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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/01/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2015/0306922) (Kim) (of record), as evidenced by Fujita (JP H118897 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a pneumatic tire (title; [0004]; see Fig. 1) comprising: a tread portion (1) extending in a tire circumferential direction and having an annular shape (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0040]-[0041]); a pair of sidewall portions (3) disposed on opposite sides of the tread portion (1) (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0040]-[0041]); and a pair of bead portions (2) disposed toward the inside of the sidewall portions (3) in a tire radial direction (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0040]-[0041]); wherein a sound absorbing member (5) is fixed via an adhesive layer (double-sided adhesive tape) to an inner surface of the tread portion (1) along the tire circumferential direction (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0040]-[0045]), the sound absorbing member (5) being made of a porous polyurethane foam ([0019]; [0021]-[0022]; [0026]; [0058]; [0085]). Kim further discloses that an area of the sound absorbing member (5) being in contact with the tread portion (1) has a closed-cell structure by being subjected to a surface heat treatment ([0059]; claim 5). Therefore, because this surface heat treatment would be unnecessary for an already closed-cell foam, Kim necessarily discloses that the sound absorbing member (5) is made of a material with open cells. Furthermore, Kim nowhere discloses that the sound absorbing member (5) contains water repellent, which suggests the limitation that the sound absorbing member does not contain water repellent since polyurethane foams do not inherently contain water repellent. Kim further discloses an exemplary embodiment in which the sound absorbing member (5) has an elongation at break of 136% at a temperature of -20oC (see Exemplary Embodiment 3, Fig. 12; [0092]), reading on the claimed range of 130% to 300%. Kim further teaches that the sound absorbing member (5) should have similar properties at room temperature (25o) and high temperature (80oC) ([0089]-[0091]; [0097]; [0104]; [0008]). While Kim does not disclose elongation at break values for the sound absorbing member (5) at room temperature (25o) or high temperature (80oC), examiner notes that elongation at break values for polyurethane foams increase slightly with increasing temperature (see Table 3 and [0052] of Fujita). Furthermore, examiner notes that the sound absorbing member of the instant application is made of an open-cell polyurethane foam (see [0023] of the instant specification), and every polyurethane foam of the instant application that has an elongation at break value within the claimed range of 130% to 300% at -20oC also has elongation at break values that satisfy both of the relationships: y
≥
t + 100 and y
≤
2t +440 at all temperatures in the range of -20oC to 80oC. If the composition and structure of the prior art are substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01). Therefore, since Kim discloses an open-celled polyurethane foam sound absorbing member (5) that has an elongation at break at -20oC that falls within the claimed range of 130% to 300%, it is considered inherent that the sound absorbing member (5) would have elongation at break values that satisfy both of the relationships: y
≥
t + 100 and y
≤
2t +440 at all temperatures in the range of -20oC to 80oC. Thus, Kim reads on all of the limitations in claim 1.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kim further discloses that a cross-sectional area of the sound absorbing member (5) is 23-29% of a cross-sectional area of the tire internal cavity ([0015]; [0021]; [0040]; [0046]). Furthermore, since Kim discloses that the sound absorbing member (5) extends across the entire internal circumference of the tire ([0045]; [0081]; see Fig. 1), this area ratio is equal to the volume ratio of the sound absorbing member to the cavity volume of the pneumatic tire. Thus, Kim’s disclosed range of 23-29% reads on the claimed ranged of 10% to 30% and 22% to 30%.
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kim further discloses that the sound absorbing member (5) comprises a single band-like body having a rectangular cross-sectional shape (see Figs. 1 and 11; [0045]; [0081]), and the band-like body forming the sound absorbing member (5) is disposed straddling a tire equator (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kim further discloses that the adhesive layer comprises a double-sided adhesive tape ([0020]; [0043]-[0044]; [0079]-[0080]; [0096]).
Regarding claim 19, Kim discloses all of the limitations in claim 19 present in claim 1, as set forth above. Furthermore, Kim’s disclosed elongation at break value of 136% (see Exemplary Embodiment 3, Fig. 12; [0092]), also reads on the claimed range of 130% to 280%. Thus, Kim reads on all of the limitations in claim 19.
Regarding claim 21, Kim discloses all of the limitations in claim 21 present in claim 1, as set forth above. Kim further discloses that the sound absorbing member (5) is continuous in the tire circumferential direction (see Fig. 1; [0045]; [0081]). Thus, Kim reads on all of the limitations in claim 21.
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.
Claims 2-3 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0306922) (Kim) (of record) in view of Tanno et al. (US 2009/0053492) (Tanno '492) (of record).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As set forth above, Kim discloses that the sound absorbing member (5) has an elongation at break value of 136% (see Exemplary Embodiment 3, Fig. 12; [0092]), suggesting the claimed relationship 130
≤
y
≤
500. Kim fails to explicitly disclose, however, a hardness value for the sound absorbing member (5).
Tanno ‘492 teaches a similar pneumatic tire ([0002]) comprising a tread portion (1) and a sound absorbing member (5) fixed via an adhesive to an inner surface of the tread portion (1) ([0040]). Tanno ‘492 further teaches that the hardness of the the sound absorbing member (5) is preferably from 80 to 120 N ([0040]), suggesting the claimed relationship x > 80. Tanno ‘492 further teaches that configuring the sound absorbing member (5) in this way leads to better operability with respect to the attaching property of the sound absorbing member (5) ([0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the sound absorbing member disclosed by Kim to have the hardness taught by Tanno ‘492 because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would lead to excellent durability against shear strain.
Furthermore, given Kim’s elongation at break value of 136% and the above hardness range of 80 to 120 N, it is clear that modified Kim would satisfy the claimed relationship y
≤
-21x + 2770 (at least 250 in this case). Thus, modified Kim satisfies all of the limitations in claim 2.
Regarding claims 3 and 9, modified Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 1 and 2, respectively. Modified Kim further discloses that the sound absorbing member (Kim: 5) has a density of from 33 to 45 kg/m3, which is substantially close to the claimed density range of from 10 kg/m3 to 30 kg/m3. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed range does not overlap with the prior art but is merely close. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality for the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Kim to have satisfied the claimed density range based on the close density range disclosed by Kim. Kim fails to explicitly disclose, however, a number of the open cells of the sound absorbing member (Kim: 5).
Tanno ‘492 further teaches that the number of cells of the sound absorbing member (Tanno ‘492: 5) is from 40 cells/25 mm to 100 cells/25 mm, which overlaps the claimed range of from 30 cells/25 mm to 80 cells/25 mm. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Tanno ’492 further teaches that configuring the sound absorbing member (Tanno ‘492: 5) in this way helps to balance a reduction in tear strength of the sound absorbing member (Tanno ‘492: 5) with lowered production stability (Tanno ‘492: [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sound absorbing member disclosed by modified Kim to have the claimed number of open cells, as suggested by Tanno ‘492, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would balance tear strength of the sound absorbing member with lowered production stability.
Regarding claim 10, modified Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 9. Modified Kim further discloses all of the limitations in claim 10 as set forth above for claim 4, which has the same subject matter as claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, modified Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 10. Modified Kim further discloses all of the limitations in claim 11 as set forth above for claim 5, which has the same subject matter as claim 11.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0306922) (Kim) (of record) in view of Yugawa (JP 2005-262920 with English Machine Translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kim further discloses a center land portion disposed on the tread portion (1) on a tire equator and continuously extending around the tread portion (1) around an entire tire circumference (see Modified Figure 1 below). Kim fails to disclose, however, the claimed first and second band-like bodies forming the sound absorbing member (5).
PNG
media_image1.png
460
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 1, Kim
Yugawa teaches a substantially similar pneumatic tire (title) comprising a tread portion (2t) and a sound absorbing member (9) fixed via an adhesive layer to an inner surface (2ti) of the tread portion (2t) along the tire circumferential direction ([0034]; see Fig. 4). Yugawa further teaches that a center land portion (see Modified Figure 8 below) is disposed on the tread portion (2t) on a tire equator (C) and continuously extends around the tread portion (2t) around an entire tire circumference ([0020]). Yugawa further teaches that the sound absorbing member (9) comprises a first band-like body (see Modified Figure 8 below) and a second band-like body (see Modified Figure 8 below), each one having a rectangular cross-sectional shape (see Modified Figure 8 below; [0030]); the first band-like body forming the sound absorbing member (9) is disposed on one side in a tire lateral direction with respect to a position of 40% of the width of the center land portion from one end portion of the center land portion on the one side in the tire lateral direction to the other side in the tire lateral direction (see Modified Figure 8 below); the second band-like body forming the sound absorbing member (9) is disposed on the other side in the tire lateral direction with respect to a position of 40% of a width of the center land portion from one end portion of the center land portion on the other side in the tire lateral direction to the one side in the tire lateral direction (see Modified Figure 8 below); and the first band-like body forming the sound absorbing member (9) and the second band-like body forming the sound absorbing member (9) are separated from each other by 60% or greater of the width of the center land portion (see Modified Figure 8 below). Yugawa further teaches that this configuration of a first band-like body and a second band-like body as shown in Fig. 8 reduces the noise level of the tire while running and improves the high-speed durability of the tire by mitigating local and rapid temperature rise ([0049]; [0026]).
PNG
media_image2.png
389
728
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 8, Yugawa
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sound absorbing member disclosed by Kim to include the first band-like body and the second band-like body as taught by Yugawa because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would lead a reduction of the noise level of the tire as well as an improved high-speed durability of the tire.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0306922) (Kim) (of record) in view of Tanno (US 2016/0297260) (Tanno '260) (of record).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kim fails to disclose, however, that the sound absorbing member (5) comprises from three to five missing portions in the tire circumferential direction.
Tanno ‘260 teaches a similar pneumatic tire (title) comprising: a tread portion (1) extending in a tire circumferential direction and having an annular shape (see Fig. 1; [0023]); a pair of sidewall portions (2) disposed on opposite sides of the tread portion (1) (see Fig. 1); and a pair of bead portions (3) disposed toward the inside of the sidewall portions (2) in a tire radial direction (see Fig. 1); wherein a sound absorbing member (6) is fixed via an adhesive layer (5) to an inner surface (4) of the tread portion (1) along the tire circumferential direction (see Fig. 1; [0026]). Tanno ‘260 further teaches that the sound absorbing member (6) comprises three missing portions (6A) in the tire circumferential direction (see Fig. 8). Tanno ‘260 further teaches that configuring the sound absorbing member (6) in this way helps to avoid deterioration of the adhesion durability and fixing strength of the sound absorbing member (6) and makes it possible to suppress peeling of the sound absorbing member (6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sound absorbing member disclosed by Kim to have the claimed missing portions, as taught by Tanno ‘260, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would avoid deterioration of the adhesion durability and fixing strength of the sound absorbing member and suppress peeling of the sound absorbing member.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0306922) (Kim) (of record) in view of Tanno et al. (US 2009/0053492) (Tanno '492) (of record) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Yugawa (JP 2005-262920 with English Machine Translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 12, modified Kim in view of Yugawa satisfies all of the limitations in claim 12 as set forth above for claim 6, which has the same subject matter as claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, modified Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 12. Modified Kim further discloses all of the limitations in claim 13 as set forth above for claim 7, which has the same subject matter as claim 13.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0306922) (Kim) (of record) in view of Tanno et al. (US 2009/0053492) (Tanno '492) (of record) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Yugawa (JP 2005-262920 with English Machine Translation) (of record) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Tanno (US 2016/0297260) (Tanno '260) (of record).
Regarding claim 14, modified Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 13. Modified Kim in view of Tanno ‘260 further satisfies all of the limitations in claim 14 as set forth above for claim 8, which has the same subject matter as claim 14.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0306922) (Kim) (of record) in view of Hosoda et al. (US 2020/0055288) (Hosoda) (of record).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kim fails to disclose, however, a value for the thickness of the adhesive layer (double-sided adhesive tape).
Hosoda teaches a similar sound absorbing member (100) intended to be adhered to a tire with a pressure-sensitive double-sided adhesive tape layer ([0039]-[0040]). Hosoda further teaches that an effective thickness of the adhesive layer is from 40 μm to 60 μm ([0041]), suggesting the claimed ranges of from 10 μm to 100 μm and from 10 μm to 80 μm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, with predictable results, to have modified the adhesive layer disclosed by Kim to have the thickness taught by Hosoda for the purpose of adhering the sound absorbing member to the tire. All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination, (i.e. the combination of known elements into a single device) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Thus, modified Kim satisfies all of the limitations in claims 15 and 16.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanno (US 2016/0297260) (Tanno '260) (of record) in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0306922) (Kim) (of record).
Regarding claim 21, Tanno ‘260 discloses a pneumatic tire (title) comprising: a tread portion (1) extending in a tire circumferential direction and having an annular shape (see Fig. 1; [0023]); a pair of sidewall portions (2) disposed on opposite sides of the tread portion (1) (see Fig. 1); and a pair of bead portions (3) disposed toward the inside of the sidewall portions (2) in a tire radial direction (see Fig. 1); wherein a sound absorbing member (6) is fixed via an adhesive layer (5) to an inner surface (4) of the tread portion (1) along the tire circumferential direction (see Fig. 1; [0026]). Tanno ‘260 further discloses that the sound absorbing member (6) is made of a porous material with open cells ([0026]). Furthermore, Tanno ‘260 nowhere mentions that the sound absorbing member (6) contains water repellent, suggesting the limitation that the sound absorbing member does not contain water repellent. Tanno ‘260 further discloses that the sound absorbing member (6) is continuous in the tire circumferential direction (see Fig. 3). Tanno ‘260 fails to explicitly disclose, however, that when a temperature t of the sound absorbing member (6) is in a range from -20oC to 80oC, an elongation at break y and the temperature t of the sound absorbing member (6) satisfy both of the relationships: y
≥
t + 100 and y
≤
2t +440 at all temperatures of the range.
Kim teaches a similar tire (title) comprising a sound absorbing member (5) fixed to an inner surface of a tread portion (1) along the tire circumferential direction (see Fig. 1). Kim further teaches that the sound absorbing member (5) has an elongation at break y of more than 340% ([0087]). Kim further teaches in an exemplary embodiment that the sound absorbing member (5) has an elongation at break y of 343% at -20oC (see Exemplary Embodiment 1, Fig. 12; [0092]). Kim further teaches that the sound absorbing member (5) should have similar properties at room temperature (25o) and high temperature (80oC) ([0089]-[0091]; [0097]; [0104]; [0008]). Thus, Kim suggests that when a temperature t of the sound absorbing member (5) is in a range from -20oC to 80oC, an elongation at break y of the sound absorbing member (5) is greater than 340%, which at least overlaps the claimed relationships, y
≥
t + 100 and y
≤
2t +440, at low temperature (y
≥
80; y
≤
400), at room temperature (y
≥
125; y
≤
490), and at high temperature (y
≥
180; y
≤
600). In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Furthermore, because Kim teaches that the sound absorbing member (5) should have these properties at high, room, and low temperatures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the sound absorbing member (5) to satisfy the claimed relationships at all temperatures of the range -20oC to 80oC. Kim further teaches that configuring the sound absorbing member (5) in this way helps to enhance the durability of the sound absorbing member (5) under various environmental conditions in the high temperature and low temperature regions, thus, allowing performance of the cavity noise reduction properties of the sound absorbing member (5) to be maintained consistently ([0104]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sound absorbing member disclosed by Tanno ‘260 to meet the claimed elongation and temperature relationships in claim 21, as suggested by Kim, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would help to enhance the durability of the sound absorbing member under various environmental conditions in the high temperature and low temperature regions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1 and 19 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's arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments related to new claim 21, examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that Tanno ‘260 fails to disclose that the sound absorbing member (6) is continuous in the tire circumferential direction because Tanno ‘260 requires that the sound absorbing member (6) include missing sections (6A) along the tire circumferential direction. However, examiner notes that claim 21 does not require the sound absorbing member to be continuous along an entire inner circumference of the tire. Rather, claim 21 only broadly requires that the sound absorbing member be continuous in the tire circumferential direction, which does not necessarily have to be the entire circumferential direction. Indeed, applicant’s own disclosure supports this interpretation of the claim since the instant specification discloses that the sound absorbing member preferably includes a missing portion (8) in at least one section in the tire circumferential direction (see Fig. 2 of the instant drawings and [0031] of the instant specification), and the instant specification gives no other embodiments in which the sound absorbing member does not include this missing portion (8). Thus, since Tanno ‘260 clearly discloses that the sound absorbing member extends along the tire circumferential direction continuously for a substantial length of the tire inner surface (see Fig. 3), it is clear that Tanno ‘260 satisfies this limitation.
As such, claims 1-19 and 21 stand rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights