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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3, 6, 8-11, 17-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haidet US 20180354304 A1 in view of Han et al. KR 19990002320 A.
Regarding claim 1, Haidet teaches a non-pneumatic tire comprising: an annular inner ring 130; an annular outer ring 120; a support structure 140 positioned between the annular inner ring 130 and the annular outer ring 120, wherein the support structure 140 comprises: a skim layer comprising a rubber skim composition, the skim layer comprises an outer surface exposed to the environment, and a cord 180 embedded in the skim layer, the rubber skim composition is in direct contact and adhered with the cord 180 embedded in the skim layer. (Fig. 1)(The reinforcement cords that are sandwiched between 2 sheets would then be embedded within a “skim layer” that is comprised of at least those 2 sheets once the tire is cured. Given that the instant application does not show or define an internal end point to a “skim layer” and seems to be attempting to define a rubber composition that would be able to be used throughout a tire support structure and not just on the outermost edge, it would be more than reasonable to interpret Haidet as having a “skim layer” that comprises at least 2 adjacent sheets; particularly considering that both adjacent sheets have a portion that is exposed to the atmosphere.)
Haidet does not teach the rubber skim composition comprising 20 to 50 phr of ethylene propylene diene monomer rubber and 50 to 80 phr of natural rubber or polyisoprene. Han teaches a rubber composition for the sidewall of a tire that improves ozone and fatigue resistance without compromising adhesiveness by using a total rubber amount that consists of 50-90 phr of natural rubber and 10-50 phr of EPDM. (Pg. 3, para. 3 of the English language translation) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use rubber skim composition comprising 20 to 50 phr of EPDM and 50 to 80 phr of natural rubber on the support structure of Haidet in order to improve ozone and fatigue resistance without compromising adhesiveness to the reinforcement cords with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Haidet and Han teach the non-pneumatic tire of claim 1. Haidet further teaches wherein the support structure 140 includes a plurality of spokes. (Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 3, Haidet and Han teach the non-pneumatic tire of claim 1. Haidet further teaches wherein the support structure 140 includes an interconnected web. (para. 92 mentions webbing can be used)
Regarding claim 6, Haidet and Han teach the non-pneumatic tire of claim 1. Haidet further teaches wherein the rubber skim composition comprises a first surface and a second surface, the first surface in direct contact with the cord embedded in the skim layer and the second surface exposed to the environment. (Fig. 1 shows the embedded cord in direct contact with one surface between layers while the outer circumferential surface of each layer is exposed to the environment)
Regarding claim 8, Haidet and Han teach the non-pneumatic tire of claim 1. Han teaches a rubber composition that uses 50 phr of carbon black (Example 1 on pg. 4 of the English language translation) which is a well-known reinforcing filler. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a rubber skim composition which further comprises 10 to 100 phr of reinforcing filler to meet the desired strength and durability characteristics with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, Haidet and Han teach the non-pneumatic tire of claim 8. Han teaches a rubber composition that uses 50 phr of carbon black (Example 1 on pg. 4 of the English language translation) which is a well-known reinforcing filler. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a reinforcing filler which comprises 20 to 80 phr of carbon black to meet the desired strength and durability characteristics with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, Haidet and Han teach the non-pneumatic tire of claim 8. Neither Haidet nor Han expressly teaches wherein the reinforcing filler comprises 5 phr or less of silica. It is well known in the art to use silica in the reinforcing filler to alter the durability, elasticity, and toughness characteristics of the rubber/elastomer compound. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to either not include silica or to use less than 5 phr as a matter of routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05) to meet the desired qualities in the tire with a reasonable expectation of success. Official notice is hereby given
Regarding claim 11, Haidet and Han teach the non-pneumatic tire of claim 1. Han further teaches wherein the rubber skim composition comprises 40 phr or more of ethylene propylene diene monomer rubber (Example 2, pg. 4 of the English language translation uses 40 phr of EPDM). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use 40 phr or more of EPDM to meet the desired ozone resistance characteristics with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13, Haidet and Han teach the non-pneumatic tire of claim 1. Neither Haidet nor Han expressly teaches wherein the rubber skim composition comprises 1 phr or less of antioxidant and 1 phr or less of resin. However, Haidet teaches the use of antioxidants and resin in a rubber composition and it is well known to use antioxidants in rubber to improve ozone resistance and durability. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as a matter of routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05) to include 1 phr or less of antioxidant and resin to meet the desired durability and ozone resistance characteristics with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, Haidet and Han teach the non-pneumatic tire of claim 1. Haidet further teaches wherein the cord 150 comprises an outer surface, a portion of the outer surface being metallic (para. 58, a steel cord would have a metallic outer surface).
Regarding claim 15, Haidet teaches a non-pneumatic tire comprising: an annular inner ring 130; an annular outer ring 120; a support structure 140 positioned between the annular inner ring 130 and the annular outer ring 120, wherein the support structure 140 comprises: a skim layer comprising a rubber skim composition, the rubber skim composition comprises a first surface and a second surface, the second surface exposed to the environment, and a metal cord 150 embedded in the skim layer, the metal cord 150 comprising an outer surface, the outer surface of the metal cord 150 being in direct contact with the first surface of the rubber skim composition. (Fig. 1) (The reinforcement cords that are sandwiched between 2 sheets would then be embedded within a “skim layer” that is comprised of at least those 2 sheets once the tire is cured. Given that the instant application does not show or define an internal end point to a “skim layer” and seems to be attempting to define a rubber composition that would be able to be used throughout a tire support structure and not just on the outermost edge, it would be more than reasonable to interpret Haidet as having a “skim layer” that comprises at least 2 adjacent sheets; particularly considering that both adjacent sheets have a surface that is exposed to the atmosphere and a surface that is exposed to the metal reinforcement cord.)
Haidet does not teach the rubber skim composition comprising 35 to 50 phr of ethylene propylene diene monomer rubber and 50 to 65 phr of natural rubber or polyisoprene. Han teaches a rubber composition for the sidewall of a tire that improves ozone and fatigue resistance without compromising adhesiveness by using a total rubber amount that consists of 50-90 phr of natural rubber and 10-50 phr of EPDM. (Pg. 3, para. 3 of the English language translation) While Han does not expressly state the natural rubber/EPDM blend would specifically have improved adhesion to metal cords, it does teach that adhesion is improved due to the addition of natural rubber and the blend has increased ozone resistance and fatigue resistance compared to 100 phr natural rubber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use rubber skim composition comprising 35 to 50 phr of EPDM and 50 to 65 phr of natural rubber on the support structure of Haidet in order to improve ozone and fatigue resistance without compromising adhesiveness to the reinforcement cords with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 16, Haidet and Han teach the non-pneumatic tire of claim 15. Han teaches a rubber composition that uses 50 phr of carbon black (Example 1 on pg. 4 of the English language translation) which is a well-known reinforcing filler. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a rubber skim composition which further comprises 20 to 60 phr of reinforcing filler to meet the desired strength and durability characteristics with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 17, Haidet and Han teach the non-pneumatic tire of claim 1. Neither Haidet nor Han expressly teaches wherein the rubber skim composition further comprises less than 5 phr of silica. It is well known in the art to use silica in the reinforcing filler to alter the durability, elasticity, and toughness characteristics of the rubber/elastomer compound. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to either not include silica or to use less than 5 phr as a matter of routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05) to meet the desired qualities in the tire with a reasonable expectation of success. Official notice is hereby given
Regarding claim 19, Haidet and Han teach the non-pneumatic tire of claim 15. Han teaches wherein the rubber skim composition has a total rubber amount of 100 phr, the total rubber amount consists of the ethylene propylene diene monomer rubber and the natural rubber or polyisoprene (Example 1, pg. 4). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a total rubber amount consisting of EPDM and natural rubber to create a rubber compound with both adequate ozone resistance and adhesion characteristics with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 20, Haidet and Han teach the non-pneumatic tire of claim 1. Han teaches wherein the rubber skim composition has a total rubber amount of 100 phr, the total rubber amount consists of the ethylene propylene diene monomer rubber and the natural rubber or polyisoprene (Example 1, pg. 4). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a total rubber amount consisting of EPDM and natural rubber to create a rubber compound with both adequate ozone resistance and adhesion characteristics with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haidet US 20180354304 A1 in view of Han et al. KR 19990002320 A and further in view of Tao US 20210292519 A1.
Regarding claim 21, Haidet and Han teach the non-pneumatic tire of claim 1. Haidet and Han do not teach wherein the rubber skim composition further comprises 0.05 to 5 phr of an adhesion promoter. Tao teaches using 0-20 phr of an adhesion promoter in an EPDM rubber blend to enhance the adhesive strength between the rubber composition and metals. (para. 38) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to us .05 to 5 phr of an adhesion promotor as a matter of routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05) to improve the adhesiveness of the rubber with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 22, Haidet and Han teach the non-pneumatic tire of claim 1. Haidet and Han do not teach wherein the rubber skim composition further comprises 0.5 to 4 phr of a methylene donor compound. Tao teaches using 0-20 phr of an adhesion promoter which may consist of a methylene donor compound in an EPDM rubber blend to enhance the adhesive strength between the rubber composition and metals. (para. 38) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to us .05 to 5 phr of an adhesion promotor as a matter of routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05) to improve the adhesiveness of the rubber with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 23, Haidet and Han teach the non-pneumatic tire of claim 15. Haidet and Han do not teach wherein the rubber skim composition further comprises 0.05 to 5 phr of an adhesion promoter. Tao teaches using 0-20 phr of an adhesion promoter in an EPDM rubber blend to enhance the adhesive strength between the rubber composition and metals. (para. 38) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to us .05 to 5 phr of an adhesion promotor as a matter of routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05) to improve the adhesiveness of the rubber with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 24, Haidet and Han teach the non-pneumatic tire of claim 15. Haidet and Han do not teach wherein the rubber skim composition further comprises 0.5 to 4 phr of a methylene donor compound. Tao teaches using 0-20 phr of an adhesion promoter which may consist of a methylene donor compound in an EPDM rubber blend to enhance the adhesive strength between the rubber composition and metals. (para. 38) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to us .05 to 5 phr of an adhesion promotor as a matter of routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05) to improve the adhesiveness of the rubber with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See the prior rejections.
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 ALEX R PALMER whose telephone number is (703)756-1981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm MST.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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.
/AP/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights