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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-7, 10-12, 14-15, 17, and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Group I (a laminate) and Group II (a method for manufacturing a laminate), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/01/2026.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of implied phraseology (“The present disclosure is directed to …”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 8-9, 13, 18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: for the sake of clarity, the examiner suggests the claims be amended to recite the tire structure independently without referring to the withdrawn claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 16, it is unclear what “an average length of crystal sizes in a region up to a depth of 250 µm of 10 µm or less” is requiring. Is the average length of crystal sizes 250 µm of 10 µm or less, or is the depth 250 µm of 10 µm or less? Or are the depth and the length intended to be the same dimension? Further clarification is requested. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes any of the aforementioned interpretations will satisfy the claim limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 8-9, 13, 16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. (US 20210291496) (of record).
Regarding claims 8, 13, 18, and 20, Takeda discloses a tire comprising a laminate comprising a rubber layer made of a vulcanized rubber (Fig. 1: 2) and a resin layer (Fig. 1: 3) ([0045]), the rubber layer and the resin layer being bonded together, the rubber layer (Fig. 1: 2) comprising a surface-treated layer (Fig. 1: 4) on a surface that is bonded to the resin layer (Fig. 1: 3) ([0020], [0045]-[0046], [0050]), wherein the surface-treated layer of the rubber layer is a chlorinated layer ([0009], [0047], [0091], [0102], [0110], [0117], [0166]), and wherein the resin layer contains polyester resin or polyester-based thermoplastic elastomer ([0019], [0085]-[0087], [0095]).
Takeda further discloses that the surface-treated layer allows the rubber layer and resin layer to be bonded without applying any adhesive ([0032], [0037], [0046]-[0054], [0153], [0165]-[0169], [0199]). Moreover, the surface-treated layer has unevenness (i.e., peaks in various planes), wherein unevenness of the surface of the rubber layer affects reactive factors required for the bonding and the ability to obtain sufficient bond strength with the resin layer ([0050]-[0054]). Takeda also discloses the surface-treated superficial layer forms unevenness on the surface of the rubber layer at the interface, and such unevenness exerts an anchoring effect which increase the bond between the rubber layer and the resin layer ([0169]). Additionally, since the surface-treated layer directly unites the rubber and resin layers with each other without an intervening layer of adhesive, it is possible to prevent a decrease in bond strength due to softening of the adhesive or other factors during high-speed driving when subjected to high temperatures, thereby improving the durability and heat resistance of the tire at high speeds ([0199]). Takeda recognizes that the structure of the bonding interface, including the unevenness of the surface-treated layer, is a result effective variable affecting adhesion between the rubber and resin layers. While Takeda does not expressly recite a surface of the resin layer bonded to the rubber layer having a ratio of a height of a peak derived from a (010) plane to a height of a peak derived from a (100) plane in X-ray diffraction [(the height of the peak derived from the (010) plane) / (the height of the peak derived from the (100) plane)] of 1.1 or more, it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for a ratio of a height of a peak derived from a (010) plane to a height of a peak derived from a (100) plane. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). In the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the unevenness of the surface-treated layer, and thereby the claimed a ratio of a height of a peak derived from a (010) plane to a height of a peak derived from a (100) plane, in order to sufficiently adhere the rubber layer and resin layer without adhesive.
The examiner notes that the claim limitation “in X-ray diffraction” is a product-by-process limitation wherein determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113. In this case, the claim limitation does not require a process step, but rather the structure that is implied by the step (i.e., a ratio of a height of a peak derived from a (010) plane to a height of a peak derived from a (100) plane). Moreover, case law holds that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112.01. The structure that is implied by the step (i.e., a ratio of a height of a peak derived from a (010) plane to a height of a peak derived from a (100) plane) is clearly present in Takeda as discussed above because Takeda discloses the claimed tire structure comprising a ratio of a height of a peak derived from a (010) plane to a height of a peak derived from a (100) plane. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that Takeda discloses, or is at least capable of, providing a ratio of a height of a peak derived from a (010) plane to a height of a peak derived from a (100) plane in X-ray diffraction.
Regarding claim 9, Takeda further discloses the tire is a non-pneumatic tire comprising an inner cylinder that is to be mounted on a wheel ([0001], [0007], [0028], [0038]), an outer cylinder (Fig. 3: 14) that surrounds the inner cylinder (Fig. 3: 15) from an outer side in a tire radial direction, a plurality of connecting members (Fig. 3: 16) arranged along a tire circumferential direction between the inner cylinder and the outer cylinder to connect the cylinders, and a tread member (Fig. 3: 12) provided on an outer side of the outer cylinder in the tire radial direction, and the outer cylinder is the resin layer, and the tread member is the rubber layer ([0102], [0105], [0108]).
Regarding claim 16, Takeda discloses a tire comprising a laminate comprising a rubber layer made of a vulcanized rubber (Fig. 1: 2) and a resin layer (Fig. 1: 3) ([0045]), the rubber layer and the resin layer being bonded together, the rubber layer (Fig. 1: 2) comprising a surface-treated layer (Fig. 1: 4) on a surface that is bonded to the resin layer (Fig. 1: 3) ([0020], [0045]-[0046], [0050]).
Takeda further discloses that the surface-treated layer allows the rubber layer and resin layer to be bonded without applying any adhesive ([0032], [0037], [0046]-[0054], [0153], [0165]-[0169], [0199]). Moreover, the surface-treated layer has unevenness (i.e., peaks in various planes), wherein unevenness of the surface of the rubber layer affects reactive factors required for the bonding and the ability to obtain sufficient bond strength with the resin layer ([0050]-[0054]). Takeda also discloses the surface-treated superficial layer forms unevenness on the surface of the rubber layer at the interface, and such unevenness exerts an anchoring effect which increase the bond between the rubber layer and the resin layer ([0169]). Additionally, since the surface-treated layer directly unites the rubber and resin layers with each other without an intervening layer of adhesive, it is possible to prevent a decrease in bond strength due to softening of the adhesive or other factors during high-speed driving when subjected to high temperatures, thereby improving the durability and heat resistance of the tire at high speeds ([0199]). Takeda recognizes that the structure of the bonding interface, including the unevenness of the surface-treated layer, is a result effective variable affecting adhesion between the rubber and resin layers. While Takeda does not expressly recite a surface of the resin layer bonded to the rubber layer having a ratio of a height of a peak derived from a (010) plane to a height of a peak derived from a (100) plane in X-ray diffraction [(the height of the peak derived from the (010) plane) / (the height of the peak derived from the (100) plane)] of 1.1 or more, it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for a ratio of a height of a peak derived from a (010) plane to a height of a peak derived from a (100) plane. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). In the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the unevenness of the surface-treated layer, and thereby the claimed a ratio of a height of a peak derived from a (010) plane to a height of a peak derived from a (100) plane, in order to sufficiently adhere the rubber layer and resin layer without adhesive.
The examiner notes that the claim limitation “in X-ray diffraction” is a product-by-process limitation wherein determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113. In this case, the claim limitation does not require a process step, but rather the structure that is implied by the step (i.e., a ratio of a height of a peak derived from a (010) plane to a height of a peak derived from a (100) plane). Moreover, case law holds that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112.01. The structure that is implied by the step (i.e., a ratio of a height of a peak derived from a (010) plane to a height of a peak derived from a (100) plane) is clearly present in Takeda as discussed above because Takeda discloses the claimed tire structure comprising a ratio of a height of a peak derived from a (010) plane to a height of a peak derived from a (100) plane. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that Takeda discloses, or is at least capable of, providing a ratio of a height of a peak derived from a (010) plane to a height of a peak derived from a (100) plane in X-ray diffraction.
Takeda further discloses that the resin is a crystalline resin ([0078]-[0081]), wherein the crystalline resin affects adhesive durability to the rubber layer ([0078]), and wherein the crystalline resin exists in the form of particles (i.e., crystals) ([0079]). Accordingly, the resin layer necessarily includes crystalline regions having an average length of crystal size at a particular depth. Takeda further discloses that owing to the crystalline resin existing in the form of particles (i.e., crystals), the elasticity and rigidity of the rubber layer are enhanced, and as a result, the strength thereof is improved ([0079]). Takeda recognizes that the crystal particle form/structure, including the crystal size, is a result effective variable affecting the strength between the rubber and resin layers. While Takeda does not explicitly disclose the value for an average length of crystal sizes in a region up to a depth, it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for said length/depth. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). In the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize an average length of crystal sizes in a region up to a depth in order to obtain sufficient strength between the rubber and resin layers.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEDEF PAQUETTE whose telephone number is (571) 272-5031. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST - 4:00 PM EST.
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 on (571) 270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. The fax phone number for the examiner is (571) 273-5031.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights