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.
Claim(s) 32-48 and 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (US 6,530,409) and further in view of the APA.
As best depicted in Figures 1 and 11, Ishikawa is directed to a tire construction comprising at least one carcass ply 8a, a pair of bead cores 10, a pair of bead fillers 11, a pair of sidewalls 3, a tread 2, and at least one belt ply 9a formed with cords inclined between 0 and 10 degrees with respect to a tire circumferential direction (Column 1, Line 65-Column 2, Line 40). Ishikawa further states that said at least one carcass ply can be (a) radial or semiradial and comprise cord angles between 70 and 90 degrees with respect to a tire circumferential direction (in which case an intersecting angle between cords in adjacent carcass plies would be 0-40 degrees) or (b) biased and comprise cord angles between 35 and 70 degrees with respect to a tire circumferential direction (in which case an intersecting angle between cords in adjacent carcass plies would be 40-110 degrees).
In such an instance, said at least one belt ply 9a corresponds with the claimed “at least one reinforcing cord would in a plurality of circumferential turns arrange din a radially outer position with respect to the carcass structure”. It is emphasized that the claims are directed to a tire construction, as opposed to a method of forming a tire, and patentability is based on the structure imparted by the claims (no evidence that the claimed method results in a materially different tire article).
With respect to the tensile-load elongation relationship of a cord used in the at least one belt ply 9a, the claims define a relationship that is consistent with a multitude of well known and conventional 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 at least one belt ply of Ishikawa absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results (recognized as providing suitable reinforcement properties in the tire crown region).
Lastly, the tire of Ishikawa 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 that taught by Ishikawa, conventionally include metal materials and/or textile materials 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 at least one belt ply 9a 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 8a is formed with cords inclined between 35 and 90 degrees (fully encompasses the claimed range between 65 and 75 degrees).
With respect to claim 47, as is conventional in tire constructions, respective carcass plies are characterized as “cross” plies (Column 2, Lines 15-25) and such is recognized as encompassing, at a minimum, cords having equal and crossing cord angles.
As to claim 48, Ishikawa teaches carcass cord angles between 35 and 90 degrees and such corresponds with an intersecting angle between 0 and 110 degrees (fully encompasses the claimed range between 30 and 50 degrees, there being no conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed range).
Regarding claim 51, belt layers are well recognized as including cords embedded in a topping or coating rubber (consistent with conventional makeup of tire components, including belt layers).
Claim(s) 49 and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa and the APA as applied in claim 32 above and further in view of Suzuki (JP 2019-217843).
As detailed above, Ishikawa is directed to a tire construction including at least one belt ply 9a formed with cords inclined between 0 and 10 degrees with respect to a tire circumferential direction. In such an instance, though, the tire of Ishikawa 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 Ishikawa for the benefits detailed above.
Regarding claim 50, respective auxiliary elements have a width W1 between 12.5 and 25% of the belt width.
Conclusion
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 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights