TIRE

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) 1-5, 7, and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwayama (US 2024/0042802). As best depicted in Figure 2, Kuwayama is directed to passenger tire constructions comprising a carcass 3 having one or more plies, a pair of bead cores 2a, a plurality of belt layers 4a,4b, and an innerliner 8. Kuwayama further describes exemplary constructions that are 105/50R16, which corresponds with a tire section width of approximately 105 mm and a tire outer diameter OD of approximately 511 mm (Paragraphs 55 and 62). Kuwayama further states that innerliner 8 has a thickness between 1.5 mm and 2.8 mm (Paragraph 74). In terms of the claimed distance TLu, said distance is the combination of an innerliner thickness and a distance from said innerliner to a center of a carcass cord. Given an outer diameter of approximately 511 mm, the claims are satisfied when TLu in Kuwayama falls between approximately 0.05 mm and 7.6 mm. As detailed above, an innerliner thickness is between 1.5 mm and 2.5 mm and thus, any distance between the innerliner and a center of a carcass cord of 0 mm-4.8 mm would result in a tire that satisfies the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have expected the distance between the innerliner and a center of a carcass cord in Kuwayama to be less than 4.8 mm given the general order of such distances are significantly smaller than 4.8 mm in passenger tires. It is emphasized that carcass cord diameters in passenger tires are commonly less than 1 mm, further suggesting that a distance between an innerliner and a center of a carcass cord would be significantly less than 4.8 mm and result in a tire construction that satisfies the claimed quantitative relationship. Lastly, given that the innerliner and carcass of Kuwayama would be expected to have constant thickness values, the claimed relationship would be present and satisfied over the entire axial extent of the tire, including in a region between point Iu and point Ic as defined by Applicant. Regarding claim 2, given a constant thickness, the claimed ratio would be 1. With respect to claim 3, given an innerliner thickness of 1.5 mm, for example, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected TLu (overall thickness to center of carcass cord) to exceed 4.0 mm. It is emphasized that conventional carcass cord dimensions would not have been expected to result in an overall distance TLu greater than 4 mm. As to claim 4, it appears that the claimed relationship would be satisfied using common values or dimensions in the tire of Kuwayama. For example, an innerliner thickness of 2.8 mm, which itself is only a part of the claimed distance TLu, would be expected to occupy greater than 5% of an entire gauge by itself. It is emphasized that a tire gauge would not be expected to exceed 56 mm (when compared with the general order of thickness values) and thus, an innerliner thickness, and necessarily a thickness TLu (since it is a combination of the innerliner thickness and a distance to a center of a carcass cord), would be greater than 5% of a tire gauge. Regarding claim 5, Kuwayama teaches an air permeability coefficient 6.5x10-10 cc-cm/(cm2-s-cmHg) and 1x10-14 cc-cm/(cm2-s-mmHg) (Paragraph 74). When converting this to the claimed dimensions (cc-mm/(m2-day-mmHg)), the range corresponds with approximately 0.56 and 8.64x10-6. In order to satisfy the claims, TLu needs to fall between 1.63x10-5 mm and 150 mm and it is evident that such is the case in the tire of Kuwayama. As to claim 7, given constant thickness values in the innerliner and the carcass, the claimed ratio would be 1. With respect to claims 8, 9, and 11, Kuwayama teaches a carcass cord density between 20 cords and 60 cords per 50 mm (Paragraph 62). Additionally, the claimed carcass cord diameters are consistent with those that are conventionally associated with carcass plies used in passenger tire constructions. Regarding claims 10 and 11, the claimed arrangement and ratio is consistent with well-known and conventional cord constructions used in tire carcass layers. It is emphasized that a multitude of cord constructions are commonly used for tire reinforcing elements, including those required by the claimed invention, and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed construction (all are recognized as providing suitable reinforcement characteristics). As to claim 12, given an outer diameter of 511 mm, the claims are satisfied when a total gauge is between approximately 5 mm and 41 mm. Given the disclosed innerliner thickness values, a tread rubber thickness less than 5 mm (Paragraph 72), and common thickness values associated a carcass and a sidewall designed for passenger tires, it reasons that a total gauge would fall within the broad range required by the claimed invention. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwayama as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Mita (US 2017/0239992). As detailed above, Kuwayama is directed to a tire construction including an innerliner 8 and having an outer diameter of approximately 511 mm. In such an instance, though, Kuwayama is silent with respect to an overlap amount and thus necessarily fails to teach the claimed quantitative relationship. In any event, the claims are satisfied when an overlap splice amount is between approximately 5.1 mm and 41 mm and such values are consistent with those that are conventionally used in modern day tire constructions, as shown for example by Mita (Paragraphs 17 and 29). It is well recognized that the inclusion of an overlap splice amount provides an innerliner having strong connection at respective ends. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the tire of Kuwayama with an overlap splice amount that satisfies the broad range of the claimed invention absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwayama as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Schauer (US 2018/0170110). As detailed above, Kuwayama is directed to a tire construction comprising at least one carcass ply and having a tire outer diameter of approximately 511 mm. In such an instance, though, Kuwayama is silent with respect to a tensile strength per 50 mm width and thus necessarily fails to teach the claimed quantitative relationship. In any event, the claims are satisfied when a tensile strength per 50 mm width is between approximately 8,637 N and 61,320 N and such values are consistent with those that are conventionally used in modern day tire constructions, as shown for example by Schauer (Figure 3). More particularly, the five cord constructions have tensile strengths (per 50 mm) of 11,025 N, 10,821 N, 11,211 N, 11,220 N, and 10,748 N (product of cord density and breaking load per cord), all of which satisfy the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the tire of Kuwayama with conventional carcass cords and such would satisfy the broad range of the claimed invention. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed quantitative relationship. 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 September 28, 2026