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 11, 13-14, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanya (US 2003/0209302) in view of Bourgeois (US 2014/0008002).
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Hanya teaches a tire for a passenger vehicle comprising two beads, two sidewall layers connected to the beads and a crown having a tread. The crown having a first side connected to a radially outer end of one of the two sidewall layers and a second side connected to a radially outer end of another one of the two sidewall layers (FIG. 1). At least one carcass reinforcement (6) extends from the two beads through the sidewall layers as far as the crown. The carcass reinforcement is reinforced with carcass cords [0028]-[0029] and is anchored in the two beads by way of a turn-up around an annular reinforcement structure (5) so as to form a main part (6a) and a turn-up (6b) in each bead.
The bead apex 8 (a first layer of elastomeric filler compound) takes up a volume which is comprised at least partially between the main part of the at least one carcass reinforcement and a radially outer portion of the annular reinforcing structure.
Hanya is silent to a second layer of elastomeric compound forming a lateral reinforcing layer. However, 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 Hanya with a second layer of elastomeric compound forming a lateral reinforcing layer having a tanδ less than or equal to 0.100 and having a radial distance DRI that is a radial height of a radially innermost end of the second layer positioned between the sidewall layer and the turn-up of the at least one carcass reinforcement, and the radial distance DRI is within a range 5%-20% of a radial height H of the tire because Hanya is directed to a pneumatic tire for a passenger vehicle and Bourgeois, directed to the same field of endeavor of a pneumatic tire for a passenger vehicle, teaches each bead portion includes an outer strip 130 made of a rubber composition having an elastic modulus G’ less than or equal to 15 MPa and a viscous modulus G” such that G” ≤ 0.2xG’-0.2 measured at 23° C; one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate modulus is expected to decrease at higher temperatures and tan δ = G”/G’ to obtain the known and expected benefits of high load index, excellent rolling resistance, and increasing manufacturing productivity (abstract, [0022]-[0023]) and FIG. 3-FIG. 5 of Bourgeois teaches DEI2 is less than or equal to 20% of the radial height H of the tire [0023].
While Hanya does not recite a ratio of 100*(LADC-LCJ)/LCJ is greater than or equal to 50 (claim 11) and greater than equal to 70 (claim 13), this claimed ratio and its ranges in the tire of Hanya would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since FIG. 2(A) of Hanya is a cross sectional view of a pneumatic tire that is normally inflated and unloaded state of the tire with point P corresponds to the claimed point M1 (represents the section on the opposite side of the section at the ground contact patch) and FIG. 2(b) is a cross sectional view showing the rim protector contacting the rim flange under load (represents the section at the ground contact patch) wherein point 13i shows an increase in distance that contacts the rim and [0059] states the radially inner edge 13i comes into contact with the rim flange to obtain controllability during cornering. FIG. 2(a) and FIG. 2(b) considered together show a sufficient and significant increase in the outer surface of the tire contacting the rim under load which renders obvious the claimed ratio of 100*(LADC-LCJ)/LCJ is greater than or equal to 50 and greater than or equal to 70 (claims 11 and 13) obvious. Moreover, annotated FIG. 2(b) located below illustrates rim contacting curves. The solid line represents the rim contacting curve at the ground contact patch as it is under load and the dotted line represents a section of the tire opposite side of the section at the ground contact patch.
PNG
media_image1.png
544
911
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to the claim limitation: “the second layer of the at least on bead has an elastic shear stiffness modulus that lies within a range of 1.5 MPa- 10 MPa”, 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 Hanya with the second layer of at least one bead having an elastic shear stiffness modulus that lies within a range of 1.5-10 MPa because Bourgeois teaches the outer strip is made of a rubber composition having an elastic modulus G’ less than or equal to 15 MPa measured at 23° C (abstract and [0022]); one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate modulus of a rubber composition is expected to decrease at higher temperatures.
Regarding claim 14, see annotated FIG. 1 of Hanya below.
PNG
media_image2.png
697
962
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, 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 Hanya with a normal distance being a distance of the radially outer end of the lateral reinforcing layer positioned between one of the sidewall layers and the turn-up of the at least one carcass reinforcement, wherein the normal distance is greater than or equal to 25% of a radial height H of the tire because FIG. 3-FIG. 5 of Bourgeois teaches DEE2 is 25%-45% of a radial height H of the tire [0023].
Regarding claim 17, FIG. 1 of Hanya shows the turn up of the carcass ply contacting the main part of the carcass ply radially on an outside along the turn up.
Regarding claim 20, 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 Hanya with an elastomeric compounding making up a filler layer at least one bead having the same composition as the elastomeric compound forming a lateral reinforcing layer of the bead because Bourgeois teaches the outer strip 130 is made of the same rubber composition as the apex 120 and providing known relationships to the same class of tires yields predictable results [0050].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanya (US 2003/0209302) in view of Bourgeois (US 2014/0008002), as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2021/0061013).
Regarding claim 18, Hanya is silent to a reinforcement as required by claim 18. However, 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 Hanya with the claimed reinforcement because the claimed bead arrangement is well-known in the tire art as evidenced by Watanabe et al. which teaches a pneumatic tire for a passenger car tire comprising a carcass ply and a pair of bead portions each having a bead core 5, bead apex 10, an outside bead apex 11 (“a second layer”), and a chafer rubber 20 that extends between the turn up of the carcass and the outside bead apex and is axially on an inside of the sidewall wherein the chafer rubber 20 may be reinforced with an organic fiber cord array [0084].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanya (US 2003/0209302) in view of Bourgeois (US 2014/0008002), as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Miyazaki (US 2010/0256258).
Regarding claim 19, 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 Hanya with at least one of the bead apex or outer strip having a composition on a basis of 100% polyisoprene natural rubber or a blend of natural rubber and polybutadiene, a crosslinking system, a reinforcing filler of carbon black N550 with an overall content of 50-75 phr because Miyazaki teaches a rubber composition for a bead apex of a tire comprising natural rubber and/or isoprene rubber, 2 to 7 parts by weight of sulfur (crosslinking system) and 45-80 parts by weight of carbon black N550 ([0006],[0030]-[0031],[0039], and TABLE 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9 of the remarks, Applicant argues Bourgeois teaches “elastic modulus” as G’ which is “secant tensile modulus” whereas claim 11 relates to elastic shear stiffness modulus.
In response, Applicant’s statement is correct; however, claim 11 remains unpatentable because the secant tensile modulus range is 15 MPa or less, teaching towards a material that is less stiff and the corresponding shear modulus would accordingly be low; and, at higher temperature (i.e. 100°C), modulus is expected to further decrease rendering obvious the broad claimed range of 1.5 MPa to 10 MPa. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the relationship between shear modulus of elasticity and secant tensile modulus, which is shear modulus of elasticity is equivalent to 1/3 the secant tensile modulus of elasticity as demonstrated by US 2004/0187996.
On page 10 of the remarks, Applicant states “viscoelastic loss, measured with respect to temperature, does not necessarily follow a linear trend like measurement for elastic modulus”.
As an initial matter, the office action did not take the position that tan δ decreases with temperature, rendering Applicant’s statement a moot-point. As a factual matter, the expected results for tan δ at higher temperature for rubber compositions used in tires is a slight decrease in value as evidenced by a graph in US 4,894,420, FIG. 6 of US 2010/0298476, FIGs. 1-5 of US 2011/0297285. This trend of the rubber compositions in tires as it relates to tan δ and temperature is within one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to the rejection of record, the claimed invention of tan δ of less than or equal to 0.100 would have been obvious because Bourgeois teaches tan δ = G”/G’ wherein G” ≤ 0.2 x G’-0.2 and G’ = 15 MPa or less.
G’ = 15 MPa at 23°C and G” ≤ 0.2 x 15 – 0.2
G” ≤ 2.8 MPa at 23 °C
G” /G’= tanδ at 23°C = 1.5/15 = 0.10
The expected result of tanδ @ 100 °C slightly less than 0.10.
Moreover, Bourgeois desires reducing rolling resistance [0012], which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand reducing rolling resistance means reducing tan δ which all lead towards values within the claimed range. US 2002/0183436 in [0104] teaches reducing hysteresis (also known as tan δ) reduces rolling resistance.
On page 11 of the remarks, Applicant argues “Bourgeois disregards Hanya’s need for rigidity”.
In response, this argument is unpersuasive. Hanya does not exclude or teach away from providing the claimed second layer and Bourgeois recite motivation to provide the corresponding second layer to the tire of Hanya which is high load index and excellent rolling resistance.
On page 11 of the remarks, Applicant argues “one skilled in the art would recognize that the non-abrupt increase and controllability of the rim contact in Hanya is not achievable when practicing Bourgeois’s teachings”.
In response, providing the claimed second layer to the tire of Hanya does not affect Hanya’s teaching of the radius R3, R1 in [0054]. Applicant’s statement that providing the claimed second layer to the tire Hanya is “not achievable” is unsupported by any reference and attorney arguments cannot take the place of evidence.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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