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
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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9-11, 13 and 16-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Pub. No. 2020/0198274) in view of Fresch (EP 3769975).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 9 and 21-23, Chen teaches a tire having a tread (paragraph [0001]; claim 12), wherein the tread has an outer shoulder region and an inner shoulder region, wherein each shoulder region is formed from a dual layer strip 210, with a specific embodiment having the first compound of the strip (claimed second compound) have filler which is predominantly silica and the second compound (claimed first compound) have filler which is predominately carbon black, where the strip composition may vary from 10-100% of the first compound and 90-10% of the second compound, with a specific embodiment where the filler is about 90% carbon black (90% of the claimed first compound) and 10% silica (10% of the claimed second compound) (paragraphs [0029]-[0033]; figure 3A – note the carbon black and silica percentages shown on the outermost outside land portion of the tire). Chen does not specifically disclose that the first layer of the dual layer strip has a triangular cross-sectional shape or that the second layer has a polygon shape, however these limitations are directed to a method of manufacture given that all of the rubber would melt and flow during vulcanization and the final tire product would not have triangles or polygons, and therefore these limitations do not further limit the claims. Chen does not specifically teach a hysteresis difference between the first and second compounds, although it is noted that carbon black filler results in higher hysteresis than silica filler. In a tire similarly directed to using different rubber compounds in a tire tread, Fresch teaches using a difference in hysteresis of at least 0.02 between the rubber compounds (paragraph [0008]), with a specific embodiment using a hysteresis of a first compound of 77% more than a second compound (0.220/0.124), the first compound having more carbon black and less silica than a second compound (table 1 and paragraph [0027]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a difference between hysteresis of a first and second compound as taught by Fresch in the tire of Chen in order to achieve a synergistic effect of improving wet grip without negatively affecting the rolling resistance (see Fresch at paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claims 10-11, 16 and 24-25, Chen teaches a tire having a tread (paragraph [0001]; claim 12), wherein the tread is formed from a dual layer strip 210, with a specific embodiment having the first compound of the strip (claimed second compound) have filler which is predominantly silica and the second compound (claimed first compound) have filler which is predominately carbon black, where the strip composition may vary from 10-100% of the first compound and 90-10% of the second compound, with a specific embodiment where the filler is about 40% carbon black (40% of the claimed first compound) and 60% silica (60% of the claimed second compound) (paragraphs [0029]-[0033]; figure 3A – note the carbon black and silica percentages shown on the inside central circumferential groove area). Chen does not specifically disclose that the first layer of the dual layer strip has a triangular cross-sectional shape or that the second layer has a polygon shape, however these limitations are directed to a method of manufacture given that all of the rubber would melt and flow during vulcanization and the final tire product would not have triangles or polygons, and therefore these limitations do not further limit the claims. Chen does not specifically teach a hysteresis difference between the first and second compounds, although it is noted that carbon black filler results in higher hysteresis than silica filler. In a tire similarly directed to using different rubber compounds in a tire tread, Fresch teaches using a difference in hysteresis of at least 0.02 between the rubber compounds (paragraph [0008]), with a specific embodiment using a hysteresis of a first compound of 77% more than a second compound (0.220/0.124), the first compound having more carbon black and less silica than a second compound (table 1 and paragraph [0027]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a difference between hysteresis of a first and second compound as taught by Fresch in the tire of Chen in order to achieve a synergistic effect of improving wet grip without negatively affecting the rolling resistance (see Fresch at paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claim 2, Chen teaches a specific embodiment where the outer shoulder has a ratio of about 90%/10% as is set forth above, as well as an embodiment where the outer shoulder has 50%/50% (paragraph [0032]), suggesting that amounts in between, such as 80%/20% as claimed, can be used.
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 19, the claimed second compound above has a lower hysteresis, which results in lower rolling resistance.
Regarding claim 17, Chen teaches that the strips can be overlapped and applied at an angle in a range of 30-45 degrees (claim 25).
Regarding claim 18, Chen teaches selecting the second compound (claimed first compound) for stiffness (paragraphs [0029] and [0032]).
Regarding claim 20, as is set out above with respect to claims 18 and 19, the claimed desired tread property of the first tread compound is stiffness property, and the claimed desired tread property of the second tread compound is lower rolling resistance, and these are different from each other.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9-11, 13 and 16-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Pub. No. 2020/0198274) in view of Shimomura (US Pub. No. 2015/0090381) and Fresch (EP 3769975).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 9 and 21-23, Chen teaches a tire having a tread (paragraph [0001]; claim 12), wherein the tread has an outer shoulder region and an inner shoulder region, wherein each shoulder region is formed from a dual layer strip 210, with a specific embodiment having the first compound of the strip (claimed second compound) have filler which is predominantly silica and the second compound (claimed first compound) have filler which is predominately carbon black, where the strip composition may vary from 10-100% of the first compound and 90-10% of the second compound, with a specific embodiment where the filler is about 90% carbon black (90% of the claimed first compound) and 10% silica (10% of the claimed second compound) (paragraphs [0029]-[0033]; figure 3A – note the carbon black and silica percentages shown on the outermost outside land portion of the tire). Chen does not specifically disclose that the first layer of the dual layer strip has a triangular cross-sectional shape or that the second layer has a polygon shape. Shimomura teaches using a dual layer strip with a first layer having a triangular cross-sectional shape and a second layer having a concave quadrilateral shape (a type of polygon) (paragraph [0047]; figure 3D). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use cross-sectional shapes as taught by Shimomura for the layers of the dual layer strip of Chen as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Chen does not specifically teach a hysteresis difference between the first and second compounds, although it is noted that carbon black filler results in higher hysteresis than silica filler. In a tire similarly directed to using different rubber compounds in a tire tread, Fresch teaches using a difference in hysteresis of at least 0.02 between the rubber compounds (paragraph [0008]), with a specific embodiment using a hysteresis of a first compound of 77% more than a second compound (0.220/0.124), the first compound having more carbon black and less silica than a second compound (table 1 and paragraph [0027]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a difference between hysteresis of a first and second compound as taught by Fresch in the tire of Chen in order to achieve a synergistic effect of improving wet grip without negatively affecting the rolling resistance (see Fresch at paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claims 10-11, 16 and 24-25, Chen teaches a tire having a tread (paragraph [0001]; claim 12), wherein the tread is formed from a dual layer strip 210, with a specific embodiment having the first compound of the strip (claimed second compound) have filler which is predominantly silica and the second compound (claimed first compound) have filler which is predominately carbon black, where the strip composition may vary from 10-100% of the first compound and 90-10% of the second compound, with a specific embodiment where the filler is about 40% carbon black (40% of the claimed first compound) and 60% silica (60% of the claimed second compound) (paragraphs [0029]-[0033]; figure 3A – note the carbon black and silica percentages shown on the inside central circumferential groove area). Chen does not specifically disclose that the first layer of the dual layer strip has a triangular cross-sectional shape or that the second layer has a polygon shape. Shimomura teaches using a dual layer strip with a first layer having a triangular cross-sectional shape and a second layer having a concave quadrilateral shape (a type of polygon) (paragraph [0047]; figure 3D). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use cross-sectional shapes as taught by Shimomura for the layers of the dual layer strip of Chen as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Chen does not specifically teach a hysteresis difference between the first and second compounds, although it is noted that carbon black filler results in higher hysteresis than silica filler. In a tire similarly directed to using different rubber compounds in a tire tread, Fresch teaches using a difference in hysteresis of at least 0.02 between the rubber compounds (paragraph [0008]), with a specific embodiment using a hysteresis of a first compound of 77% more than a second compound (0.220/0.124), the first compound having more carbon black and less silica than a second compound (table 1 and paragraph [0027]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a difference between hysteresis of a first and second compound as taught by Fresch in the tire of Chen in order to achieve a synergistic effect of improving wet grip without negatively affecting the rolling resistance (see Fresch at paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claim 2, Chen teaches a specific embodiment where the outer shoulder has a ratio of about 90%/10% as is set forth above, as well as an embodiment where the outer shoulder has 50%/50% (paragraph [0032]), suggesting that amounts in between, such as 80%/20% as claimed, can be used.
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 19, the claimed second compound above has a lower hysteresis, which results in lower rolling resistance.
Regarding claim 17, Chen teaches that the strips can be overlapped and applied at an angle in a range of 30-45 degrees (claim 25).
Regarding claim 18, Chen teaches selecting the second compound (claimed first compound) for stiffness (paragraphs [0029] and [0032]).
Regarding claim 20, as is set out above with respect to claims 18 and 19, the claimed desired tread property of the first tread compound is stiffness property, and the claimed desired tread property of the second tread compound is lower rolling resistance, and these are different from each other.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Fresch, or Chen in view of Shimomura and Fresch as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Zhang (US Pub. No. 2008/0066838).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Chen does not specifically disclose that the second compound (claimed first compound) is selected for dry traction, however it is known in the art that carbon black compounds are used to achieve good dry traction, as is shown by Zhang (paragraph [0004]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the second compound (claimed first compound) of Chen for dry traction because such a compound is a carbon black rich compound (see Zhang at paragraph [0004]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 7, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach or suggest that the second compound has a polygon shape. However, as is set forth above, Shimomura teaches a specific embodiment where the second compound has a polygon shape, therefore this argument is not persuasive. Further, the shape of the first and second compounds is directed to a method of manufacturing the tire, given that all of the rubber would melt and flow during vulcanization and the final tire product would not have triangles or polygons.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 March 1, 2026
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749