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, 2, 5-7, 10, 12, 15, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peter (US 4,234,029, of record) and further in view of van der Burg (US 4,212,340, of record) and Baek (CN 101195327, newly cited).
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).
Lastly, regarding claim 1, it is generally well recognized that protective reinforcing layers can be wound directly on carcass turnup ends or they can be spaced from carcass turnup ends, as shown for example by Baek (Figures 1 and 2). Baek teaches a wide variety of geometries for a protective layer, wherein a wide variety of spacings are present between a carcass turnup end a vertex position of a folded portion of a protective layer (spacing increases from 2a to 2c). Baek also states that any shape can be used to obtain the desired protection of a carcass turnup end. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a spacing greater than 0 mm between a carcass turnup end and a vertex of a protective layer (recognized as providing the desired protection of a carcass turnup end) in the tire of Peter. It is further noted that the claims are directed to absolute dimensions and it is well taken that tire dimensions are highly dependent on the tire size and ultimately the tire intended use. One of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the general disclosure of Baek, would have found it obvious to use a wide variety of arrangements in which a distance or spacing (as claimed) is greater than 0 mm in the tire of Peter and such fully encompasses the broad range of the claimed invention, there being no conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed distance or spacing.
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).
4. Claim(s) 4, 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peter, van der Burg, and Baek as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Losey (WO 0145966, of record).
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).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 17-19 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
6. 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.
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 August 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights