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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed Sept. 02, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 5, 10-16, 18-20, 22 remain pending in the application.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beeghly et al. (US 4,574,857) in view of Puhala et al. (US 7,559,348), further in view of Takino et al. (US 5,225,011) and Kind et al. (DE102010045120, English translation provided).
With regards to claim 1, Beeghly teaches a pneumatic tire for a vehicle (Abstract, Fig. 1, col 1 ln 1-7) comprising a first sidewall (20), second sidewall (20’) and a tread extending between the first and second sidewall (Figs. 1 and 4). As seen in Figs. 1 and 2 the tread comprises a first continuous pavement bar (24) centered between the first and second sidewall, a first plurality of lugs (30) disposed between the first sidewall and the centered pavement bar and a second plurality of lugs (32) disposed between the centered pavement bar and the second sidewall. As seen in Fig. 4, at a given inflation pressure the tire is shaped with a crown such that the center pavement bar (24) extends radially outward more than the lugs. The claim limitation regarding whether the lugs contact the road surface under a second pressure less than a first inflation pressure represents the manner in which the tire is used as the inflation pressure of a tire as well as the load of the vehicle determines the resulting shape of the tire. Intended use (for example, the first and second lateral shapes under the first and second pressures) has been continuously held not to be germane to determining the patentability of the apparatus, In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530.
However, Beeghly does not explicitly disclose how much natural rubber and styrene-butadiene rubber in the first compound, the second compound, and a third compound (i.e., for an undertread). In the same field of endeavor, tire, Takino discloses that, a rubber composition of 50%-100% of natural rubber and 50%-0% of styrene-butadiene rubber compounded with carbon black, silica and silane coupling agent is used at least for the inner portion of the center rubber (col. 4, lines 34-39).
Further, in Example 3 in Table 2 of the teaching of Takino (as illustrated in Fig. 1), the center portion of the tread (see Fig. 1) has compound C having 60 parts natural rubber and 40 parts SBR (see compound C in Table 1) (overlapping the claimed first compound) and the side portion of the tread (see Fig. 1) has compound H having 100 parts natural rubber and 0 parts SBR (see compound H in Table 1) (overlapping the second compound).
Takino discloses, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the width Wc of the inner portion (6) of the center rubber (4) to occupy 20-90 % of the tread width Wt (col. 4, lines 5-7).
Here, the inner portion (6) can be considered as the equivalence to the undertread. Especially, when the width Wc is about 90% of the tread width Wt, the inner portion (6) is considered to extend under the first plurality of lugs, the second plurality of lugs and the first pavement bar. The inner portion (6) is disposed radially outwards of a body ply of the tire and the body ply is disposed radially outwards of the belt.
It is noticed that, as listed in Table 2, at least for Example 1, the inner portion (6) comprises the compound A which comprises 90 parts per hundred natural rubber and 10 parts per hundred styrene-butadiene rubber.
Takino et al. and the claims differ in that Takino et al. do not teach the exact same range for the composition as recited in the instant claims.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Takino et al. (a rubber composition of 50%-100% of natural rubber and 50%-0% of styrene-butadiene rubber) overlap the instantly claimed ranges (the first compound comprises between about 35 and 65 parts per hundred natural rubber and between about 35 and about 65 parts per hundred styrene- butadiene rubber; the second compound comprises more than 90 parts per hundred natural rubber and less than 10 parts per hundred styrene-butadiene rubber) and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Beeghly to incorporate the teachings of Takino to provide the proper natural rubber and styrene-butadiene rubber in the first compound and the second compound. Doing so would be possible to reduce heat build-up in the tread of the tire having superior cut resistance, as recognized by Takino (col. 2, lines 10-25).
Because Takino teaches the first compound and the second compound overlapping the claimed first compound and the second compound in Applicant’s teaching, the tread of the tire in Takino should have the similar properties with the tread of the tire in Applicant such as hardness of the first compound and the second compound.
However, Beeghly and Takino do not explicitly teach that the continuous pavement bar comprises a first compound and the first and second plurality of lugs comprise a second compound, said first compound harder than the second compound.
In the same field of endeavor, pneumatic tires, Puhala teaches that often tires may be required to work in a variety of conditions which require a balance of several properties such as traction, handling, wear resistance, etc. (col 1 ln 30-50). Puhala teaches that to aid in balancing desired properties it is advantageous to provide a tire with graduated physical properties across zones of the tread (col 1 ln 50-67, Fig. 1) including for example a central tread bar (11) having a first property with lateral tread elements to either side (12) having a second property by providing different rubber compositions (Abstract). As indicated in Table 2 in col. 12, Puhala discloses that, sample A on the central zone has Shore A hardness (23 C) 70 and sample B in the primary zone has Shore A hardness (23 C) 67. Thus, Puhala discloses that, the continuous pavement bar comprises a first compound and the first and second plurality of lugs comprise a second compound, said first compound harder than the second compound.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide a central tread zone in Beeghly with a first rubber compound and lateral lug zones with a second rubber compound as taught by Puhala as both relate to pneumatic tires presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and doing so provides the benefit discussed in Puhala of balancing different properties of the tire yielding predictable results (col. 1, lines 40-45).
Further, in the same field of endeavor, tire, Kind discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1a, 1b, when pressure inside the pressure chamber (3) is changed, the shape of the tread of the tire will change accordingly. Thus, as illustrated in Fig. 1b, when the inside pressure of the pressure chamber of the tire is increased at a certain level, only the centered portion of the treat of the tire (i.e., item 6 in Fig. 1b) will contact the ground.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Beeghly to incorporate the teachings of Kind to have less ground contact of the tread when the inflation pressure is higher inside the tire. Doing so would be possible to reduce rolling resistance, as recognized by Kond (page 3, lines 80-84).
Regarding claim 5, Beeghly does not explicitly disclose the first compound is silica-free. Puhala discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, rubber compositions of the central tread cape zone (Fig. 1, item 11 (col. 12, lines 38-40); i.e., the first compound), (2) about zero to about 80 phr of precipitated silica (col. 27, lines 16-30). Thus, Puhala discloses that, when zero phr of precipitated silica in the composition of the central tread cape zone, the first compound is silica-free.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide a central tread zone in Beeghly with a first rubber compound with silica-free and lateral lug zones with a second rubber compound as taught by Puhala as both relate to pneumatic tires presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and doing so provides the benefit discussed in Puhala of balancing different properties of the tire yielding predictable results (col. 1, lines 40-45).
Beeghly discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, a continuous center rib 24 extends circumferentially about the tread 12 (col. 4, lines 24-25). Thus, Beeghly discloses that, the first pavement bar 110B is a rib which means continuous.
Beeghly does not explicitly disclose that the third region comprises greater than about 90 parts per hundred natural rubber and less than about 10 parts per hundred rubber styrene-butadiene rubber. In the same field of endeavor, tire, Takino discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, in the radial tire according to the present invention, a rubber composition composed of 50-100% of natural rubber (overlapping claimed range of greater than about 90 parts per hundred natural rubber) and 50-0% of styrene-butadiene (overlapping claimed range of less than about 10 parts per hundred rubber styrene-butadiene rubber) copolymerized rubber compounded with carbon black, silica and silane coupling agent is used at least for the inner portion of the center rubber (i.e., the first compound) (col. 4, lines 34-37).
The claimed the first compound comprises a natural rubber and styrene-butadiene rubber blend is prima facie obvious IF yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. In this case, something to do with a rubber composition composed of 50-100% of natural rubber (overlapping claimed range of greater than about 90 parts per hundred natural rubber) and 50-0% of styrene-butadiene (overlapping claimed range of less than about 10 parts per hundred rubber styrene-butadiene rubber) copolymerized rubber compounded with carbon black, silica and silane coupling agent is used at least for the inner portion of the center rubber comes from Takino itself.
Regarding claims 10, 11, Beeghly does not explicitly disclose that the third region comprises silica, carbon black or pre-coupled silica. In Example 2 in Table 2 of the teaching of Takino (as illustrated in Fig. 1), the center portion of the tread (see Fig. 1) has compound C having 50 parts carbon C (see compound C in Table 1).
Regarding claim 12, Beeghly does not explicitly disclose how much sulfur in its compound. In Example 2 of the teaching of Takino (see Table 2 for Fig. 1), the central portion (C) of the tread comprises 2 parts of sulfur (see compound C in Table 1).
Takino discloses the claimed invention except for less than about 2 parts of sulfur in the first compound. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Takino since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties and further being motivated to improve the cut resistance of the tire.
Regarding claim 13, Beeghly does not explicitly disclose the first compound and the second compound are silica-free. In the same field of endeavor, tire, Puhala discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, rubber compositions of the primary tread cap zone, the central tread cap zone and the lateral tread cap zone (Fig. 1, items 11 and 12 (col. 12, lines 38-40); i.e., the first compound and the second compound), (2) about zero to about 80 phr of precipitated silica (col. 27, lines 16-30). Thus, Puhala discloses that, when zero phr of precipitated silica in the composition of the primary tread cap zone and the central tread cap zone, the first compound is silica-free and the second compound is silica-free.
As “about zero” encompasses zero, the selection of zero from the workable range taught by Puhala for compositions presents obvious routine experimentation of the workable range expressly taught by the prior art.
Regarding claim 14, Beeghly does not explicitly disclose that the first pavement bar comprises a first compound and the first plurality of lugs comprises a second compound, different than the first compound such as the first compound has higher tread wear than the second compound.
Puhala discloses that the first compound is harder than the second compound due to the difference of dynamic elastic modules E’ of different compounds or as a result, the primary zone 12 having Shore A hardness (23 C) 67 are softer than the center portion 11 having Shore A hardness (23 C) 70 (col. 19, Table 2). Thus, the first compound has higher tread wear than the second compound.
The claimed the first pavement bar comprises a first compound and the first plurality of lugs comprises a second compound, different than the first compound (such as the first compound has higher tread wear than the second compound) is that the substitution of one known element for another is prima facie obvious IF yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. In this case, something to do with the first compound is harder than the second compound due to the difference of dynamic elastic modules E’ of different compounds comes from Puhala itself.
Claims 15-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Beeghly et al. (US 4,574,857), Kind et al. (DE102010045120, English translation provided), Takino et al. (US 5,225,011), and Puhala et al. (US 7,559,348) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Baus (US D391,202).
Regarding claims 15, 16 and 18-20, Beeghly in the combination discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, the tread comprising a first continuous pavement bar 24.
However, Beeghly does not explicitly disclose that the first pavement bar and the second pavement bar are continuous. In the same field of endeavor, tire, Baus discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 5-6, two continuous center ribs (i.e., the first continuous pavement bar and the second continuous pavement bar) extend circumferentially about the tread. Thus, Baus discloses, the first pavement bar and the second pavement bar which means continuous.
It would have been obvious to make the tire of Beeghly to have the first pavement bar as Baus teaches that it is known to have the crown may include the two continuous center ribs. It has been held that the combination of familiar elements according to known products is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Beeghly et al. (US 4,574,857), Puhala et al. (US 7,559,348), Takino et al. (US 5,225,011), and Kind et al. (DE102010045120, English translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hopkins et al. (US 6,655,430).
Regarding claim 22, at least, the combination is capable of providing different inflation pressures to the tire when mounted to the vehicle with corresponding different shapes. However, the combination does not specifically disclose that the first inflation pressure is 26 pounds per square inch (PSI), and the second inflation pressure is 12 PSI. In the same field of endeavor, tire, Hopkins discloses that, for lawn and tractor (i.e., off-road) tires, often in order to increase traction under road, commonly referred to as drawbar traction, the farmer lowers the inflation pressure from 25 psi to about 14 psi (col. 1, lines 18-25). Here, the inflation pressure of 25 psi to about 14 psi is closed to the claimed first inflation pressure but not overlapping ranges (see the case law of Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Further, Hopkins discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, in a condition simulating a soil working recommended inflated tire, the working inflation pressure under load is generally less than 16 PSI (col. 5, lines 40-44) (overlapping the claimed second inflation pressure 12 psi). Here, the inflation pressure of less than 16 psi is considered as the claimed second inflation pressure. For one of the ordinary people in the art, it would have been obvious to select the first inflation pressure such as 24 psi greater than the second inflation pressure such as 12 psi.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Hopkins to provide that the first inflation pressure is 26 pounds per square inch (PSI), and the second inflation pressure is 12 PSI. Doing so would be possible increase the torque capacity of low pressure off-road tires and facilitate low pressure operation of tires for tractors, ATV and the like by reducing stresses caused by such as operating conditions, as recognized by Hopkins (col. 1, lines 45-51).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2025 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive.
Regarding arguments (as amended) in claim 1 that the recited references do not disclose that the undertread (i.e., the inner portion (6)) is extending under the first plurality of lugs, the second plurality of lugs and the first pavement bar. The undertread is disposed radially outwards of a body ply of the tire and the body ply is disposed radially outwards of the belt. It is not persuasive.
At least, the reference Takino discloses, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the width Wc of the inner portion (6) of the center rubber (4) to occupy 20-90 % of the tread width Wt (col. 4, lines 5-7).
Here, the inner portion (6) can be considered as the equivalence to the undertread. Especially, when the width Wc is about 90% of the tread width Wt, the inner portion (6) is considered to extend under the first plurality of lugs, the second plurality of lugs and the first pavement bar. The inner portion (6) is disposed radially outwards of a body ply of the tire and the body ply is disposed radially outwards of the belt.
It is noticed that, as listed in Table 2, at least for Example 1, the inner portion (6) comprises the compound A which comprises 90 parts per hundred natural rubber and 10 parts per hundred styrene-butadiene rubber.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shibin Liang whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on (571)270 7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights