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) 1-6, 9, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP 2002-240518, of record) and further in view of Boileau (US 3,861,439, newly cited) and Obata (US 4,387,759, newly cited).
As best depicted in Figure 1, Nakamura is directed to a wheel assembly comprising a tire and a rim, wherein a distance h (corresponds with claimed A) from a radially outer end Q of a rim flange 9 to a tire outer surface is between 0.28 and 0.45 times a flange radius R. Additionally, an exemplary tire construction of Nakamura is 18R25 and includes a distance h of 15 mm (Paragraph 31). The tire of Nakamura further includes a conventional carcass 6 that is wrapped around a bead core 3. Also, while Nakamura fails to describe an innerliner, such is well recognized as a fundamental tire component that corresponds with an innermost tire surface and eliminates airflow into the tire body.
In order to satisfy the claimed invention, a tire cross-sectional height needs to fall between approximately 94 mm and 1,500 mm. As detailed above, an exemplary tire construction of Nakamura is 18R25. This corresponds with a tire width of approximately 18 inches or 457 mm and a rim diameter of 25 inches or 635 mm. While the exact tire section height is not disclosed, it is evident that such a tire would have a tire section height SH between 94 mm and 1,500 mm and thus satisfy the claimed invention. For example, even if the aspect ratio (ratio between height and width) was 1, the tire section height would be approximately 457 mm and result in a ratio A/SH well within the broad range of the claimed invention.
With further respect to claim 1, the modified figure below includes a dotted or dashed line that approximates a line connecting points P and Q as claimed. It is evident that such a line makes an acute angle that is less than 90 degrees with respect to a horizontal line in the tire width direction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form such angle between 50 and 80 degrees given the general disclosure/depiction of Nakamura and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed angle.
PNG
media_image1.png
715
499
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to the carcass turnup end of Nakamura, the reference broadly describes tire constructions in which end 11 is positioned radially beyond a height associated with the maximum tire width at position “s” (specific relationship between D3 and D1 is required when such a height is present). While Nakamura fails to expressly teach a turnup height that overlaps a belt layer, such a turnup height is consistent with well known and conventional tire designs and provides increased reinforcement in the shoulder region while protecting a carcass turnup end (covered under belt layers as opposed to be exposed), as shown for example by Boileau (Column 5, Lines 18+). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to position the carcass turnup end of Nakamura in accordance to the claimed invention, as taught by Boileau, absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Lastly, regarding claim 1, a rubber component is clearly present between the main and turnup carcass positions and radially beyond a bead core. It is well recognized that such a rubber component corresponds with a conventional bead filler or bead apex. As to a height of such a conventional bead filler, it is extremely common to form a bead filler with a height that exceeds a height of the rim flange. Obata provides one example of conventional bead height values (Column 3, Lines 25+). It is particularly noted that all of the disclosed heights appear to be radially beyond a rim flange (using the general contour depicted in the figures of Obata). Also, several of the disclosed heights are even present radially beyond a height associated with a maximum section width. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the bead filler of Nakamura in accordance to the claimed invention absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
With respect to claim 2, it is evident that an included angle between line LQ and line PQ is an extremely small acute angle and such is consistent with the broad range of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, an included angle as required by the claimed invention is an acute angle and such is consistent with the broad range of the claimed invention between 15 degrees and 65 degrees and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed invention.
As to claims 4 and 12, given that an exemplary radius R is 38 mm, it reasons that the claimed dimension B is between 0.02 and 0.18 times a tire section height (dimension B is less than radius R and a tire section height would be approximately 450 mm).
With respect to claims 5 and 13, the claims are directed to absolute dimensions and it is well recognized that tire dimensions are a function of the tire size and ultimately the tire intended use. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the wheel assembly of Nakamura in accordance to the claims absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results (tire size and radius R, for example, are not limited to the exemplary wheel assemblies).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, the exemplary rim flange radius R is 38 mm and such corresponds with an opening distance h (claimed A) between approximately 10.6 mm and 17.1 mm. It is evident that a rim flange radius R of 38 mm is exemplary and smaller rim flange radii would result in an opening distance as required by the claimed invention. Also, the claims are directed to absolute dimensions and it is well taken that tire dimensions are a function of the tire size and ultimately the intended use of the tire.
As to claim 9, belt layers are well recognized as fundamental components of modern day tire constructions and assuming a tire outer surface that is not directly vertical, the broad quantitative relationship of the claimed invention would have been satisfied.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 7, 8, 10, and 15-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 9, and 11-14 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 December 29, 2025