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 28, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 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 1-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0114240 (Skurich et al.) in view of US 2004/0198890 (Kanenari).
Regarding claim 1, Skurich discloses a tire composition for a sidewall reinforcing layer that contains, per 100 parts of total rubber component, 26.5 phr of natural rubber (NR), which is within the claimed range of 20-70%, and 36.5 phr of butadiene rubber, which is within the claimed range of 20-80% (see paragraph 0077, Table 1).
The sidewall reinforcing layer according to the Skurich composition has a breaking strength x break elongation of 11.9 MPa x 173% = 2,058.70 at 100°C, which is within the claimed range of 320 or more, and 60°C tan delta of 0.043 (see Table 2), which is within the claimed range of 0.06 or less. Loss tangent is a property that decreases with increasing temperature, so increasing the temperature to 100°C would shift the loss tangent even lower, continuing to meet the limitation of 0.06 or less.
Upon incorporating the Skurich composition as a sidewall insert component as taught at paragraph 0077, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use any composition as the sidewall that is compatible for run-flat tires. At paragraph 0003, Kanenari teaches a rubber composition that provides improved thermal conductivity and promoted heat dissipation effect for sidewalls of run-flat tires. Such a teaching would have motivated one having ordinary skill in the art before the effect filing date to utilize the Kanenari sidewall composition as a sidewall for the Skurich run flat sidewall insert.
The composition disclosed by Kanenari contains, per 100 parts of a total rubber component, 40 mass% of natural rubber (NR), which is within the claimed range of 20-70%, and 60 mass% butadiene rubber (BR), which is within the claimed range of 20-80% (see paragraphs 0001-0002, and Table I, Formulation b). While Kanenari does not state the loss tangent at 60°C of the sidewall composition, Table 2 shows a substantially similar composition to that of sidewall Formulation b, including the same ingredients in the same amounts and having a loss tangent at 60°C of 0.13 (see Table II, Formulation f). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable, therefore, the sidewall composition would also have a loss tangent at 60°C on the order of 0.13, which is within the claimed range of 0.17 or less (see paragraph 0077, Table 2). While Kanenari also does not disclose a loss tangent at 75°C, the reference teaches all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. Moreover, the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amounts. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see MPEP 2112.01).
Upon utilizing the Kanenari sidewall composition as the sidewall for the Skurich run-flat tire, the resulting tire would comprise a rubber composition of the sidewall that is different from the rubber composition of the sidewall reinforcing layer (compare Table 2 Skurich and Table I Formulation b Kanenari).
Kanenari also discloses providing the sidewall with an uneven portion on the surface (see paragraph 0016 and Figure 3).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Skurich discloses a tire composition for a sidewall reinforcing layer that contains, per 100 parts of total rubber component, 26.5 phr of natural rubber (NR), which is within the claimed range of 20-70%, and 36.5 phr of butadiene rubber, which is within the claimed range of 20-80% (see paragraph 0077, Table 1).
The sidewall reinforcing layer according to the Skurich composition has a breaking strength x break elongation of 11.9 MPa x 173% = 2,058.70 at 100°C, which is within the claimed range of 320 or more, and 60°C tan delta of 0.043 (see Table 2), which is within the claimed range of 0.06 or less. Loss tangent is a property that decreases with increasing temperature, so increasing the temperature to 100°C would shift the loss tangent even lower, continuing to meet the limitation of 0.06 or less.
Upon incorporating the Skurich composition as a sidewall insert component as taught at paragraph 0077, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use any composition as the sidewall that is compatible for run-flat tires. At paragraph 0003, Kanenari teaches a rubber composition that provides improved thermal conductivity and promoted heat dissipation effect for sidewalls of run-flat tires. Such a teaching would have motivated one having ordinary skill in the art before the effect filing date to utilize the Kanenari sidewall composition as a sidewall for the Skurich run flat sidewall insert.
The composition disclosed by Kanenari contains, per 100 parts of a total rubber component, 40 mass% of natural rubber (NR), which is within the claimed range of 20-70%, and 60 mass% butadiene rubber (BR), which is within the claimed range of 20-80% (see paragraphs 0001-0002, and Table I, Formulation b). While Kanenari does not state the loss tangent at 60°C of the sidewall composition, Table 2 shows a substantially similar composition to that of sidewall Formulation b, including the same ingredients in the same amounts and having a loss tangent at 60°C of 0.13 (see Table II, Formulation f). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable, therefore, the sidewall composition would also have a loss tangent at 60°C on the order of 0.13, which is within the claimed range of 0.17 or less (see paragraph 0077, Table 2). While Kanenari also does not disclose a loss tangent at 75°C or 100°C, the reference teaches all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. Moreover, the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amounts. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see MPEP 2112.01).
Upon utilizing the Kanenari sidewall composition as the sidewall for the Skurich run-flat tire, the resulting tire would comprise a rubber composition of the sidewall that is different from the rubber composition of the sidewall reinforcing layer (compare Table 2 Skurich and Table I Formulation b Kanenari).
Kanenari also discloses providing the sidewall with an uneven portion on the surface (see paragraph 0016 and Figure 3).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Skurich discloses a tire composition for a sidewall reinforcing layer that contains, per 100 parts of total rubber component, 26.5 phr of natural rubber (NR), which is within the claimed range of 20-70%, and 36.5 phr of butadiene rubber, which is within the claimed range of 20-80% (see paragraph 0077, Table 1).
The sidewall reinforcing layer according to the Skurich composition has a breaking strength x break elongation of 11.9 MPa x 173% = 2,058.70 at 100°C, which is within the claimed range of 320 or more, and 60°C tan delta of 0.043 (see Table 2), which is within the claimed range of 0.06 or less. Loss tangent is a property that decreases with increasing temperature, so increasing the temperature to 100°C would shift the loss tangent even lower, continuing to meet the limitation of 0.06 or less.
Upon incorporating the Skurich composition as a sidewall insert component as taught at paragraph 0077, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use any composition as the sidewall that is compatible for run-flat tires. At paragraph 0003, Kanenari teaches a rubber composition that provides improved thermal conductivity and promoted heat dissipation effect for sidewalls of run-flat tires. Such a teaching would have motivated one having ordinary skill in the art before the effect filing date to utilize the Kanenari sidewall composition as a sidewall for the Skurich run flat sidewall insert.
The composition disclosed by Kanenari contains, per 100 parts of a total rubber component, 40 mass% of natural rubber (NR), which is within the claimed range of 20-70%, and 60 mass% butadiene rubber (BR), which is within the claimed range of 20-80% (see paragraphs 0001-0002, and Table I, Formulation b). While Kanenari does not state the loss tangent at 60°C of the sidewall composition, Table 2 shows a substantially similar composition to that of sidewall Formulation b, including the same ingredients in the same amounts and having a loss tangent at 60°C of 0.13 (see Table II, Formulation f). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable, therefore, the sidewall composition would also have a loss tangent at 60°C on the order of 0.13, which is within the claimed range of 0.17 or less (see paragraph 0077, Table 2). While Kanenari also does not disclose a loss tangent at 100°C, the reference teaches all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. Moreover, the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amounts. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see MPEP 2112.01).
Upon utilizing the Kanenari sidewall composition as the sidewall for the Skurich run-flat tire, the resulting tire would comprise a rubber composition of the sidewall that is different from the rubber composition of the sidewall reinforcing layer (compare Table 2 Skurich and Table I Formulation b Kanenari).
Kanenari also discloses providing the sidewall with an uneven portion on the surface (see paragraph 0016 and Figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, 16 and 17, for the reasons discussed above the prior art discloses that the difference between the tangent loss of the sidewall reinforcing layer at 100°C and the loss tangent of the sidewall at 75°C is less and 0.1; and difference between the tangent loss of the sidewall reinforcing layer at 100°C and the loss tangent of the sidewall at 60°C is less than 0.15.
Regarding claim 7, Skurich discloses that the reinforcing layer has a breaking strength x break elongation of 11.9 MPa x 173% = 2,058.70 at 100°C (see Table 2), which is within the claimed range of 350 or more.
Regarding claim 8, Skurich discloses that the reinforcing layer has a breaking strength x break elongation of 11.9 MPa x 173% = 2,058.70 at 100°C (see Table 2), which is within the claimed range of 400 or more.
Regarding claim 9, Skurich discloses that the reinforcing layer has a breaking strength x break elongation of 11.9 MPa x 173% = 2,058.70 at 100°C (see Table 2), which is within the claimed range of 700 or more.
Regarding claim 10, Skurich discloses that the sidewall reinforcing layer has a 60°C loss tangent of 0.043 (see Table 2), which is within the claimed range of 0.055 or less. Loss tangent is a property that decreases with increasing temperature, so increasing the temperature to 100°C would likely shift the loss tangent even lower than 0.043, continuing to meet the limitation of 0.055 or less.
Regarding claim 11, Skurich discloses that the sidewall reinforcing layer has a 60°C loss tangent of 0.043 (see Table 2), which is within the claimed range of 0.055 or less. Loss tangent is a property that decreases with increasing temperature, so increasing the temperature to 100°C would likely shift the loss tangent even lower than 0.043, continuing to meet the limitation of 0.05 or less.
Regarding claim 12, Skurich discloses that the sidewall reinforcing layer has a 60°C loss tangent of 0.043 (see Table 2), which is within the claimed range of 0.16 or less.
Regarding claim 13, Skurich discloses that the sidewall reinforcing layer has a 60°C loss tangent of 0.043 (see Table 2), which is within the claimed range of 0.15 or less.
Regarding claim 14, Skurich discloses that the sidewall reinforcing layer has a 60°C loss tangent of 0.043 (see Table 2), which is within the claimed range of 0.1 or less.
Regarding claims 18-20, Skurich in view of Kanenari also discloses that the tire further comprises a tread,
Wherein the uneven portion is located between a plane parallel to an axial direction of the tire bisecting a thickest portion of the sidewall reinforcing layer in the axial direction and a plane tangent to the tread and parallel to the axial direction of the tire (see Kanenari Figure 2).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0114240 (Skurich et al.) in view of US 2004/0198890 (Kanenari) further in view of US 2018/0086147 (Morii).
Skurich in view of Kanenari discloses a tire as discussed above.
Regarding claim 15, Skurich in view of Kanenari does not disclose dimensions of the uneven portion provided on the sidewall, only stating that the pattern is not limited (see Kanenari paragraph 0016); however, Morii discloses a pattern for an uneven portion on a sidewall that helps to create turbulent flow and cool the sidewall and improve durability (see paragraph 0048). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a convex-concave uneven portion to the sidewall of Skurich in view of Kanenari, in order to provide cooling and improved durability to the sidewall as taught by Morii.
Morii also discloses that the uneven portion has a width of 0.3-4mm, which overlaps the claimed range of 1-8mm and has a convex portion having a height of 0.5-7 mm with respect to the concave portion, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.3-2.5 mm a pitch, and is formed at a pitch of p/h=1.0-50.0, which overlaps the claimed range of 6-35 mm (see Figures 3 and 4, paragraph 0049 of Morii). 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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
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.
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 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.
/WENDY L BOSS/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749