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 July 23, 2024 has been entered. Claims 16-19, 21, 23, 24 and 26-30 remain pending in the application.
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.
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 16-19, 21, 23, 24 and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,286,369 (Gornard et al.) further in view of US 2014/0350138 (Cladiere et al.) further in view of US 4,580,608 (Rampl).
Regarding claim 16, Gornard discloses a rubber composition for tire treads, the tire having an axis of rotation and a median plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation, and comprising two beads, two sidewalls connected to the beads, a crown connected to the ends of the two sidewalls with a crown reinforcement, and a radially outer tread see column 13, lines 4-39), comprising more than 50 phr of a copolymer of ethylene and of a 1,3-diene (see Table 1 showing 100 phr of EBR copolymer), a reinforcing filler (see column 9, lines 38-41) and a plasticizing system (see column 12, line 63 through column 13, line 2), the 1,3-diene being isoprene (see column 4, lines 37-42) and ethylene units in the copolymer representing more than 50 mol% of all the monomer units of the copolymer (see column 4, lines 30-36).
Gornard also discloses that the copolymer contains units of the formula (I) (see column 5, lines 11-18, where it is discussed that the copolymer may comprises 1,2-cyclohexane units).
Gornard also discloses that a plasticizing system comprises a hydrocarbon-based plasticizing resin and a hydrocarbon-based liquid plasticizing agent (extender oil) may be included (see column 12, line 63 through column 13, line 2 where a mixture is discussed).
Gornard does not disclose the amount in which the plasticizing agent is present or the glass transition temperature of the plasticizing agent; however, Cladiere discloses an analogous rubber composition for tire treads which comprises 10-80 phr of a plasticizing system comprising a hydrocarbon-based resin and a hydrocarbon-based liquid plasticizing agent with a glass transition temperature of less than -40 degrees C (see paragraphs 0003, 0083 and 0094-0095). Cladiere teaches that providing such a plasticizing system within this range allows better processing (see paragraph 0094). It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize such a plasticizing system in the Gornard tire, in order to provide better processing.
Gornard also discloses that the composition can be used as a tread and/or a tread underlayer (see column 13, lines 4-39). In such an embodiment, the tread would comprise a radially inner first layer and a radially outer second layer. Such a tread would inherently include a central portion and two lateral portions, since any arbitrary portion can be viewed as a central portion and a lateral portion.
Gornard does not mention a central portion continuous over the entire axial width and the radially outer second layer at the central portion; however, Rampl discloses a tread with a cap and base structure which comprises a radially inner first layer (1) and a radially outer second layer (2), the lateral portions of the first layer constituting the lateral portions and the second layer constituting the central portion, the radially inner first layer being continuous over an entire axial width of the tread and in contact with the radially outer second layer at the central portion (see Figure 1). Rampl teaches that providing a base layer with a trough accommodating a cap layer tread helps to counteract stresses in the shoulder region (see column 2, line 63 through column 3, line 45). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Gornard with the trough configuration taught by Rampl, in order to counteract stresses in the shoulder region.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Gornard discloses a composition for a tread as discussed above. The claimed land portions and grooves are consistent with conventional tread designs and as noted above, any arbitrary portion can be viewed as a central portion and a lateral portion.
Regarding claim 19, Gornard in view of Rampl also discloses that the central portion extends axially to an axially outermost circumferential groove on either side of the median plane of the tire, and wherein the central portion includes the bases of the grooves (see Rampl Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 21, Gornard also discloses that the 1,3-diene is 1,3-butadiene (isoprene) (see column 4, lines 30-42).
Regarding claim 23, Gornard also discloses that the molar percentages of the units of formula (I) and of the units of formula (II) in the copolymer, respectively o and p, satisfy the equation 0<o+p ≤25 (see column 5, lines 11-18).
Regarding claim 24, Gornard also discloses that the reinforcing filler comprises from 5-65 phr of a reinforcing filler which comprises a silica (see column 9, lines 37-59), which overlaps the claimed range of 35-100 phr. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 26, Gornard in view of Cladiere discloses an embodiment where the reinforcing filler is present in an amount from 5-65 phr (see Gornard column 9, lines 37-59), and the plasticizing system is present in an amount from 10-80 phr (see Cladiere paragraphs 0003 and 0094-0095), therefore an embodiment is possible where the ratio of the content of the filler to the content of the plasticizing system overlaps the claimed range of greater than or equal to 1.1. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 27, Gornard also discloses that the copolymer of ethylene and of a 1,3-diene is the only elastomer of the rubber composition (see column 4, lines 37-42, Table 1).
Regarding claim 28, Gornard in view of Rampl also discloses an embodiment where the central portion may comprise less than 50 phr of a copolymer of ethylene and of a 1,3-diene (see column 5, lines 6-18).
Regarding claim 29, Gornard also discloses that the dynamic shear modulus properties of the rubber composition is between 1 and 2.5 MPA (see Table II), the dynamic shear modulus being measured at 60 degrees C during a temperature sweep at a frequency of 10 Hz (see column 15, lines 1-18).
Claims 16, 21, 23, 24 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3044008 (Joulin et al.) (US 2018/0326790 is being relied upon as it constitutes an English equivalent of FR 3044008) in view of US 2014/0350138 (Cladiere et al.) further in view of WO 2017/074410 (Lawson et al.).
Regarding claim 16, Joulin discloses a tire having an axis of rotation and a median plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation, and comprising a crown reinforcement, and a radially outer tread, the tread being axially separated into at least three portions including a central portion and two lateral portions (see Figure 1, paragraphs 0005 and 0011-0013),
Wherein the rubber composition of the lateral portions comprises more than 50 phr of a copolymer of ethylene and of a 1,3-diene, a reinforcing filler and a plasticizing system, the 1,3-diene being 1,3-butadiene or isoprene and the ethylene units in the copolymer representing more than 50 mol% of all the monomer units of the copolymer (see paragraphs 0015, 0036 and 0044).
Joulin also discloses that the copolymer contains units of formula (I) and/ or formula (II) (see paragraphs 0023-0026).
Joulin does not state that the tire includes two beads, two sidewall connected to the beads, and a crown connected to ends of the two sidewalls; however, these are standard tire parts that would inherently be included for a functioning tire.
Joulin also discloses that a plasticizing system may be included (see paragraph 0063); however, Joulin does not disclose the glass transition temperature of the plasticizing agent and the amount of plasticizing agent is not disclosed as being present from 30-80 phr; however, Cladiere discloses an analogous rubber composition for tire treads which comprises 10-80 phr of a plasticizing system comprising a hydrocarbon-based resin and a hydrocarbon-based liquid plasticizing agent with a glass transition temperature of less than -40 degrees C (see paragraphs 0003, 0083 and 0094-0095). Cladiere teaches that providing such a plasticizing system within this range allows better processing (see paragraph 0094). It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize such a plasticizing system in the Joulin tire, in order to provide better processing.
Joulin also does not disclose that the tread comprises a radially inner first layer and a radially outer second layer. However, However, Lawson discloses an analogous tire which comprises a radially inner first layer (32) and a radially outer second layer (34), the lateral portions of the first layer constituting the lateral portions and the second layer constituting the central portion, the radially inner first layer being continuous over an entire axial width of the tread and in contact with the radially outer second layer at the central portion (see Figure 5, paragraph 0038 and paragraph 0039 where it is stated that the first material layer 32 covers the entire tread while the second material 34 could be applied over the first material and the third material 36 could be applied over the second material. This suggests an embodiment is possible where the third material is not applied over the second material, leaving the second layer 34 as the radially outer layer at the central portion and in contact with the first layer). Lawson teaches that providing such a tread configuration improves adherence, improved wear and reduced rolling resistance degradation (see paragraph 0035). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Joulin with the configuration taught by Lawson, in order to attain improved adherence, improved wear and reduced rolling resistance degradation.
Regarding claim 29, Joulin does not disclose the dynamic shear modulus properties of the rubber composition. However, Lawson discloses a rigid material having a high modulus value of 1.6 MPa, which is within the claimed range 1-2.5 MPa (see paragraphs 0031-0033) provided at lateral portions of an analogous tire, the dynamic shear modulus being measured at 60°C during a temperature sweep at an imposed stress of 0.7 MPa and at a frequency of 10 Hz. Lawson teaches that providing a lateral portion with such properties improves adherence, improved wear and reduced rolling resistance degradation (see paragraph 0035). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the outer lateral portions of the Joulin tire with dynamic shear modulus values as taught by Lawson, in order to attain improved adherence, improved wear and reduced rolling resistance degradation.
Regarding claim 30, Joulin does not disclose a ratio between a dynamic shear modulus of the rubber composition of the lateral portions in relation to the central portions. However, Lawson discloses a tire where the lateral portions have a rubber composition (first material) with a dynamic shear modulus that is greater than 1.1 of the dynamic shear modulus of the rubber composition (second material) of the central rubber portion, the dynamic shear moduli being measured at 60°C during a temperature sweep at an imposed stress of 0.7 MPa and at a frequency of 10 Hz (see paragraphs 0027-0029, 0031 and 0033). Lawson teaches that providing such a tread configuration improves adherence, improved wear and reduced rolling resistance degradation (see paragraph 0035). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the outer lateral portions of the Joulin tire with a greater dynamic shear modulus than the central rubber portions, in order to improve adherence and wear, and reduce rolling resistance degradation as taught by Lawson.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3044008 (Joulin et al.) (US 2018/0326790 is being relied upon as it constitutes an English equivalent of FR 3044008) in view of US 2014/0350138 (Cladiere et al.) further in view of WO 2017/074410 (Lawson et al.) further in view of EP 2594413 (Volk et al.), machine translation previously provided.
Joulin in view of Cladiere and Lawson discloses a tire as discussed above.
Regarding claim 17, Joulin also discloses that the tread comprises a plurality of tread pattern elements with a contact face to come into contact with a roadway when the tire is running and a plurality of circumferential grooves (see paragraph 0004). Grooves would inherently be delimited by lateral faces of adjacent tread pattern elements that face one another, and delimited by a base. Joulin does not disclose the position of the grooves and does not state that the central portion extends axially on either side of the median plane of the tire beyond the plurality of circumferential grooves; however, Volk discloses a tread pattern comprising a central portion and two lateral portions, wherein the central portion extends axially on either side of the median plane of the tire beyond the plurality of circumferential grooves (see Figure 2). Volk teaches that the width of the central portion contributes to better cornering stiffness and rolling resistance, and the width will vary from 20-80% depending on the width of the tire (see paragraph 0008 machine translation). It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the width of the central portion of Joulin depending on the width of the tire and the desired cornering stiffness and rolling resistance as taught by Volk.
Regarding claim 18, Joulin in view of Volk discloses a tire as discussed above. Volk also discloses that the central portion extends axially to an axially outermost circumferential groove, at least on one side of the median plane of the tire (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 19, Joulin in view of Volk discloses a tire as discussed above. Volk also discloses that the central portion extends axially to an axially outermost circumferential groove on either side of the medial plane of the tire, and the central portion includes the bases of the circumferential grooves (see Figure 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 23, 2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Lawson does not disclose a radially inner first layer continuous over the entire axial width where the radially inner first layer is in direct contact with the radially outer second layer at the central portion. It is the Examiner’s position that the disclosure at paragraph 0039 of Lawson which states that the first material layer 32 covers the entire tread while the second material 34 could be applied over the first material and the third material 36 could be applied over the second material. This suggests an embodiment is possible where the third material is not applied over the second material, leaving the second layer 34 as the radially outer layer at the central portion and in contact with the first layer. Further, the present claim language does not require that the second layer is the radially outermost layer, only that is situated radially outward of the inner first layer, which is disclosed by the Lawson reference.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Gornard reference 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. Rampl has been included as a secondary reference to address amended claim features.
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 WENDY L BOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-7466. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-6:30.
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 on 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.
/WENDY L BOSS/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749