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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 28, 2025 has been entered.
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 16-19, 22 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosnier (US Pub. No. 2018/0022163) in view of Guichon (US Pub. No. 2014/0230980).
PNG
media_image1.png
842
1078
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 16 and 18-19, Mosnier teaches a tire suitable for wintery conditions comprising a directional tread (paragraph [0001]), the tread having a tread width WA, the tread comprising a plurality of patterns which succeed one another in the circumferential direction, each pattern having a pitch, the pattern delimiting a plurality of oblique grooves, each oblique groove extending from one of the edges of the tread as far as the central axis, wherein in a central part of the tread corresponding to 80% of the width of the tread, the oblique grooves have a central zone at an angle of 35 to 65 degrees, and an intermediate zone at an angle intermediate to the central zone’s 35 to 65 degrees and the edge zone’s 0 to 10 degrees (paragraph [0018]). Using these widths and angles and performing the vector math results in an overall angle range of about 26.9 degrees to about 55.5 degrees (see above), (the claimed slenderness ratio corresponds to an overall angle of about 40 degrees (arctan 0.85) to about 56 degrees (arctan 1.5)), overlapping the claimed range of slenderness ratio, the patterns include at least one sipe 10 (paragraphs [0048]-[0051]; figure 1), as well as teaching a tread pattern extremely similar to an inventive embodiment of Applicant (compare figure 1 of Mosnier to figure 9 of the instant application). Mosnier does not specifically disclose the tread width or the sipe density of the pattern. In a tire similarly directed to wintery conditions (paragraph [0002]), Guichon teaches a specific embodiment having tire size 205/55R16 (paragraph [0064]), one would expect such a tire having a section width of 205 mm to have a tread width significantly greater than 140 mm as required by the claims, a sipe density equation as claimed (paragraph [0050]), a sipe density of less than 40 mm-1 (paragraph [0083]), overlapping the claimed ranges of claims 16 and 19, and specific embodiments having a sipe density of 20, 27, and 35 mm-1 (tables 2, 4, and 6 – embodiments 1, 2 and 3), such amounts falling within the claimed range of claim 16, and 35 mm-1 falls within the range of claim 19. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a tire size and sipe density as taught by Guichon in the tire of Mosnier as known preferable tire size and sipe density amounts/range in a tread for wintery conditions (see Guichon at paragraphs [0002] and [0064] and tables 2, 4 and 6 – embodiments 1, 2 and 3) and/or to improve snow and dry traction (see Guichon at paragraph [0083]).
Regarding claim 17, Guichon teaches using two or more pitches, and that the overall sipe density is calculated in a weighted fashion using the multiple pitches (paragraph [0067]), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use multiple pitches as taught by Guichon in the tire of Mosnier in order to reduce the noise generated by the tire.
Regarding claim 22, Mosnier teaches that the elastomer has a glass transition temperature of between -40 and -15 degrees C, such a range being fully encompassed by the claim range, and a shear modulus G* measured at 60 degrees C of between 0.5 and 1.1 MPa (paragraph [0065]), such a range also fully encompassed by the claim range.
Regarding claim 30, as is stated above, Mosnier teaches that the tire is suitable for wintery conditions, accordingly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the tire certified for 3 peak mountain snowflake and indicate such on the sidewall of the tire in order to indicate that the tire is appropriate for wintery conditions.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosnier (US Pub. No. 2018/0022163) in view of Guichon (US Pub. No. 2014/0230980) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Mosnier II (US Pub. No. 2018/0065416).
Regarding claim 20, Mosnier does not specifically disclose the height of the block when new. In the same or an extremely similar directional tread pattern (figure 1), Mosnier II teaches using a block height of 8 mm (paragraph [0066]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a block height as taught by Mosnier II in the tire of Mosnier (combined) as a preferable block height in the same or extremely similar tread pattern (see Mosnier at figure 1 and Mosnier II at paragraph [0066] and figure 1).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosnier in view of Guichon and Mosnier II as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Williams (EP 0618090).
Regarding claim 21, as is set forth above, Guichon teaches using different pitches, but does not specifically disclose changing the number and/or arrangement of sipes in the different pitches. Williams teaches using sipes extending in different directions in each pitch (claim 1; figure 3 – note the sipes on the shoulder block alternate between straight and undulating). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the arrangement of sipes in different pitches as taught by Williams in the tire of Mosnier (combined) in order to reduce the noise of the tread (see Williams at column 5, lines 38-40).
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosnier in view of Guichon and Mosnier II as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Muhlhoff (WO2019/102150; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 23, Mosnier teaches the use of a diene elastomer (paragraph [0065]), but does not specifically disclose using a modified diene elastomer containing at least one functional group comprising a silicon atom. Muhlhoff teaches using modified diene elastomer containing at least one functional group comprising a silicon atom, where the silicon atom is situated within a main chain of the elastomer, including ends of the chain (machine translation at page 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use at least some modified diene elastomer comprising silicon as taught by Muhlhoff in the tire of Mosnier (combined) in order to either improve the compromise between wear resistance and wet grip or the compromise between rolling resistance and wet grip (see Muhlhoff machine translation at page 6).
Regarding claim 24, Muhlhoff teaches that the modified elastomer can contain at least one silanol functional group situated at the chain end (machine translation at page 7).
Claims 23, 25 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosnier in view of Guichon and Mosnier II as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Dire (US Pub. No. 2019/0077887).
Regarding claim 23, Mosnier teaches the use of a diene elastomer (paragraph [0065]), but does not specifically disclose using a modified diene elastomer containing at least one functional group comprising a silicon atom. Dire teaches using modified diene elastomer containing at least one functional group comprising a silicon atom, where the silicon atom is situated in the middle of a main chain of the elastomer (paragraph [0017]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use at least some modified diene elastomer comprising silicon as taught Dire in the tire of Mosnier (combined) in order to improve the compromise in hysteresis and abrasion properties of the tread rubber without detrimentally affecting the processing thereof, especially its resistance to flow (see Dire at paragraph [0016]).
Regarding claim 25, Dire teaches that the modified diene elastomer has at least one alkoxysilane group bonded to the modified elastomer via the silicon atom, and at least one functional group containing a tertiary amine (an amine comprises nitrogen) (paragraphs [0055] and [0071]-[0075]).
Regarding claim 27, Dire teaches that the modified elastomer can comprise a tertiary amine, that there is a spacer group of a linear C1-C18 hydrocarbon-based radical, and more preferably still linear C2 or C3 hydrocarbon-based radical, and the alkoxysilane group is methoxysilane or ethoxysilane, optionally partially or completely hydrolyzed to give silanol (paragraphs [0071]-[0075]).
Regarding claim 28, Dire teaches that the diene elastomer is a butadiene/styrene copolymer (paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 29, Dire teaches that the modified diene elastomer has a glass transition temperature of -100 to -80 degrees C (paragraph [0017]).
Claims 23 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosnier in view of Guichon and Mosnier II as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Dessendier (US Pub. No. 2019/0077887).
Regarding claim 23, Mosnier teaches the use of a diene elastomer (paragraph [0065]), but does not specifically disclose using a modified diene elastomer containing at least one functional group comprising a silicon atom. Dessendier teaches using modified diene elastomer containing at least one functional group comprising a silicon atom, where the silicon atom is situated in the middle of a main chain of the elastomer (paragraph [0013]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use at least some modified diene elastomer comprising silicon as taught Dessendier in the tire of Mosnier (combined) in order to improve the compromise in hysteresis and abrasion properties of the tread rubber without detrimentally affecting the processing thereof, especially its resistance to flow (see Dessendier at paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 25, Dessendier teaches that the modified diene elastomer has at least one alkoxysilane group bonded to the modified elastomer via the silicon atom (paragraph [0013]), and at least one functional group containing a tertiary amine (an amine comprises nitrogen) (paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 26, Dessendier teaches that the modified diene elastomer is predominantly functionalized in the middle of the chain by an alkoxysilane group bonded to the two branches of the elastomer via the silicon atom (paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 27, Dessendier teaches that the modified elastomer can comprise a tertiary amine, that there is a spacer group of a linear C1-C18 hydrocarbon-based radical, and more preferably still linear C2 or C3 hydrocarbon-based radical, and the alkoxysilane group is methoxysilane or ethoxysilane, optionally partially or completely hydrolyzed to give silanol (paragraphs [0042]-[0055]).
Regarding claim 28, Dessendier teaches that the diene elastomer is a butadiene/styrene copolymer (paragraph [0056]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that arctan ([b1+b2]/[a1+a2]) ≠ ½ * (arctan[b1/a1] + arctan[b2/a2]), and therefore the rejections are not supported and cannot stand. However, the Office never argued that arctan([b1+b2]/[a1+a2]) = ½ * (arctan[b1/a1] + arctan[b2/a2]), merely that arctan([b1+b2]/[a1+a2]) ≈ ½ * (arctan[b1/a1] + arctan[b2/a2]). Performing the exact vector math set forth by Applicant results in an angle range of from 26.9 degrees to 55.5 degrees – see below, such range overlapping the claimed range of about 40 to 56 degrees, and rendering the claimed range obvious. It is noted that these exact arguments were responded to in the Advisory Action dated June 6, 2025, and no claim amendments or additional arguments have been made subsequent to that action.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 January 15, 2026
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749