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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assaad (US 5,858,137) in view of Astaix et al. (US 2016/0193879), Kogure (US 5,370,167), Yukawa (US 2005/0161138), Cortes (US 2002/0092591), and Tanaka (US 2013/0213545).
Regarding claims 1-4, Assaad teaches a pneumatic tire for a passenger car having a tread portion and a belt layer having reinforcing cords (FIG-1 and col. 5, lines 60+). The steel monofilaments are arranged to have about 25-60 ends per inch, which is 49 ends/5 cm to 118 ends/5 cm (abstract) rendering claim 4 obvious. Col. 6, line 10+ teaches a tire size P195/75R14:
Wt = 195 mm and e = 115 cords/5 cm (within the range of Assaad)
e/(0.31Wt +14.35) ≈ 1.5 > 1.19 (claim 1)
e/(0.31Wt + 56.45) ≈ 0.98 < 1 (claim 1)
e/(0.1924Wt + 37.88) ≈ 1.5 > 1 (claim 2)
e/(0.1335Wt + 49.644) ≈ 1.5 >1 (claim 3)
While Assaad is silent to “a belt reinforcing layer having cords in provided radially outward of the tire from the belt layer, and that an average distance between the monofilament cords in the belt layer and the cords in the belt reinforcing layer is 0.1 mm or more to 0.5 mm or less”, this claimed feature provided in the tire of Assad would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Astaix et al. teaches a pneumatic radial tire having a belt structure including two belt layers reinforced with monofilaments (10b, 10c) and a belt reinforcing layer (10a) (abstract) wherein Ez1 is between 0.20 and 0.35 mm for optimized performance in rolling resistance, drift thrust, and running endurance [0067]-[0068] and providing a known belt structure in the same class of tire yields predictable results.
While Assaad is silent to a tread comprising a plurality of lateral grooves, providing the tire of Assaad with a tread pattern including lateral grooves such that:
“the total volume of the plurality of lateral grooves is 2.0% or more to 5.0% or less of the volume of the tread portion”
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since
FIG. 1 of Kogure, FIG. 4 of Yukawa, and [0007] of Cortes each shows a tire comprising a tread including circumferential grooves and lateral grooves extending in the axial direction of the tire is a well-known and conventional,
Yukawa teaches a tire for passenger car comprising a tread with a sea ratio of oblique grooves (i.e. lateral grooves) being 3-10% [0122],
Kogure teaches a tire for passenger car comprising a tread having 4 circumferential grooves (FIG. 1) having a groove width of 6 mm (col. 6, lines 15-20) wherein the groove depth = 6.0 mm-8.5 mm and thickness t =0.5-2.5 mm (FIG. 2) and subgrooves (i.e. lateral grooves) having the same groove depth as the main groove (circumferential grooves), (col. 6, lines 15-25); accordingly the total thickness of the tread ranges from 6.5-11 mm to improve driving stability and reduction in weight (col. 1, lines 50+),
Cortes teaches a tire comprising circumferential grooves and lateral grooves wherein each groove has a cross-section with a truncated “V” shape, defined by walls 26 and 27 and a flat bottom 28 wherein the walls 26 and 27 each intersect the outer surface 12 at an angle larger than 90 degrees and smaller than 135 degrees (FIG. 4, [0007], and [0017]) to reduce loss of traction due to an accumulation of debris on the surface of the tire (abstract),
Tanaka teaches a tire for passenger tire wherein the tread with is 80-90% the tire section width for the benefits of ride comfort, low resistance, and braking performance (abstract),
And providing a known tread pattern with known and suitable dimensions of the tread for a passenger car tire yields predictable results.
NOTE:
the volume of the lateral grooves ≈ area of the lateral grooves at the ground contact surface x the depth of the lateral grooves.
the volume of the tread ≈ circumference of the tread x tread width x total tread depth.
Circumference of the tread = π x outer diameter
Sea ratio of the oblique grooves = total area of the oblique groove / overall tread area
For example:
The area of the tread at the ground contact surface (without any grooves) of Assaad’s tire size: 195/75R14 is π x outer diameter x tread width = π x 648 mm x 80% x 195 mm ≈ 317577 mm2. The teaching of Tanaka is used to calculate the width of the tread.
The volume of the tread (without any grooves) of Assaad ≈ 317577 mm2 x the thickness of the tread ≈ 317577 mm2 x (0.5 mm + 8.5 mm) ≈ 2858195 mm3. The teaching of Kogure is used to calculate the thickness of the tread.
Recall Yukawa teaches a passenger car tire has a sea ratio of the lateral grooves of 3-10% which means for the lateral groove area of Assaad’s passenger car tire at the ground contact surface should range between about 9527 mm2 and 31757 mm2. [3-10% of 317577 mm2].
Since Cortes teaches the groove wall of a groove may be substantially perpendicular to the ground contact surface and Kogure teaches the depth of the lateral grooves may be 8.5 mm, the volume of the lateral groove is slightly less than a range of about 80979 mm3-269934 mm3. [8097 mm3 ≈ 8.5 mm x 9527 mm2 and 269934 mm3 ≈ 8.5 mm x 31757 mm2].
Thus, the volume of the lateral grooves is expected to be slightly less than 2.8-9.4% of the volume of the tread. [2.8 % ≈ 80979/2858195 x 100 and 9.4 % ≈ 269934/2858195 x 100], rendering the claimed relationship obvious.
For example:
The total cross-sectional area of the circumferential grooves in a tread of a passenger car tire should be slightly less than 204 mm2 (204 mm2 = 4 circumferential grooves x 6 mm width of the circumferential grooves x 8.5 mm depth of the circumferential grooves). Kogure teaches the width and depth dimensions in mm values of circumferential grooves in a passenger car tire.
the total cross-sectional area of the tread of a passenger car tire is about 1404 mm2 (1404 mm2 ≈ 0.80 x 195 x 9.0 mm. Tanaka teaches the tread width of a passenger car tire and Kogure teaches the thickness of a tread of a passenger car tire.
the total cross-sectional area of the plurality of circumferential groove should be slightly less than 14.5 % of a cross sectional area of the tread (14.5 ≈ 204/1404 x 100), rendering the claimed relationship obvious.
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assaad (US 5,858,137) in view of Astaix et al. (US 2016/0193879), Kogure (US 5,370,167), Yukawa (US 2005/0161138), Cortes (US 2002/0092591), and Tanaka (US 2013/0213545), as applied to claim 4, and further in view of EP’161 (EP 675161).
Regarding claim 5, Asaad is silent to the claim rubber composition which coats the reinforcing cord. However, EP’161 teaches a rubber composition for a steel belt of a tire having a complex elasticity modulus between 18.0 to 28.0 MPa and a loss tangent value between 0.07 to 0.12 (page 3, lines 55+). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tire of Assaad with a rubber composition which coats the reinforcing cord of the belt layer such that it satisfies the following formulas:
L x tan δ > 0.017 since the steel monofilaments of Assaad are arranged to have about 25-60 ends per inch, which is 49 ends/5 cm to 118 ends/5 cm and the diameter of the monofilaments is between 0.25 mm and 0.40 mm (abstract) and EP’161 teaches a rubber composition for a steel belt of a tire having a loss tangent value between 0.07 to 0.12 (page 3, lines 55+).
Regarding claim 6, the belt layer of Assaad includes two belt plies reinforced with steel monofilaments inclined at an angle of 10-30° with respect to the equatorial plane.
Regarding claim 7, while Assaad is silent to the claimed distance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the passenger car tire of Assaad with the claimed distance because Astaix et al., directed to the same field of endeavor of pneumatic radial tire for a passenger car, teaches a belt structure including at least two belt layers wherein thickness Ez2 is between 0.35 and 0.55 mm [0069] and providing a belt structure for the same type of tire yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Assaad et al. teaches the monofilaments have diameter of from 0.25 to 0.40 mm (abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Assaad does not recite the claimed ratio (L80/L0) is 0.2 to 0.7. However, providing a tread pattern comprising a circumferential groove satisfying the claimed ratio in the tire of Assaad would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since Kogure teaches a tire for passenger car comprising a tread having 4 circumferential grooves (FIG. 1) having a groove width of 6 mm (col. 6, lines 15-20) wherein the groove depth = 6.0 mm-8.5 mm and thickness t =0.5-2.5 mm (FIG. 2); accordingly the total thickness of the tread ranges from 6.5-11 mm to improve driving stability and reduction in weight (col. 1, lines 50+) and Cortes teaches a tire comprising a circumferential groove with an angle of the groove wall with respect to the tread surface is greater than 90 degrees and less than 135 degrees (figure 2-4, [0015]) to minimize mud, snow, small rocks, and other debris trapped in the grooves.
Regarding claim 10, see paragraph 6 above in this office action.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assaad (US 5,858,137) in view of Kuwayama (US 2014/0138003), Astaix et al. (US 2016/0193879), Kogure (US 5,370,167), Yukawa (US 2005/0161138), Cortes (US 2002/0092591), and Tanaka (US 2013/0213545).
Regarding claims 12-13, Assaad teaches a pneumatic tire for a passenger car having a tread portion and a belt layer having reinforcing cords (FIG-1 and col. 5, lines 60+). Assaad teaches the belt layer includes two belt plies reinforced with steel monofilaments inclined at an angle of 10-30° with respect to the equatorial plane. The steel monofilaments are arranged to have about 25-60 ends per inch, which is 49 ends/5 cm to 118 ends/5 cm (abstract).
While Assaad is silent to disclosing a cross-sectional width Wt of 175 mm or less, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tire of Assaad with a cross-sectional width Wt of 175 mm or less and satisfying the formulas required by claims 12 and 13 because in the same field of endeavor of a pneumatic for passenger car, Kuwayama teaches in TABLE 1: Example tire 20 lists 155/45R18 and providing known and suitable tire sizes of the same type of tire yield predictable results.
Wt = 155 mm and e = 100 cords/5 cm (within the range of Assaad)
e/(0.31Wt +14.35) ≈ 1.6 > 1 (claims 12-13)
e/(0.31Wt + 56.45) ≈ 0.96 < 1 (claim 12-13)
e/(0.1924Wt + 37.88) ≈ 1.5 > 1 (claim 12)
e/(0.1335Wt + 49.644) ≈ 1.4 >1 (claim 13)
While Assaad is silent to “a belt reinforcing layer having cords in provided radially outward of the tire from the belt layer, and that an average distance between the monofilament cords in the belt layer and the cords in the belt reinforcing layer is 0.1 mm or more to 0.5 mm or less”, this claimed feature provided in the tire of Assaad would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Astaix et al. teaches a pneumatic radial tire having a belt structure including two belt layers reinforced with monofilaments (10b, 10c) and a belt reinforcing layer (10a) (abstract) wherein Ez1 is between 0.20 and 0.35 mm for optimized performance in rolling resistance, drift thrust, and running endurance [0067]-[0068] and providing a known belt structure in the same class of tire yields predictable results.
While Assaad is silent to a tread comprising a plurality of lateral grooves, providing the tire of Assaad with a tread pattern including lateral grooves such that:
“the total volume of the plurality of lateral grooves is 2.0% or more to 5.0% or less of the volume of the tread portion”
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since
FIG. 1 of Kogure, FIG. 4 of Yukawa, and [0007] of Cortes each shows a tire comprising a tread including circumferential grooves and lateral grooves extending in the axial direction of the tire is a well-known and conventional,
Yukawa teaches a tire for passenger car comprising a tread with a sea ratio of oblique grooves (i.e. lateral grooves) being 3-10% [0122],
Kogure teaches a tire for passenger car comprising a tread having 4 circumferential grooves (FIG. 1) having a groove width of 6 mm (col. 6, lines 15-20) wherein the groove depth = 6.0 mm-8.5 mm and thickness t =0.5-2.5 mm (FIG. 2) and subgrooves (i.e. lateral grooves) having the same groove depth as the main groove (circumferential grooves), (col. 6, lines 15-25); accordingly the total thickness of the tread ranges from 6.5-11 mm to improve driving stability and reduction in weight (col. 1, lines 50+),
Cortes teaches a tire comprising circumferential grooves and lateral grooves wherein each groove has a cross-section with a truncated “V” shape, defined by walls 26 and 27 and a flat bottom 28 wherein the walls 26 and 27 each intersect the outer surface 12 at an angle larger than 90 degrees and smaller than 135 degrees (FIG. 4, [0007], and [0017]) to reduce loss of traction due to an accumulation of debris on the surface of the tire (abstract),
Tanaka teaches a tire for passenger tire wherein the tread with is 80-90% the tire section width for the benefits of ride comfort, low resistance, and braking performance (abstract),
And providing a known tread pattern with known and suitable dimensions of the tread for a passenger car tire yields predictable results.
NOTE:
the volume of the lateral grooves ≈ area of the lateral grooves at the ground contact surface x the depth of the lateral grooves.
the volume of the tread ≈ circumference of the tread x tread width x total tread depth.
Circumference of the tread = π x outer diameter
Sea ratio of the oblique grooves = total area of the oblique groove / overall tread area
For example:
The area of the tread at the ground contact surface (without any grooves) of Assaad’s tire size: 195/75R14 is π x outer diameter x tread width = π x 648 mm x 80% x 195 mm ≈ 317577 mm2. The teaching of Tanaka is used to calculate the width of the tread.
The volume of the tread (without any grooves) of Assaad ≈ 317577 mm2 x the thickness of the tread ≈ 317577 mm2 x (0.5 mm + 8.5 mm) ≈ 2858195 mm3. The teaching of Kogure is used to calculate the thickness of the tread.
Recall Yukawa teaches a passenger car tire has a sea ratio of the lateral grooves of 3-10% which means for the lateral groove area of Assaad’s passenger car tire at the ground contact surface should range between about 9527 mm2 and 31757 mm2. [3-10% of 317577 mm2].
Since Cortes teaches the groove wall of a groove may be substantially perpendicular to the ground contact surface and Kogure teaches the depth of the lateral grooves may be 8.5 mm, the volume of the lateral groove is slightly less than a range of about 80979 mm3-269934 mm3. [8097 mm3 ≈ 8.5 mm x 9527 mm2 and 269934 mm3 ≈ 8.5 mm x 31757 mm2].
Thus, the volume of the lateral grooves is expected to be slightly less than 2.8-9.4% of the volume of the tread. [2.8 % ≈ 80979/2858195 x 100 and 9.4 % ≈ 269934/2858195 x 100], rendering the claimed relationship obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9 of the arguments, the Applicant states “the oblique grooves in YUKAWA and the subgrooves in KOGURE do not correspond to each other in terms of technology. Specifically, the subgrooves in KOGURE connect circumferential grooves, forming rectangular blocks on the tire circumference”.
In response, this argument is unpersuasive because Yukawa’s oblique grooves and the subgrooves of Kogure are lateral grooves extending in the axial direction of a tire tread. Grooves connecting circumferential grooves is not a requirement for considering whether a groove is a “lateral grooves”. More properly, providing lateral grooves having a sea ratio disclosed by Yukawa, typical lateral groove depth and tread thickness disclosed by Kogure, and a lateral groove cross section of Cortes (all known features related to lateral grooves of a tire tread) to Assaad’s tire tread renders obvious the claimed volume relationship.
On page 10 of the argument, the Applicant states the oblique grooves YUKAWA do not reasonably correspond to “lateral grooves extending in the tire axial direction”.
In response, Applicant is incorrect because the oblique grooves of Yukawa extends in the tire axial direction. The oblique grooves of Yukawa are significantly inclined towards the tire axial direction to fairly satisfy “extend in the tire axial direction”. The claim limitation of “lateral grooves extending in the tire axial direction” does NOT require the lateral grooves extending parallel to the tire axial direction. The claimed limitation fails to structurally exclude the oblique grooves of Yukawa.
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 KENDRA LY whose telephone number is (571)270-7060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-5:00PM.
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 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.
/KENDRA LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights