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, 4, 5, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hobbs (US 5,830,295, of record) and further in view of Gaudin (US 5,591,284, of record).
As best depicted in Figure 2, Hobbs is directed to a tire construction comprising a carcass ply 13, a pair of bead cores 11,12, a pair of sidewalls 10, a first, innermost belt layer 22, a second, outermost belt layer 23, and a protective layer 24 that covers an end of said outermost belt layer. Hobbs also states that high speed tires include one to two carcass plies and one to four belt plies (Column 2, Lines 49-51).
Hobbs further states that said protective layer can have a greater length or width on a radially inner side, as compared to a radially outer side (Column 3, Lines 45-60).
In terms of the belt widths, it is extremely well known and conventional to form tires such that any working belt layer is a narrowest belt layer, as shown for example by Gaudin (Figures 6-12). Figures 9 and 10 specifically depict tire constructions in which a second belt layer is a widest width belt layer and an outermost belt layer 4 (only depicted in Figure 1) is a narrowest width belt layer. This is directly analogous to the claimed belt assembly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of well-known and conventional arrangements for the belt assembly of Hobbs having 4 belt layers, including that required by the claimed invention (it is simply desirable to stagger belt ends to eliminate the buildup of stresses).
With further respect to the protective layer, Hobbs states that at least one belt ply has a protective layer that is folded around a belt edge (Column 1, Lines 65+). Given such a disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a protective layer at ends of any of the four belt layers taught by Hobbs as modified by Gaudin, including a third belt layer (layer 3) in the tires depicted in Figures 9 or 10 of Gaudin. In such an instance, the protective layer would cover a radially inner and radially outer end of the belt layer 3, while only covering a radially outer end of the widest width belt layer (layer 2). Also, the protective layer of Hobbs can have a width as large as 40 mm and when folded around a belt end, it is evident that a length or width along a radially inner side of belt 23 can be at least 7 mm (Column 3, Lines 45+).
Lastly, regarding claim 1, Hobbs teaches the use of cords, such as nylon or polyester, having low denier, with a specific mention of 105/1 denier (Column 3, Lines 27+). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize such a cord as being extremely small and very likely a smallest cord in the tire. Hobbs additionally states that a total gauge of the protective layer can be as small as approximately 0.38 mm, further suggesting that the cords in the protective layer are extremely small. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form a tire of Hobbs in which the smallest cords are used in the protective layer based on the general disclosure of Hobbs detailed above.
Regarding claim 4, Hobbs teaches a preferred end count in the protective layer between 25 epi and 35 epi (Column 4, Lines 1+) and such end counts are well recognized as being greater than a wide variety of end counts conventionally used in working belt layers. Additionally, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed relationship (lack of comparative examples in which greater end counts are present in the working belt layers, as compared to the protective layer). Additionally, an end count of 35 epi, for example, corresponds with approximately 1.4 ends per mm and such satisfies the claimed spacing of at least 0.1 mm.
As to claims 5 and 11, the figures of Hobbs depict a tire in which cords in the protective layer are extremely close to cords at respective belt ends. It is emphasized that said protective layer directly abuts the belt ends and said protective layer is specifically described as being thin (total gauge as small as approximately 0.38 mm). The claimed range of 0.2-1.0 mm is consistent with the small separation suggested by the disclosure of Hobbs. Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious form the tire of Hobbs in accordance to the claimed invention.
4. Claim(s) 3, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hobbs as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Losey (WO 0145966, of record).
As detailed above, Hobbs is directed to a tire construction comprising a protective layer containing organic fiber cords. More particularly, Hobbs teaches an organic fiber cord (e.g. polyester or nylon) having a small thickness. The disclosed thickness values and small linear density (e.g. 105/1 denier) are recognized as being as being associated with low strength cord materials. In such an instance, though, Hobbs 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 Hobbs (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, 3-5, 8, 10, and 11have 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.
Applicant argues that Hobbs expressly teaches that when the reinforced strips are applied to only one of the belts, it is to be applied to the top belt . The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hobbs is directed to a tire construction include one to four belt plies, wherein at least one belt ply of the assembly has a reinforced gum strip covering or folded around a belt edge. This general disclosure is seen to encompass tire constructions in which said covering is included at the ends of any of the four belt plies. It is emphasized that there are an extremely limited number of possible configurations and each is seen to be taught by the general disclosure of Hobbs.
Applicant also argues that there is no teaching in Hobbs which would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to specifically arrange the strip such that it is longer on the inner side than on the outer side in the tire radial direction. This argument is not entirely understood since Hobbs expressly states an embodiment in which less overlap of the strip over the top edge of the belt is present as compared to the bottom edge of the belt (Column 3, Lines 49+). Additionally, given that a strip width is between 5 mm and 40 mm, it reasons that a length or width on an inner side would be 7 mm or more. For example, given a strip width of 40 mm, a width on an inner side would be greater than 20 mm in an embodiment in which less overlap of the strip is present on a radially outer side (more overlap on a radially inner side).
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 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights