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.
Claim(s) 32-35, 37-48, and 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bandel (EP 0093451, of record) and further in view of Hasegawa (EP 3812166, newly cited) and the APA.
As best depicted in Figures 1 and 2, Bandel is directed to a tire designed for motor vehicles (Page 1, Lines 1+). It is evident from the figures that a curvature ratio of the tire is extremely small (based on tread being relatively flat and having large radius of curvature) and on the order of 0 (consistent with motor vehicle tires as opposed to motorcycle tires). More particularly, said tire includes a pair of bead cores (indicated by dark circles in respective bead region), at least one carcass ply 3 formed with textile or metallic cords, a single, spirally wound circumferential belt layer 1 formed with high elongation cords inclined between 0 degrees and 10 degrees with respect to a tire circumferential direction, and a tread 2 (Page 5, Line 34-Page 6, Line 32). Bandel also states that a cord density in the circumferential belt layer is between 80 cords per dm and 100 cords per dm (Page 7, Lines 1+). Bandel, however, fails to expressly state that a carcass cord angle is between 60 degrees and 80 degrees and a crossing angle between cords in respective plies is between 20 degrees and 60 degrees.
As detailed above, the tire of Bandel includes a plurality of carcass plies. Bandel further states that the carcass cords lie in “substantially” radial planes (Page 6, Lines 1+). While Bandel discloses a carcass cord angle of 90 degrees, it is extremely well known and conventional that “substantially” radial planes encompass carcass cord angles that are less than 90 degrees. Hasegawa, for example, is directed to a similar tire construction and teaches carcass cord angles between 75 degrees and 90 degrees (Paragraph 19). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use carcass cord angles of 75 degrees, for example, in the tire of Bandel as it constitutes a known angle within the disclosure of “substantially” radial planes. In such an instance, given that adjacent carcass plies are conventionally formed with crossed cords, a cord angle of 30 degrees would be present between cords in adjacent carcass plies.
With respect to the tensile-load elongation relationship of a cord used in the circumferential belt layer, the claims define a relationship that is consistent with a multitude of well-known and conventional high-elongation cords that are commonly used in tire belt layers, as shown for example by APA (Pages 16 and 17 of the originally filed specification). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a cord that satisfies the claimed relationship in the circumferential belt layer of Bandel absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results (recognized as providing suitable reinforcement properties in the tire crown region).
Lastly, the tire of Bandel is a “beltless” tire inasmuch as the claimed tire including at least one reinforcing cord would in a plurality of circumferential turns arranged in radially outer position with respect to the carcass structure is a “beltless” tire.
As to claims 33-45, the claims define a wide variety of well-known and conventional cords that are commonly used in tire belt layers, as shown for example by the APA (Pages 16 and 17). It is emphasized that tire belt layers formed with cords inclined between 0 and 10 degrees, such as taught by Bandel, conventionally include metal materials and/or textile materials (see Page 6, Lines 15-33 of Bandel) and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the multitude of cord constructions encompassed by the claims. This is particularly evident in view of the claims defining a multitude of mutually exclusive cord constructions that are recognized by the APA as being conventionally used in tire belt layers.
Regarding claim 46, as detailed above, said circumferential belt layer is formed with cords inclined between 0 and 10 degrees (fully encompasses the claimed range between 0 and 5 degrees) and said at least one carcass ply is formed with cords inclined between 75 and 90 degrees (in view of Hasegawa). It is also noted that Hasegawa includes the language “for example”, 75 to 90 degrees, suggesting that carcass cord angles less than 75 degrees would be recognized as constituting a “substantially” radial arrangement.
With respect to claim 47, as is conventional in tire constructions, respective carcass plies are characterized as cross plies formed with cord angles that are equal and opposite one another.
As to claim 48, Hasegawa disclosed carcass cord angles between 75 degrees and 90 degrees and such corresponds with crossing angles between 0 degrees and 30 degrees.
Regarding claim 51, Bandel teaches the inclusion of elastomeric materials in the circumferential belt layer (Page 7, Lines 23+).
4. Claim(s) 49 and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bandel, Hasegawa, and the APA as applied in claim 32 above and further in view of Suzuki (JP 2019-217843, of record).
As detailed above, Bandel is directed to a tire construction including a circumferential belt layer formed with cords inclined between 0 and 10 degrees with respect to a tire circumferential direction. In such an instance, though, the tire of Bandel is devoid of an auxiliary element.
It is extremely well known and conventional though, to include auxiliary elements at belt ends to eliminate the buildup of stresses, as shown for example by Suzuki. More particularly, Suzuki teaches an auxiliary element 35 in the form of an elastomeric material or layer that is positioned between a carcass and a belt and between a belt and a tread. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include common auxiliary elements in the tire of Bandel for the benefits detailed above.
Regarding claim 50, respective auxiliary elements have a width W1 between 12.5 and 25% of the belt width.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 32-35 and 37-51 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 September 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights