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.
3. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9, 12-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Burg (US 4,212,340).
As best depicted in Figures 1, 3, and 4, van der Burg is directed to a tire construction comprising at least one carcass ply 6 having a carcass turnup portion 8 and a protective layer 14 positioned axially outside of said carcass turnup portion and radially beyond a carcass turnup end 12. Van der Burg further states that said protective layer is formed with thin organic fiber cords (Column 3, Lines 15-20 and 45-52).
In such an instance, though, van der Burg is silent with respect to a comparison between the cord diameter in the protective layer and the cord diameters in every additional tire component. It is emphasized, though, that van der Burg specifically teaches the use of smaller or thinner cords in protective layer 14, as compared to an additional bead reinforcing layer 13. This general disclosure clearly suggests the use of small cords in protective layer 14 as compared to additional tire components. Given that the cords in protective layer 14 are designed to be small or thin, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form a tire of van der Burg with cords in protective layer 14 being the smallest cords in the tire. It is emphasized that such a tire design is consistent with the general disclosure of van der Burg to include small or thin cords in protective layer 14. Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the tire of van der Burg in accordance to the claimed invention (lack of comparative examples in which cords in a protective layer are larger than cords in an additional tire component).
With respect to claim 2, Figure 1 depicts a tire in which an end of protective layer 14 is radially beyond a carcass turnup end 9.
Regarding claims 3 and 9, van der Burg broadly suggests a distance that is greater than 0 mm and such fully encompasses the broad range of the claimed invention, it being noted that Figure 1 generally depicts a distance that is consistent with the claimed range between 5 mm and 37 mm. Also, looking at Figure 8 in Applicant’s original disclosure, comparative examples in which the distance is less than 5 mm and greater than 37 mm are not provided so as to potentially evidence a criticality for the claimed distance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the tire of van der Burg in accordance to the claimed invention given the overall disclosure of van der Burg (including the figures) and the general order of values/distances in tires (e.g. passenger car tires having overall section heights on the order of 100 mm).
As to claims 5 and 12-14, the figures of van der Burg generally suggest a large density or cords per unit width in the protective layer (as compared with bead reinforcing layer 13). Given the general disclosure of van der Burg, it reasons that such a density (associated with smaller cords) would be greater in the protective layer as compared to the bead reinforcing layer and the carcass. More particularly, the carcass and bead reinforcing layer would be expected to have standard densities and van der Burg clearly desires high densities (associated with small cord diameters) in the protective layer. Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form a tire of van der Burg in accordance to the claimed invention (lack of comparative examples in which a density in the protective layer is small than a density in the carcass). Also, a distance of at least 0.1 mm is consistent with the general order of spacings between adjacent reinforcing elements in any number of tire components.
With respect to claim 6, 15, 16, and 18, Figures 3 and 4 of van der Burg depict a tire in which cords in the protective layer are extremely close to cords at the carcass turnup end. It is emphasized that protective layer 14 directly abuts the carcass turnup portion at the carcass turnup end and said protective layer is specifically described as being thin. The claimed range of 0.2-1.0 mm is consistent with the small separation suggested by the disclosure of van der Burg. Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious form the tire of van der Burg in accordance to the claimed invention.
As to claim 7, 19, and 20, the figures and disclosure of van der Burg suggest overlapped widths of at least 10 mm (given the general order of tire dimensions and the depicted amount of overlap). Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the tire of van der Berg in accordance to the claimed invention (lack of comparative examples in which an overlapped width is less than 10 mm). It is emphasized that van der Burg fails to limit the exact location of a transition between protective layer 14 and bead reinforcing layer 14, with Figure 4 depicting an exemplary embodiment in which said protective layer extends further inward than a radially outer end of said bead reinforcing layer.
4. Claim(s) 4, 10, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Burg as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Losey (WO 0145966).
As detailed above, van der Burg is directed to a tire construction comprising a protective layer containing organic fiber cords. More particularly, van der Burg teaches an organic fiber cord having low strength and a small thickness (Column 3, Lines 9+). In such an instance, though, van der Burg is silent with respect to a load at 5% elongation. In any event, the claims define a broad range of loads that are consistent with those associated with low modulus or low strength organic fiber cords used in tires, as shown for example by Losey (Page 4, Lines 29+). More particularly, Losey suggests that low strength or low modulus organic fiber cords having a load at 4% elongation that is less than 20 N. It is well recognized that a load at 5% elongation is only slightly larger than a load at 4% elongation. As such, the general disclosure of Losey suggests that the claimed load at 5% elongation values are encompassed by the general order of load at 5% elongation values commonly associated with low strength or low modulus organic fiber cords. Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of low strength or low modulus organic fiber cords in the protective layer of van der Burg (lack of comparative examples in which the load at 5% elongation is less than 2N and greater than 10 N).
5. Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 12, 15, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peter (US 4,234,029) and further in view of van der Burg.
As best depicted in Figures 1 and 2, Peter is directed to a tire construction comprising a carcass 2, a bead reinforcing layer 8, and a U-shaped protective layer 10, wherein said layer is positioned to cover a carcass turnup end. Peter further states that said bead reinforcing layer is formed with high strength reinforcing elements, such as steel, while said protective layer is formed with a textile material, such as polyamide (Column 4, Lines 30+). In such an instance, though, Peter is silent with respect to any relationship between a cord diameter in the protective layer and a cord diameter in additional tire components.
Van der Burg is similarly directed to a tire construction including a bead reinforcing layer formed with steel cords and a protective layer formed with organic fiber cords. Van der Burg specifically states that thinner and lower strength cords are used in a protective layer, as compared to a bead reinforcing layer. This arrangement is consistent with the teaching of Peter to use lower strength materials (polyamide) in the protective layer, as compared to the bead reinforcing layer. As such, one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use small cords in the protective layer of Peter. It is emphasized that given that the cords in protective layer 14 of van der Burg are designed to be small or thin, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form a tire of van der Burg (and this the tire of Peter) with cords in a protective layer being the smallest cords in the tire. It is emphasized that such a tire design is consistent with the general disclosure of Peter and van der Burg to include small or thin cords in a protective layer formed with organic fiber cords. Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the tire of Peter, as modified by van der Burg, in accordance to the claimed invention (lack of comparative examples in which cords in a protective layer are larger than cords in an additional tire component).
With respect to claim 2, Figures 1 and 2 depict a tire in which an end of protective layer 10 is radially beyond a carcass turnup end.
As to claims 5, 12, and 14, the figures of van der Burg generally suggest a large density or cords per unit width in the protective layer (as compared with bead reinforcing layer 13). Given the general disclosure of van der Burg, it reasons that such a density (associated with smaller cords) would be greater in the protective layer as compared to the bead reinforcing layer and the carcass. More particularly, the carcass and bead reinforcing layer would be expected to have standard densities and van der Burg clearly desires high densities (associated with small cord diameters) in the protective layer. This construction would similarly expected to be present in the tire of Peter given that the design of Peter is extremely similar to that of van der Burg. Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form a tire of Peter, as modified by van der Burg, in accordance to the claimed invention (lack of comparative examples in which a density in the protective layer is small than a density in the carcass). Also, a distance of at least 0.1 mm is consistent with the general order of spacings between adjacent reinforcing elements in any number of tire components.
With respect to claim 6, 15, and 18, the figures in Peter and van der Burg generally depict a tire in which cords in the protective layer are extremely close to cords at the carcass turnup end. It is emphasized that the protective layers directly abuts the carcass turnup portion at the carcass turnup end and said protective layer is specifically described as being thin. The claimed range of 0.2-1.0 mm is consistent with the small separation suggested by the disclosure of Peter as modified by van der Burg. Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious form the tire of Peter, as modified by van der Burg, in accordance to the claimed invention.
As to claim 7 and 19, the figures and disclosure of Peter and van der Burg suggest overlapped widths of at least 10 mm (given the general order of tire dimensions and the depicted amount of overlap). Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the tire of Peter, as modified by, van der Berg in accordance to the claimed invention (lack of comparative examples in which an overlapped width is less than 10 mm). It is emphasized that Peter depicts a significant overlap between the carcass turnup portion and the protective layer that would have been recognized as being at least 10 mm (given the general order of tire dimensions).
6. Claim(s) 4, 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peter and van der Burg as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Losey.
As detailed above, Peter, as modified by van der Burg, is directed to a tire construction comprising a protective layer containing organic fiber cords. More particularly, van der Burg teaches an organic fiber cord having low strength and a small thickness (Column 3, Lines 9+). This is consistent with the disclosure of Peter to use organic fibers cords in the protective layer. In such an instance, though, Peter and van der Burg is silent with respect to a load at 5% elongation. In any event, the claims define a broad range of loads that are consistent with those associated with low modulus or low strength organic fiber cords used in tires, as shown for example by Losey (Page 4, Lines 29+). More particularly, Losey suggests that low strength or low modulus organic fiber cords having a load at 4% elongation that is less than 20 N. It is well recognized that a load at 5% elongation is only slightly larger than a load at 4% elongation. As such, the general disclosure of Losey suggests that the claimed load at 5% elongation values are encompassed by the general order of load at 5% elongation values commonly associated with low strength or low modulus organic fiber cords. Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of low strength or low modulus organic fiber cords in the protective layer of van der Burg (lack of comparative examples in which the load at 5% elongation is less than 2N and greater than 10 N).
Conclusion
7. 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 June 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights