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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 18, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caretta (EP 0864446) in view of Piffard (US Pub. No. 2014/0251519), Sandstrom (US Pub. No. 2007/0221303) and/or Puhala (US Pub. No. 2007/0175557), and optionally Sato (US Pub. No. 2015/0126674).
Regarding claims 11-12, Caretta teaches a pneumatic tire that specifies the mounting direction when mounted on a vehicle (page 6, lines 24-28; figure 4), wherein the cap rubber layer contains carbon black, the carbon black content ratio of the outside rubber A is 50 to 100% by weight and the silica ratio of the outside rubber is 0 to 50% by weight, and the carbon black content of the inner rubber B is 0 to 70% by weight and the silica ratio of the inside rubber is from 30 to 100% by weight, and at least 20% higher than in portion A, and the ground contact area of the portion A is from 37.1% to 80% of the total tread area (page 4, lines 10-25; figure 4), such carbon black and ground contact ratio values leading to ranges overlapping the formulas 1-8 of claims 1-7. Caretta teaches the use of styrene-butadiene rubber (page 3, lines 53-56), but does not specifically disclose the styrene content in a rubber component and the glass transition temperature of the rubber composition of the outside cap rubber layer. Piffard teaches a tread compound which is a styrene butadiene copolymer with a styrene content of 5% to 50% (paragraph [0048]), overlapping the claimed range, and a specific embodiment of the rubber composition has a glass transition temperature of -14 degrees C (page 7, table 2, embodiment F1), falling within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a rubber composition with a styrene content and glass transition temperature as taught by Piffard in the tire of Caretta as a composition which has both good dry braking and snow traction (see Piffard at paragraph [0006]). While Caretta and Piffard do not specifically disclose the acetone-extracted content in the cap rubber layer located on the outside of the vehicle is 20% by mass or more, Piffard teaches the use of a plasticizing system, the plasticizing system may include processing oil, plasticizing resin or combinations therefore, where the plasticizing system may provide an improvement to the processability of the rubber mix and/or a means for adjusting the rubber composition’s glass transition temperature and/or rigidity (paragraph [0063]), where the plasticizing hydrocarbon resin may be present in an amount of 5-60 phr (paragraph [0077]), and a specific embodiment having 6.2 of plasticizing oil and 39.7 of polyterpene resin out of a total composition of 249.65 (paragraph [0103], table 1, Formulation F1), for a total of 18.4% plasticizers (45.9/249.65). Such disclosure suggests using acetone-extracted content overlapping the claimed ranges of 20% or more and 22% or more, because substituting 60 for the 39.7 in formulation F1 would result in 66.2 of plasticizers out of a total composition of 269.95, for a total of 24.5% plasticizers (66.2/269.95). As further evidence of the use of 20% or 22% or more of acetone-extracted content in a tread composition, Sato teaches using 17-25% of acetone extractable content in a rubber composition (paragraph [0125]) where that composition is particularly suitable as a tread composition (paragraph [0126]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an acetone-extracted content of 20% or more, or 22% or more as taught or suggested by Piffard and/or taught by Sato in the tire of Caretta in order to improve the processability of the rubber mix and/or to adjust the rubber composition’s glass transition temperature and/or rigidity (see Piffard at paragraph [0063]). Caretta teaches 40-120 parts by weight of a filler comprising from 50 to 100% by weight of carbon black for the outer cap rubber component (page 4, lines 13-14), thus teaching up to 120 parts by weight of carbon black, such being slightly under the claimed 125 parts by mass or more. However, in similarly configured tires with side by side cap layers, Sandstrom teaches the use of about 30 to about 130 phr of reinforcing filler comprised of carbon black (paragraphs [0036]-[0037]), and Puhala teaches the use of reinforcing filler comprising about 30 to about 120 phr (about 120 phr being taken to read on 125 parts by mass, because about allows for an additional amount, and 125 is less than 5% greater than 120) (paragraph [0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an amount of carbon black as taught by Sandstrom and/or Puhala in the tire of Caretta (combined) as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caretta (EP 0864446) in view of Piffard (US Pub. No. 2014/0251519), Mezzanotte (GB 1588575) and optionally Sato (US Pub. No. 2015/0126674).
Regarding claims 11-12, Caretta teaches a pneumatic tire that specifies the mounting direction when mounted on a vehicle (page 6, lines 24-28; figure 4), wherein the cap rubber layer contains carbon black, the carbon black content ratio of the outside rubber A is 50 to 100% by weight and the silica ratio of the outside rubber is 0 to 50% by weight, and the carbon black content of the inner rubber B is 0 to 70% by weight and the silica ratio of the inside rubber is from 30 to 100% by weight, and at least 20% higher than in portion A, and the ground contact area of the portion A is from 37.1% to 80% of the total tread area (page 4, lines 10-25; figure 4), such carbon black and ground contact ratio values leading to ranges overlapping the formulas 1-8 of claims 1-7. Caretta teaches the use of styrene-butadiene rubber (page 3, lines 53-56), but does not specifically disclose the styrene content in a rubber component and the glass transition temperature of the rubber composition of the outside cap rubber layer. Piffard teaches a tread compound which is a styrene butadiene copolymer with a styrene content of 5% to 50% (paragraph [0048]), overlapping the claimed range, and a specific embodiment of the rubber composition has a glass transition temperature of -14 degrees C (page 7, table 2, embodiment F1), falling within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a rubber composition with a styrene content and glass transition temperature as taught by Piffard in the tire of Caretta as a composition which has both good dry braking and snow traction (see Piffard at paragraph [0006]). While Caretta and Piffard do not specifically disclose the acetone-extracted content in the cap rubber layer located on the outside of the vehicle is 20% by mass or more, Piffard teaches the use of a plasticizing system, the plasticizing system may include processing oil, plasticizing resin or combinations therefore, where the plasticizing system may provide an improvement to the processability of the rubber mix and/or a means for adjusting the rubber composition’s glass transition temperature and/or rigidity (paragraph [0063]), where the plasticizing hydrocarbon resin may be present in an amount of 5-60 phr (paragraph [0077]), and a specific embodiment having 6.2 of plasticizing oil and 39.7 of polyterpene resin out of a total composition of 249.65 (paragraph [0103], table 1, Formulation F1), for a total of 18.4% plasticizers (45.9/249.65). Such disclosure suggests using acetone-extracted content overlapping the claimed ranges of 20% or more and 22% or more, because substituting 60 for the 39.7 in formulation F1 would result in 66.2 of plasticizers out of a total composition of 269.95, for a total of 24.5% plasticizers (66.2/269.95). As further evidence of the use of 20% or 22% or more of acetone-extracted content in a tread composition, Sato teaches using 17-25% of acetone extractable content in a rubber composition (paragraph [0125]) where that composition is particularly suitable as a tread composition (paragraph [0126]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an acetone-extracted content of 20% or more, or 22% or more as taught or suggested by Piffard and/or taught by Sato in the tire of Caretta in order to improve the processability of the rubber mix and/or to adjust the rubber composition’s glass transition temperature and/or rigidity (see Piffard at paragraph [0063]). While Caretta does not particularly limit the sulfur content of the outer cap rubber layer, Caretta teaches a specific embodiment having an amount of sulfur of 1.5 phr, such resulting in a sulfur content of 0.78 mass% (1.5/192.8) – see page 5, top table illustrating elastomeric mixture for portion A, such being below the claimed 0.83 mass% or more. In a tire similarly directed to side by side cap rubber compositions, Mezzanotte teaches in a composition towards the vehicular outside, the use of 2 phr of sulfur, as well as a sulfur mass% of 0.88 mass% (2/226.5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an amount in phr or a mass% of sulfur as taught by Mezzanotte in the tire of Caretta (combined) as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the prior art rejection of claims 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sandstrom and/or Puhala.
Applicant appears to be arguing that unexpected results commensurate in scope with claim 11 has been demonstrated with regards to a carbon black content of 125 parts by mass or more, based on comparing examples 5-14 with examples 1-4. However, it is noted that examples 5-14 have a carbon black content of 125 parts by mass, so there is no indication whether using carbon black at more than 125 parts by mass achieves the same beneficial results. Further, Caretta teaches a carbon black amount of up to 120 parts by mass, whereas the highest amount of carbon black in examples 1-4 is example 4 at 100 parts by mass, so it is unclear whether there is an unexpected result by increasing the carbon black amount from 120 parts by mass to 125 parts by mass. Accordingly, unexpected results have not been demonstrated for at least these reasons.
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 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 August 24, 2025
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights