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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 4/21/2026. Claims 1, 3-11, 18, and 20 are pending for examination.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. (US 2018/0093533 A1) in view of Nakajima (US 2019/0232728 A1 – of Record) and Cambron et al. (US 2008/0149237 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 1, Yokoyama teaches a tire (Para. [0019]) having a tread comprising a first rubber layer comprising the tread surface (Para [0016]) and a second rubber layer arranged adjacently on the inner side of the first rubber layer (Para. [0016]). Yokoyama also teaches that the cap rubber layer has a silica concentration of silica is 40 to 200 parts by mass (Para. [0044]) which overlaps the claimed range of 80 to 130 parts by mass which is a prima facie case of obviousness. Yokoyama also teaches that the cap tread has 15-150 parts by mass of plasticizer (Para. [0061]), which can be oil (Para. [0060]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 42 to 90 parts by mass of oil which is a prima facie case of obviousness. Finally, Yokoyama teaches that the base rubber layer has 10 to 150 parts by mas of plasticizer (Para. [0037]), which can be oil (Para. [0036]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 15 to 25 parts by mass which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Yokoyama is silent to the heat aging hardness ratio required in the claims; however, the instant specification says that the change in hardness after deterioration is due to the filler, silane coupling agent (PGPUB; Para. [0131]), the vulcanizing agent, and vulcanization accelerator (PGPUB; Para. [0161]). Yokoyama uses silica as the filler in the same concentration as the instant application as stated above and additionally uses a silane coupling agent at a concentration of 0.5 to 20 parts by mass of silica (Para. [0050], [0054]), a sulfur-based vulcanizing agent at a concentration of 1 part by mass of the rubber composition (Table 1, Example 2, 4, 5), and a thiazole-based vulcanization accelerator (Para. [0100]). These compounds and ranges all overlap with the ones stated in the instant application: silane composition of 1 to 30 parts by mass silica (PGPUB; Para. [0130]), vulcanizing agent (Para. [0038]), thiazole-based vulcanization accelerator of 1 to 8 parts by mass of rubber (Para. [0160]). Due to this similar concentration, it is reasonably expected to one of ordinary skill in the art that the tread rubber of the modified Yokoyama would have the same rubber hardness as the claims.
Additionally, Yokoyama does not teach the acetone extraction amounts of the first and second rubber layer. However, the instant specification says that the acetone extraction amount is based off the concentration of low-molecular weight compound within a plasticizer (PGPUB: Para. [0153]) and Yokoyama teaches a plasticizer concentration (Para. [0037], [0061]) of a similar concentration using the same type of oils (Para. [0036], [0062]). Therefore, it would be reasonably expected to one of ordinary skill in the art for the tread rubber of Yokoyama to have the acetone extraction ratio of the claimed tire. Since a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable, if the prior art teaches the composition claimed, the claimed properties are present even if the prior art does not explicitly disclose them (See MPEP 2112.01 II). However, Yokoyama does not teach the tread pattern of the tire.
In an analogous art, Nakajima teaches a tire (Para. [0022]) comprising a tread (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 2) with four main circumferential grooves (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 3). Nakajima also teaches that the main grooves have recesses (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 12, 15) located radially inward from the tread surface, which will cause the sea ratio to increase as the tire is worn.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Yokoyama with Nakajima in order to use the tread pattern taught by Nakajima. This modification will allow the tread pattern to have excellent wet performance as it is worn (Nakajima; Para. [0030]). While Nakajima does teach that the sea ratio increases as the tread is worn (Para. [0030], Fig. 2), Nakajima does not specify by how much the sea ratio will increase.
In an analogous art, Cambron teaches a tire where the initial net-to-gross ratio is 60% to 80% (Para. [0036]) which would be a sea ratio of 20% to 40%. Cambron also teaches that when the tire is worn to a level of 30% to 70% (Para. [0037]), the net-to-gross ratio will decrease to 45% to 60% (Para. [0041]), which is a sea ratio of 40% to 55%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Yokoyama with Cambron to have the sea ratio of the tire increase from 20% to 40% while new to 40% to 55% while worn. This modification will allow increase water flow through the grooves as the tire wears to increase wet performance (Cambron; Para. [0004]). Cambron teaches the worn depth being measured at 30% to 70% which contains the claimed depth of 50%. Using the numbers taught by Cambron, the S50/S0 will be 1 to 2.75, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.05 to 1.40 which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 3, modified Yokoyama does not teach the acetone extraction amounts of the first and second rubber layer. However, the instant specification says that the acetone extraction amount is based off the concentration of low-molecular weight compound within a plasticizer (PGPUB: Para. [0153]) and modified Yokoyama teaches a plasticizer concentration (Para. [0037], [0061]) of a similar concentration using the same type of oils (Para. [0036], [0062]). Therefore, it would be reasonably expected to one of ordinary skill in the art for the tread rubber of modified Nakajima to have the acetone extraction difference of the claimed tire. Since a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable, if the prior art teaches the composition claimed, the claimed properties are present even if the prior art does not explicitly disclose them (See MPEP 2112.01 II).
Regarding claim 5, modified Yokoyama teaches that at least one groove wall (Nakajima; Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 11) is provided with a recess part (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 15). The total amount of recess is equal to the amount of recess of the two recesses (Fig. 4a, Ref. Num. 16, 17). The recess amount of the large recess (Fig. 4A, Ref. Num. W2) is 0.2 to 0.8 times the groove width (Para. [0040]) and the recess amount of the small recess (Fig. 4B, Ref. Num. W3) is 0.05 to 0.15 times the groove width (Para. [0045]). That would make the total recess amount between 0.25 and 0.95 times the groove width, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.10 to 0.90 which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 6, modified Yokoyama teaches that a first groove wall (Nakajima; Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 11) is provided with a first recess part (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 11) that has a deepest recess part (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 22) where the amount of recess gradually decreases in both circumferential directions from the deepest part.
Regarding claim 7, modified Yokoyama teaches that the recess amount of the deepest part (Nakajima; Fig. 4A, Ref. Num. W2) is 0.2 to 0.8 times the groove width (Para. [0040]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.10 to 0.50 which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 8, modified Yokoyama teaches that the first groove wall (Nakajima; Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 11) is provided with at least one second recess part (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 17) where the amount of recess is constant in the tire circumferential direction.
Regarding claim 9, modified Yokoyama teaches that the maximum recess amount of the second recess (Nakajima; Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 17) is less than the recess amount of the deepest part of the first recess (Fig. 3, Ref. num. 22).
Regarding claim 10, modified Yokoyama teaches an initial sea ratio of 20% to 40% (Cambron; Para. [0036]) which increases to a sea ratio of 40% to 55% (Para. [0041]) when worn the tread is worn to 30% to 70% (Para. [0037]), which includes the claimed depth of 50%. Using the numbers taught by Cambron, the S50/S0 will be 1 to 2.75, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.10 to 1.40 which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 11, modified Yokoyama is silent to the heat aging hardness ratio required in the claims; however, the rubber composition of the modified Yokoyama has the same composition as is required by the claims (See Claim 1 rejection). Due to this similar concentration, it is reasonably expected to one of ordinary skill in the art that the tread rubber of the modified Yokoyama would have the same rubber hardness as the claims. Since a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable, if the prior art teaches the composition claimed, the claimed properties are present even if the prior art does not explicitly disclose them (See MPEP 2112.01 II).
Regarding claim 18, modified Yokoyama teaches that the SBR is 20% to 90% of the rubber composition by mass (Para. [0023]), which overlaps the claimed range of 55% or more which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 20, Yokoyama teaches a tire (Para. [0019]) having a tread comprising a first rubber layer comprising the tread surface (Para [0016]) and a second rubber layer arranged adjacently on the inner side of the first rubber layer (Para. [0016]). Yokoyama also teaches that the cap rubber layer has a silica concentration of silica is 40 to 200 parts by mass (Para. [0044]) which overlaps the claimed range of 80 to 130 parts by mass which is a prima facie case of obviousness. Yokoyama also teaches that the cap tread has 15-150 parts by mass of plasticizer (Para. [0061]), which can be oil (Para. [0060]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 42 to 90 parts by mass of oil which is a prima facie case of obviousness. Finally, Yokoyama teaches that the base rubber layer has 10 to 150 parts by mas of plasticizer (Para. [0037]), which can be oil (Para. [0036]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 15 to 25 parts by mass which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Yokoyama is silent to the heat aging hardness ratio required in the claims; however, the instant specification says that the change in hardness after deterioration is due to the filler, silane coupling agent (PGPUB; Para. [0131]), the vulcanizing agent, and vulcanization accelerator (PGPUB; Para. [0161]). Yokoyama uses silica as the filler in the same concentration as the instant application as stated above and additionally uses a silane coupling agent at a concentration of 0.5 to 20 parts by mass of silica (Para. [0050], [0054]), a sulfur-based vulcanizing agent at a concentration of 1 part by mass of the rubber composition (Table 1, Example 2, 4, 5), and a thiazole-based vulcanization accelerator (Para. [0100]). These compounds and ranges all overlap with the ones stated in the instant application: silane composition of 1 to 30 parts by mass silica (PGPUB; Para. [0130]), vulcanizing agent (Para. [0038]), thiazole-based vulcanization accelerator of 1 to 8 parts by mass of rubber (Para. [0160]). Due to this similar concentration, it is reasonably expected to one of ordinary skill in the art that the tread rubber of the modified Yokoyama would have the same rubber hardness as the claims.
Additionally, Yokoyama does not teach the acetone extraction amounts of the first and second rubber layer. However, the instant specification says that the acetone extraction amount is based off the concentration of low-molecular weight compound within a plasticizer (PGPUB: Para. [0153]) and Yokoyama teaches a plasticizer concentration (Para. [0037], [0061]) of a similar concentration using the same type of oils (Para. [0036], [0062]). Therefore, it would be reasonably expected to one of ordinary skill in the art for the tread rubber of modified Nakajima to have the acetone extraction difference of the claimed tire. Since a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable, if the prior art teaches the composition claimed, the claimed properties are present even if the prior art does not explicitly disclose them (See MPEP 2112.01 II). However, Yokoyama does not teach the tread pattern of the tire.
In an analogous art, Nakajima teaches a tire (Para. [0022]) comprising a tread (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 2) with four main circumferential grooves (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 3). Nakajima also teaches that the main grooves have recesses (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 12, 15) located radially inward from the tread surface, which will cause the sea ratio to increase as the tire is worn.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Yokoyama with Nakajima in order to use the tread pattern taught by Nakajima. This modification will allow the tread pattern to have excellent wet performance as it is worn (Nakajima; Para. [0030]). While Nakajima does teach that he sea ratio increases as the tread is worn (Para. [0030], Fig. 2), Nakajima does not specify by how much the sea ratio will increase.
In an analogous art, Cambron teaches a tire where the initial net-to-gross ratio is 60% to 80% (Para. [0036]) which would be a sea ratio of 20% to 40%. Cambron also teaches that when the tire is worn to a level of 30% to 70% (Para. [0037]), the net-to-gross ratio will decrease to 45% to 60% (Para. [0041]), which is a sea ratio of 40% to 55%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Yokoyama with Cambron to have the sea ratio of the tire increase from 20% to 40% while new to 40% to 55% while worn. This modification will allow increase water flow through the grooves as the tire wears to increase wet performance (Cambron; Para. [0004]). Cambron teaches the worn depth being measured at 30% to 70% which contains the claimed depth of 50%. Using the numbers taught by Cambron, the S50/S0 will be 1 to 2.75, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.05 to 1.40 which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. (US 2018/0093533 A1), Nakajima (US 2019/0232728 A1), and Cambron et al. (US 2008/0149237 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamura (WO 2020/059302, with US 2021/0332221 A1 as an English Language Equivalent – of Record).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yokoyama does not teach that the first rubber layer comprises a liquid polymer.
In an analogous art, Nakamura teaches adding liquid polymers as a softener to the outer tread rubber layer (Para. [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Yokoyama to add a liquid polymer to the first rubber layer of Nakamura. This modification will improve abrasion resistance and processability (Nakamura; Para. [0077]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J WEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-2664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:30pm.
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.
/N.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights