed as RP) in region radially beyond a maximum section width point is between approximately 38 mm and 102 mm (Column 2, Lines 60-65). This region is seen to correspond with the claimed region defined by points Ac, Au’, and An.
In such an instance, though, Knight simply states that the tire is of a size consistent with use on passenger vehicles (Column 2, Lines 60+). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use 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 Knight does not limit the exact passenger car tire construction as the inventive concept is concerned with improved separation resistance (Column 1, Lines 5+). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the passenger car tire of Knight 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 between 38 mm and 102 mm, a ratio RP/SH is between approximately 0.38 and 1.0
and such overlaps with the claimed range (applicable to claim 13 as well). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a ratio between 0.70 and 1.0 (and thus satisfy the claims) absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results. In this instance, Applicant has not provided comparative examples with a ratio 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 claims 2 and 14, RP can be as high as 102 mm and an aspect ratio in Yamamoto is 0.65 (claimed as SH/DW). This in turn suggests a ratio as claimed of approximately 157.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, given that the tire of Knight 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 Knight in view of Yamamoto.
As to claims 9 and 15, Knight states that common belts can be included in the tire construction (Column 1, Lines 35+). This disclosure would be well recognized as encompassing standard or conventional working belt layers formed with cords that cross each other. While the reference is silent with respect to the belt cord inclination angle and thus necessarily is silent with respect to the claimed ratio, conventional belt cord inclination angles would be expected to result in a ratio that falls within the broad range of the claimed invention. For example, given an Rp of 102 mm, the claims are satisfied when the belt cord inclination falls between approximately 10 degrees and 75 degrees. Additionally, given an Rp of 75 mm, the claims are satisfied when the belt cord inclination falls between approximately 13 degrees and 103 degrees. It is evident that standard or common belt cord inclinations angles would result in a ratio in accordance to the claimed invention when used in the tire of Knight. With specific respect to claim 15, when Rp is 102 mm, the claim is satisfied when the belt cord inclination falls between 25 degrees and 75 degrees and such inclinations are consistent with well-known and conventional working belt layers.
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. It is noted that the general disclosure of passenger car tires by Knight 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 Knight in accordance to the claimed invention. It is emphasized that a gauge at the height associated with the maximum section width includes a plurality of carcass plies as well as a sidewall rubber thickness- one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such components commonly have a total gauge that would satisfy the broad range of the claimed invention.
With specific respect to claim 11, it is well recognized that tire shoulder regions commonly have a greater overall thickness or gauge, as compared with a region that corresponds with a maximum section width of the tire. This would result in a ratio as claimed that is necessarily greater than 1. Although it is unclear if the figures of Knight are working drawings, the figures generally depict a greater thickness in the shoulder region as compared to the region associated with the maximum section width (figures are consistent with the conventional relationship between thickness values in respective regions). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form a tire that satisfies the broad range of the claimed invention. It is emphasized that a general ratio of greater than 1 fully encompasses the broad range and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
5. Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight and Yamamoto as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Head (WO 97/14566, of record).
As detailed above, Knight is directed to a passenger car tire construction having a plurality of carcass plies. 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 Knight 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 Knight 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+).
6. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight 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, Knight is directed to a passenger car tire construction having a plurality of carcass plies. 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 Knight 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).
7. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight and Yamamoto as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Asano (JP 8-142602) and/or Takemori (CN 113242804) and/or JP 6318480.
As detailed above, Knight teaches a tire construction in which a sidewall radius of curvature in a region radially beyond a maximum section width is between 38 mm and 102 mm. This in turn results in a ratio between said radius and a tire section height, when using a known passenger car tire construction having a tire section height of 101 mm, of approximately 0.68-1.00. In such an instance, though, the references fails to specifically discloses a sidewall radius of curvature in a region radially inward of a maximum section width.
In nay event, the claims define an extremely broad range of ratios that are consistent with common sidewall radii of curvature in a radially inner (in relation to a maximum section width) sidewall region. Asano, Takemori, and JP ‘480 provide teachings that evidence common values for the claimed ratio as detailed below.
Asano teaches that an upper sidewall radius of curvature R2 is between 0.99 and 1.17 times a lower sidewall radius of curvature- this suggests a claimed ratio of approximately 0.24-1.02 (24mm/101mm – 103 mm/101 mm) in Knight and such is fully encompassed by the claimed range,
Takemori teaches a ratio between an upper sidewall radius of curvature R2 and a lower sidewall radius of curvature R3 between 1.01 and 1.10- this in turn suggests a claimed ratio of approximately 0.35-1.0 (35 mm/101mm – 101 mm/101 mm), and
JP ‘480 teaches a ratio between a lower sidewall radius of curvature LSR and a tire section height SH of 0.25-0.65 and such is fully encompassed by the claimed range.
As such, it reasons that one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the tire of Knight with a ratio between the inner sidewall radius of curvature and the tire section height in accordance to the claimed invention. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed ratio (Tables in Figures 13 and 14 fail to identify any values for RO- inner sidewall radius of curvature).
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 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
9. 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 July 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights