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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 17-21 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seng (DE102007044435) in view of Guichon (US Pub. No. 2014/0230980).
Regarding claims 17 and 19-20, Seng teaches a tire suitable for wintery conditions comprising a directional tread (machine translation at page 3), the tread having a tread width B, 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, the patterns include at least one sipe 8, 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 75 to 85 degrees, and an intermediate zone at an angle intermediate to the central zone’s 15 to 40 degrees and the edge zone’s 15 degrees or less, and Seng teaches a specific embodiment where the width of the central zone portion is approximately equal to the width of the intermediate zone portion, and the width of the sum of these portions is about equal to the width of the edge zone portion (machine translation at page 4; figure 1). Using these widths and angles and performing the vector math results in an overall angle range of about 45 degrees to about 72.7 degrees (see below) (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.
PNG
media_image1.png
1700
2200
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Seng 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 Seng 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 18, 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 Seng in order to reduce the noise generated by the tire.
Regarding claim 21, Seng teaches a specific embodiment where the sum of the main groove widths is less than 15% of the tread width (figure 1). While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).
Regarding claim 32, as is stated above, Seng 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.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seng in view of Guichon as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Mosnier (US Pub. No. 2018/0065416).
Regarding claim 22, Seng does not specifically disclose the height of the block when new. In the same or an extremely similar directional tread pattern (figure 1), Mosnier 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 in the tire of Seng (combined) as a preferable block height in a similar tread pattern (see Mosnier at paragraph [0066] and figure 1).
Regarding claim 23, Mosnier teaches that the tread composition 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 (paragraphs [0032] and [0071]), such a range also fully encompassed by the claim range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a tread composition as taught by Mosnier in the tire of Seng (combined) as an advantageous tread composition used in a similar tread pattern (see Mosnier at paragraph [0032] and figure 1).
Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seng in view of Guichon and Mosnier as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Muhlhoff (WO2019/102150; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 24, Seng 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 Seng (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 claims 25-26, 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 24, 27 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seng in view of Guichon and Mosnier as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Dire (US Pub. No. 2019/0077887).
Regarding claim 24, Seng 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 Seng (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 27, 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 29, 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 30, Dire teaches that the diene elastomer is a butadiene/styrene copolymer (paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 31, Dire teaches that the modified diene elastomer has a glass transition temperature of -100 to -80 degrees C (paragraph [0017]).
Claims 24 and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seng in view of Guichon and Mosnier as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Dessendier (US Pub. No. 2019/0077887).
Regarding claim 24, Seng 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 Seng (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 27, 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 28, 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 29, 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 30, 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+b3]/[a1+a2+a3]) ≠ 1/3 * (arctan[b1/a1] + arctan[b2/a2] + arctan [b3/a3]), and therefore the rejections are not supported and cannot stand. However, the Office never argued that ([b1+b2+b3]/[a1+a2+a3]) = 1/3 * (arctan[b1/a1] + arctan[b2/a2] + arctan [b3/a3]), merely that ([b1+b2+b3]/[a1+a2+a3]) ≈ 1/3 * (arctan[b1/a1] + arctan[b2/a2] + arctan [b3/a3]). Performing the vector math results in an angle range of from 45 degrees to 72.7 degrees (see above), such range overlapping the claimed range of about 40 to 56 degrees, and rendering the claimed range obvious.
Conclusion
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 December 30, 2025
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749