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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Burg (US 4,212,340, of record) and further in view of Losey (WO 0145966, of record).
As best depicted in Figures 4 and 6, van der Burg is directed to a tire construction comprising at least one carcass ply 6 (corresponds with the claimed reinforcement layer) having a carcass turnup portion 8 and a protective layer 29 or 36 positioned axially outside of said carcass turnup portion and radially beyond a carcass turnup end 12. The tire of van der Burg further includes a wire chafer 28 or 37 that envelops said carcass and is thus on an outer circumferential side of said carcass, wherein said protective layer covers an end of said carcass ply AND an end of said wire chafer. It is emphasized that the claims as currently drafted require at least one ply formed of rubber-coated cords (carcass in the tire of van der Burg) AND a wire chafer.
Additionally, the claim language “a wire chafer is arranged around a bead core and on an outer circumferential side of a carcass when viewed from the bead core” is seen to be satisfied by Burg since such language is used by Applicant to describe the assembly in Figure 1 (“circumferential side” is seen to correspond with the width direction- Paragraph 14 in Applicant’s original specification). 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 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 have 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).
Regarding claim 2, while 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 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 claims 3 and 6, 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 (corresponds with “the ply” of the claimed invention). 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.
As to claims 4, 7, 8, and 12, 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.
Regarding claims 5, 9-11, and 13-15, 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 13, 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 and further radially outward than each of the bead reinforcing layer 13 and the carcass turnup end 9.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 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.
Applicant argues that van der Burg does not teach or suggest the arrangement of a wire chafer around the bead core and the protective layer covering an end of the wire chafer, as required by amended claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. See the modified figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
610
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is further evident from Figure 1 that said wire chafer is in fact arranged around the bead core. See the modified figure below.
PNG
media_image2.png
666
616
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lastly, the claim language “on an outer circumferential side of a carcass when viewed from the bead core” is not seen to define over van der Burg since Applicant defines said language as corresponding with the arrangement in Figure 1 (see Paragraph 14). It is emphasized that wire chafer 6 is wrapped or folded around the bead core, without extending radially outward of a carcass turnup end- this is identical to the assembly of van der Burg and thus, the claim language identified above fails to define over the tire of van der Burg.
Conclusion
5. 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.
6. 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 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights