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
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, 7-9, 11, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houjo et al. (US 2010/0113703A1).
Regarding claim 1, Houjo teaches a tire (Para. [0006]) with a tread where the tread is made of a rubber composition with not less than 70 mass% of SBR (Para. [0039]) where solution-polymerized SBRs can be used (Para. [0040]), which overlaps with the claimed range of more than 80 to 100 phr which is a prima facie case of obviousness. Houjo also teaches 60 to 200 phr of carbon black (Para. [0020]) which overlap the claimed ranges of 80 to 200 phr of filler which at least 40 phr is carbon black which is a prima facie cases of obviousness. The rubber also contains 10 to 60 phr of terpene resin with a softening point not lower than 130 degrees C (Para. [0031]) and 10 to 60 phr of alkylphenol resins with a softening point of not lower than 120 degrees C (Para. [0029]), all of which overlap the claimed ranges which is a prima facie case of obviousness. Finally, Houjo teaches 35 to 200 phr of oil (Para. [0045]), which can include liquid polymer (Para. [0044]), which overlaps the claimed range of 10 to 100 phr which is a prima facie case of obviousness. The language of doesn’t require structure not shown by Houjo and Houjo would be capable of being used as a motorcycle tire.
Regarding claim 3, Houjo teaches 60 to 200 phr of carbon black (Para. [0020]), which overlaps the claimed range of 80 to 150 phr of carbon black which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 4, Houjo teaches 10 to 60 phr of terpene resin (Para. [0031]), which overlaps the claimed range of 15 to 45 phr which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 5, Houjo teaches that the terpene resin can be an alpha-pinene resin (Para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 7, Houjo teaches that the rubber has 35 to 200 phr of oil (Para. [0045]), which overlaps the claimed range of 5 to 70 phr which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 8, Houjo teaches that the rubber has 35 to 200 phr of oil (Para. [0045]), which overlaps the claimed range of 25 to 60 phr which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 9, Houjo teaches that the rubber has not less than 70 mass% of SBR (Para. [0039]), which overlaps with the claimed range of more than 95 to 100 phr which is a prima facie case of obviousness
Regarding claim 11, modified Houjo teaches that the liquid polymer has a homopolymer structure (ester oil) (Para. [0044]).
Regarding claim 12, Houjo teaches that the rubber contains no coumarone-indene resin (Table 1, Resin 11).
Regarding claim 16, Houjo teaches that the tire is a pneumatic tire (Claim 22).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houjo et al. (US 2010/0113703A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kanbara et al. (US 2020/0392313 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Houjo does not teach the glass transition temperature of the SBR.
In an analogous art, Kanbara teaches a tire with SBR in the tread rubber that has a glass transition temperature of -95 to 0 degrees C (Para. [0042]), which overlaps the claimed range of -45 to -1 degrees C which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Houjo with Kanbara to have the SBR have a glass transition temperature of -95 to 0 degrees. This modification will allow the tire to handle well (Kanbara; Para. [0042]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houjo et al. (US 2010/0113703A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shoda (US 2021/0340363 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Houjo does not teach the molecular weight of the terpene resin.
In an analogous art, Shoda teaches a tire rubber with terpene resin that has a molecular weight of 2000 or less (Para. [0139]), which overlaps the claimed range of 200 to 900 g/mol which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Houjo with Shoda to have the molecular weight 2000 or less g/mol. This modification will improve the wear resistance of the rubber (Shoda; Para. [0139]).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houjo et al. (US 2010/0113703 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyamoto (US 2020/0055337 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 14, Houjo teaches a motorcycle tire (claim 1 rejection) however, does not teach that the tread has a center portion arranged between two shoulder portions and that the center portion is free of the rubber composition.
In an analogous art, Miyamoto teaches a motorcycle tire with two shoulder tread portions (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 22) and a center tread portion (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 20) where the center tread portion has a rubber composition that has a higher amount of diene-based polymer than the shoulder portions (Para. [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Houjo with Miyamoto to have a center tread section with a higher amount of diene-based polymer. This modification will raise the abrasion resistance in the center tread area (Miyamoto; Para. [0078]). This would make a tire with a center portion and two shoulder portions with different rubber compositions, where the claimed composition is in the shoulder portion. As the center tread area has a raised amount of diene-based polymer, that would mean the rubber composition is only present in the shoulder areas and the center area has a different rubber composition.
Regarding claim 15, modified Houjo teaches that the center tread portion has a higher abrasion resistance in the center tread area than the shoulder area (Miyamoto; Para. [0078]), which overlaps with the claimed range of at least 5% higher which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houjo et al. (US 2010/0113703A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shibamoto (US 2024/0157732 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 17, Houjo does not teach tread shoulder cap and base layers.
In an analogous art, Shibamoto teaches a motorcycle tire where there is a cap (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 11) and a base (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 12) tread layer that exists across the whole width of the tire including the shoulder. The cap tread layer has a larger elastic modulus than the base layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Houjo with Shibamoto to have a cap layer with a larger elastic modulus than the base layer. This modification will reduce abrasion on the tread surface without deteriorating grip performance (Shibamoto; Para. [0030]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Houjo teaches that the cap tread portion has a higher elastic modulus than the base tread (Shibamoto; Para. [0030]) which would also mean a higher stiffness, which overlaps with the claimed range of at least 5% higher which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houjo et al. (US 2010/0113703A1) in view of Shibamoto (US 2024/0157732 A1 as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Miyamoto (US 2020/0055337 A1).
Regarding claim 19, modified Houjo does not teach that the tread has a center portion arranged between two shoulder portions and that the center portion has a higher abrasion resistance than the shoulder portions.
In an analogous art, Miyamoto teaches a motorcycle tire with two shoulder tread portions (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 22) and a center tread portion (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 20) where the center tread portion has a rubber composition that has a higher amount of diene-based polymer than the shoulder portions (Para. [0078]) which cause the center portion to have a higher abrasion resistance (Para. [0078]), which overlaps with the claimed range of at least 5% higher which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Houjo with Miyamoto to have a center tread section with a higher amount of diene-based polymer. This modification will raise the abrasion resistance in the center tread area (Miyamoto; Para. [0078]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houjo et al. (US 2010/0113703A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wei et al. (US 2017/0355236 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 20, Houjo does not teach a tire tread pattern.
In an analogous art, Wei teaches that it is known art to make tires slick for high grip applications such as airplanes or racing (Para. [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Houjo with Wei to make the tire a slick tire. This modification will be beneficial for high grip applications such as racing (Wei; Para. [0029]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 1, filed 7/14/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 over Kanbara in view of Shoda have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Houjo.
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