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 .
1) 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.
2) 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.
3) Claims 15-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deal (US 2012/0090755) in view of Baily et al (US 2019/0177486), BIG O TIRES (What is a Tire Load Rating?), Dunlavy (US 2015/0031792) and Japan 911 (JP 06-297911).
Deal discloses a pneumatic tire (assignee Michelin) having a passenger tire size of 205/55R16 and a weight = 8 kg [paragraph 81]. Deal is silent as to maximum load capacity.
Baily et al discloses Michelin Energy Saver 205/55/16 91V [paragraphs 100, 104]. The load index (maximum load capacity) for this Michelin tire is “91” which is 1356 pounds or 615 kg (WL = 615 kg). See chart in BIG O TIRES.
As to claim 1, it would have been obvious to provide Deal’s Michelin pneumatic tire having a tire size of 205/55R16 and a tire weight of 8 kg such that this tire has a maximum load capacity of 615 kg (load index = 91), the ratio tire weight G / maximum load capacity WL thereby being 0.0130 [8kg/615kg = 0.0130] since (1) Deal discloses a pneumatic tire (assignee Michelin) having a passenger tire size of 205/55R16 and a weight = 8 kg [paragraph 81], (2) Baily et al discloses Michelin Energy Saver 205/55/16 91V (load index = 91) [paragraphs 100, 104] and (3) BIG O TIRES describes load index (maximum load capacity) of “91” being 1356 pounds or 615 kg (WL = 615 kg). Thus, the applied prior art teaches that Deal’s pneumatic tire having a tire size of 205/55R16 and a tire weight of 8g should have a load index of “91” which is 615 kg. This value of 0.0130 falls within the claimed range of 0.0131 or less.
With respect to tan δ, E*, carbon black and silica [claim 15], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Deal’s pneumatic tire having tire size 205/55R16 such that the tire has a tread comprising at least one rubber layer composed of a rubber composition comprising a rubber component and a reinforcing filler, wherein the reinforcing filler comprises 1 to 20 parts by mass carbon black and 30 to 110 parts by mass silica, and wherein tan δ at 30°C (30°C tan δ) of the rubber composition is over 0.15 and complex modulus at 30°C (E*30) of the rubber composition is less than 8.0 MPa since (1) Dunlavy teaches providing a pneumatic tire comprising tread, sidewall, bead filler and carcass ply such that the tread comprises a rubber composition comprising 100 part polymer(s) with Tg (average) less than or equal to -55oC such as natural rubber, styrene butadiene rubber, butadiene rubber, 1-100 parts (5-80 parts) silica, 1-200 parts (5-100 parts) carbon black, 0.1-10 parts (1-5 parts), oil, vulcanizing agent (sulfur), vulcanizing accelerator wherein the rubber composition is made using a method in which rubber component, silica and carbon black are mixed in at least one preparatory mixing step, accelerator is mixed in a subsequent mixing step and sulfur is mixed in a final mixing step; the silica reinforcement improving (wet) traction and rolling resistance and the tire having improved snow traction [paragraphs 2, 31-39, 44-46, 55-56, 62, EXAMPLES, claims 33, 35] and (2) (A) Dunlavy discloses an EXAMPLE C’ in which the rubber composition comprises 29.5 parts SBR (Tg = -22oC), 70.5 parts SBR (Tg = -69oC), 5 parts devulcanized rubber, 63 parts silica, 7 parts carbon black and 42.5 parts oil and has tan δ at 30oC = 0.202, E’ = at 30oC = 6.3 MPa and E* at 30oC = 6.4 MPa (determined below) and (B) Dunlavy discloses an EXAMPLE D’ in which the rubber composition comprises 17.5 parts SBR (Tg = -22oC), 82.5 parts SBR (Tg = -69oC), 5 parts devulcanized rubber, 63 parts silica, 7 parts carbon black and 42.5 parts oil and has tan δ at 30oC = 0.202, E’ = at 30oC = 7.0 MPa and E* at 30oC = 7.1 MPa (determined below) [TABLES 1-2]. As to claim 15, it is noted that 7 parts carbon black [Dunlavy’s EXAMPLES C’, D’] falls within the claimed range of 1 to 20 parts carbon black. As to claim 15, it is noted that 63 parts silica [Dunlavy’s EXAMPLES C’, D’] falls within the claimed range of 30 to 110 parts silica.
Modulus E* at 30oC for EXAMPLES C’ and D’ (described above) were determined using the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
93
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to the above formula, the following is noted:
PNG
media_image2.png
183
315
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to tan δ at 30oC > 0.15 and E* at 30oC < 8.0 MPa [claim 15], the tan δ at 30oC, modulus E’ at 30oC and modulus E* at 30oC for EXAMPLES C’ and D’ of Dunlavy are summarized in TABLE 2 below:
TABLE 2
tan δ at 30oC
modulus E’ at 30oC
modulus E* at 30oC
EXAMPLE C’
0.202
6.3 MPa
6.4 MPa
EXAMPLE D’
0.202
7.0 MPa
7.1 MPa
As to claim 15, both 6.4 MPa [EXAMPLE C’] and 7.1 MPa [EXAMPLE D’] fall within the claimed range of less than 8.0 MPa for E* at 30oC. As to claim 15, 0.202 falls within the claimed range of over 0.15 for tan δ at 30oC .
With respect to ratio 30oC tan δ/G = 0.016 to 0.029 [claim 15]: When tan δ at 30oC = 0.202 (Dunlavy) and G = 8 kg (Deal), then ratio 30oC tan δ/G = 0.025 [0.202/8 = 0.025]. This value of 0.025 falls within the claimed range of 0.016 to 0.029.
Hence, Deal and Dunlavy are in the same filed of endeavor of tires and teach the same structure of a pneumatic tire and that Dunlavy provides motivation to use the tread rubber composition disclosed therein for the tread of Deal’s tire; the expected and predictable benefits including improving snow traction, improving (wet) traction) and improving rolling resistance. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the would have found it obvious use Dunlavy’s tread rubber composition for the tread of Deal’s tire having a tire size of 205/55R16. It is noted that any minor change in weight of the tread comprising Dunlavy’s rubber composition would not change the target weight of 8kg..
With respect to first rubber layer and second rubber layer [claim 15], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Deal’s pneumatic tire having tire size of 205/55R16 such that the tread part comprises a first rubber layer constituting a tread surface and a second rubber layer being arranged adjacent on an inner side of the first rubber layer in a radial direction wherein the first rubber layer comprises a rubber composition as per Dunlavy, a thickness T2 of the second rubber layer is 0.5 to 8 mm and a proportion of the thickness T2 of the second rubber layer to a thickness T1 of the first rubber layer is 5/95 to 60/40 since (1) Dunlavy teaches using the rubber composition for a ground contacting tread layer of a pneumatic tire and (2) Japan 911 teaches providing a pneumatic tire (passenger size 175/70R13) having a tread comprising grooves such that the tread comprises a ground contacting cap rubber layer (first layer) and a base rubber layer (second layer) such that the base rubber layer (second layer) has a lower tan delta than tan delta of the cap rubber layer (first layer) so that the tire is small is rolling resistance and excellent in wet skid resistance wherein, for example, thickness of the tread is 11 mm, thickness of the cap rubber layer is 7 mm, thickness of the base rubber layer is 4 mm and depth of the grooves is 8 mm [FIGURE 1, machine translation].
With respect to ratio (H/E*30) = 0.75 to 1.20 [claim 15], it would have been obvious to provide Deal’s pneumatic tire such that ratio (H/E*30) is 0.75 to 1.20 since (1) Japan 911 teaches providing a pneumatic passenger tire such that depth (“H”) of grooves in the tread is for example 8 mm [machine translation], (2) Dunlavy teaches providing the rubber composition such that the ground contacting tread layer has E* at 30oC being for 6.4 MPa [EXAMPLE C’] or E* at 30oC being for 7.1 MPa [EXAMPLE D’] and optionally (3) official notice is taken that it is well known / conventional per se to providing a pneumatic tire having circumferential grooves such that the depth of the circumferential grooves is 6 mm to 8.5 mm. When groove depth “H” = 6 mm [official notice] and E* at 30oC = 6.4 MPa [Dunlavy], then ratio (H/E*30) = 0.94 [6 / 6.4 = 0.94]. As to claim 15, this value of 0.94 falls within the claimed range of 0.75 to 1.20. When groove depth “H” = 8 mm [Japan 911] and E* at 30oC = 7.1 MPa [Dunlavy], then ratio (H/E*30) = 1.13 [8 / 7.1 = 1.13]. As to claim 15, this value of 1.13 falls within the claimed range of 0.75 to 1.20.
No unexpected results have been shown. FIRST: Improved wet grip is an expected and predictable result. See Dunlavy. It is noted that (1) Dunlavy discloses a silica reinforced tread for a pneumatic tire and teaches that silica reinforcement improves traction characteristics [paragraph 2] and (2) optionally official notice is taken that it is well known in the tire tread art that a pneumatic tire having a silica reinforced tread has improved wet traction. SECOND: The results in the specification, which have been considered, are not commensurate in scope with claims since the results in the specification are for a specific silica rich rubber composition comprising NR, SBR, BR , carbon black, silica, resin and oil and a specific tread pattern instead of general composition reading on rubber composition comprising rubber component, 1-20 parts carbon black, 30-110 parts silica and a general tread pattern comprising a circumferential groove.
As to claim 16, each of EXAMPLES C’ and D’ describe a rubber composition comprising 63 parts silica and 7 parts carbon black; a ratio of a content of carbon black with respect to a content of silica in the reinforcing filler is 0.11 [7/63 = 0.11]. As to claim 16, this value of 0.11 falls within the claimed range of 0.21 or less.
As to claim 18, Dunlavy’s rubber composition in EXAMPLE C’ or D’ inherently has a specific gravity of 1.270 or less. IN ANY EVENT: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the rubber composition of a tread such that a specific gravity of the rubber composition is 1.270 or less in view of Dunlavy’s disclosure regarding the ingredients of the rubber composition. Since Dunlavy’s rubber composition is at least generally the same as the claimed rubber composition, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that Dunlavy’s rubber composition has or should have the claimed specific gravity.
As to claim 19, Deal’s tread comprising circumferential grooves [FIGURE 2], Dunlavy teaches using the rubber composition for a ground contacting tread of a pneumatic tire and Japan 911 teach a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising grooves, a first layer and a second layer.
4) Claims 17 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deal (US 2012/0090755) in view of Baily et al (US 2019/0177486), BIG O TIRES (What is a Tire Load Rating?), Dunlavy (US 2015/0031792) and Japan 911 (JP 06-297911) as applied above and further in view of Europe 480 (EP 2,799,480).
As to claims 17 and 29, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Dunlavy’s rubber composition for a tread of a pneumatic tire such that the rubber composition comprises 4.0 parts by mass or more of a resin component based on 100 parts by mass of the rubber component [claim 17], the rubber composition comprises 2.0 to 8.0 parts by mass the resin component based on 100 parts by mass of the rubber component, wherein the rubber composition comprises 12 to 80 parts by mass of an oil based on 100 parts by mass of the rubber component [claim 29] since (1) Dunlavy teaches including resin [paragraph 44] and oil (e.g. 42.5 parts) [paragraph 44, EXAMPLES C’, D’] in the rubber composition for a tread of a pneumatic tire and (2) Europe 480 teaches providing a rubber composition for a tread of a pneumatic tire such that the rubber composition comprises 10-100% by mass rubber component of isoprene based rubber (natural rubber), 0-80% by mass rubber component of butadiene rubber, 0-70% by mass rubber component of styrene butadiene rubber, 1-50 parts (2-30 parts) such as 5 parts terpene based resin, 30-135 parts silica, 1-50 parts carbon black and oil so as to improve wet grip performance, improve performance on ice and snow and obtain abrasion resistance [abstract, paragraphs 4-6, 22-29, 36-40, 55, TABLES 1-2, EXAMPLE 8].
5) Claims 19 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deal (US 2012/0090755) in view of Baily et al (US 2019/0177486), BIG O TIRES (What is a Tire Load Rating?), Dunlavy (US 2015/0031792) and Japan 911 (JP 06-297911) as applied above and further in view of Ikeda et al (US 2019/0061432), Tomida et al (US 2018/0111422) and/or Japan 791 (JP 6,699,791).
EP 4,043,235 (published 08-2022) is an English language equivalent to
JP 6,699,791 (published 05-2020).
As to claims 19 and 21-25, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Deal’s pneumatic tire having tire size 205/55R16 such that:
the tread part has a land part being partitioned by two or more circumferential grooves extending continuously in the tire circumferential direction, and when H is a distance between [an extension line of an uppermost surface of] the land part and an extension line of a deepest part of the groove bottom of the circumferential groove, a rubber layer composed of the rubber composition is arranged in at least a part of a region having the distance H from the uppermost surface to the inner side in the radial direction of the land part [claim 19],
the tread part has a pair of shoulder land parts partitioned by the circumferential grooves, and a center land part located between the pair of shoulder land parts, and a ratio of a total center land part area with respect to a total land part area is 0.35 to 0.80 [claim 21],
the tread part has two or more circumferential grooves extending continuously in the tire circumferential direction, a width direction groove, and a sipe, and a ratio of a total groove area with respect to a ground contact area of the tread part is 0.15 to 0.35 [claim 22],
a total circumferential groove area with respect to the ground contact area of the tread part is 0.09 to 0.16, and a total area of the width direction groove and the sipe with respect to the ground contact area of the tread part is 0.08 to 0.14 [claim 23],
a ratio La/Lb of a length La of the tire in the circumferential direction (tire circumference) and a total sum Lb of a total Lb1 of width direction edge component lengths of width direction grooves and a total Lb2 of width direction edge component lengths of sipes is 0.10 to 0.20 [claim 24],
the tread part has the sipe, both ends of which sipe are not being opened to the circumferential grooves [claim 25]
since (1) Ikeda et al teaches a pneumatic tire (passenger size 185/65R15) having a tread having improved cornering performance while maintaining wet performance comprising four land parts separated by three circumferential grooves, width direction grooves and sipes wherein the circumferential grooves have a depth = 5 to 10 mm, the middle land parts have a width W10 = 10-20% tread width, shoulder land parts have a width = 25-35% tread width and the shoulder land parts have both end closed sipes [FIGURE 2, paragraphs 65, 110], (2) Tomida et al teaches a pneumatic tire (passenger size 195/65R15) having a tread having excellent braking performance on dry road surface and on wet road surface and having excellent steering stability comprising four land parts separated by three circumferential grooves, width direction grooves and sipes wherein negative ratio (groove area ratio) of the tread is 15-25%, negative ratio (groove area ratio) of the circumferential grooves is 8-14% and negative ratio (groove area ratio) of other grooves is 7-11% and the shoulder parts comprise one end sipes with the open end opening to tread end [FIGURES 1, 2, paragraph 42] and/or (3) Japan 791 teaches a pneumatic tire (passenger size 195/65R15) having a tread having improved steering stability on dry and wet road and sufficient drainage comprising four land parts separated by three circumferential grooves, width direction grooves and sipes wherein the circumferential grooves have a depth = 5 to 10 mm and La = 10-20% Lb wherein La is a length of the tire in the circumferential direction and Lb is a total sum length of a total length Lb1 of edge component lengths of the width direction grooves in the width direction and a total length Lb2 of edge component lengths of the sipes [FIGURE 2, paragraphs 20, 28].
As to claim 19, Ikeda et al, Tomida et al and Japan 791 teach three circumferential grooves.
As to claim 21: Ikeda et al teaches center land part comprising two middle land parts (each having width W10 = 10-20% tread width) and two shoulder land parts (each having width = 25-35% tread width) such that total of center land part area being 35-80% total land part area is rendered obvious.
As to claim 22, Tomida et al teaches negative ratio (groove area ratio) of tread is 15-25%.
As to claim 23, Tomida et al teaches negative ratio (groove area circumferential grooves) is 8-14% and negative ratio (groove area other grooves) is 7-11%.
As to claim 24, Japan 791 teaches La = 10-20% Lb.
As to claim 25, see sipes in FIGURE 2 of Ikeda et al or sipes in FIGURE 1 of Tomida et al.
6) Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deal (US 2012/0090755) in view of Baily et al (US 2019/0177486), BIG O TIRES (What is a Tire Load Rating?), Dunlavy (US 2015/0031792) and Japan 911 (JP 06-297911) as applied above and further in view of Nakamura et al (US 6,095,217), Iwasaki et al (US 6,336,486) or Sandstrom et al (US 2008/0066839).
As to claim 27, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Deal’s pneumatic tire having tire size 205/55R16 such that:
the deepest part of the groove bottom of a circumferential groove is formed so as to be located on the inner side of an outermost part of the second rubber layer in the tire radial direction
since (1) Nakamura et al teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising grooves and an upper layer and a lower layer [FIGURE 1] to suppress decrease in wet road property throughout the entire period of use of the tire [col. 1 lines 5-17], (2) Iwasaki et al teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising grooves and an upper layer and a lower layer [FIGURE 1] to control degradation of wet performance at a time from a middle worn stage to last worn stage [col. 1 lines 5-12], or (2) Sandstrom et al teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising grooves and an upper layer and a lower layer [FIGURE 1] to lower cost [paragraphs 2-13]. It is emphasized that Nakamura [FIGURE 1], Iwasaki et al [FIGURE 1] or Sandstrom et al [FIGURE 1] show part of the second layer being located radially above a groove bottom.
Remarks
7) Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 15-19, 21-25, 27 and 29 have been considered but are moot.
With respect to applicant’s description in the response filed 8-28-25 of the interview on 8-27-25, examiner comments: INTERVIEW RECORD OK.
8) No claim is allowed.
9) 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.
10) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN D MAKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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 B Smith (Whatley) can be reached on 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.
/STEVEN D MAKI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
September 22, 2025