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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments entered on 7/23/2025 have been accepted. Claims 16-20, 22-24, 26-30 are amended. Claims 21 and 25 are canceled. Claims 16-20, 22-24, and 26-30 are pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 1/27/2025. Applicant’s amendments to the drawings and claims have overcome the objections previously set forth.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 lines 3-4 should read “…0.10 represents the volume of between 40% and 90% of the total volume of each of the lower regions of the tire”, because these volumes were previously introduced in claim 16 of which this claim depends.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-20, 22-24, and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 2nd page 2nd line from the bottom recites “…wherein the lateral reinforcing layer of each bead of the two beads of the tire”. The underlined portion was not previously introduced in the claim and is lacking antecedent basis. Claims 17-20, 22-24, and 26-30 are rejected for relying upon a rejected claim. The claim will be examined as if the lateral reinforcing layer was introduced as in claim 20. It being noted that when claim 16 is amended to correct the antecedent basis, claim 20’s reference to “a lateral reinforcing layer” should also be corrected as these two recitations are referencing the same lateral reinforcing layer.
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 16-20, 22-24, 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nimura (JP2002178724A, of record), optionally in view of Tanada (US2018/0126800A1, of record), in view of Wang (US2016/0024280A1, of record), and in view of Lemarchand (US2019/0351716A1, of record).
Regarding claim 16, Nimura teaches a tire (Fig. 1) for a passenger vehicle (this limitation is construed as intended use as it imparts no structural limitations onto the tire as claimed. It is considered that any tire, including the tire of Nimura, is capable of being used with a passenger vehicle. Additionally, it is noted that Nimura may be used with small trucks [0010], wherein small/light trucks are considered a type of passenger vehicle), comprising in a meridian plane:
Two beads intended to be mounted on a rim (one half of the tire is shown in Fig. 1, with the other half of the tire being symmetrical about the equator line “C”, such that there would be two beads with the same structure as Figs. 1-3. Bead portion “4” is assembled to a regular rim “J”),
Two sidewall layers connected to the beads (outer sidewall rubber “11” as in Figs. 2-3 connects from the bead region up to the crown region),
A crown comprising a tread (tread “2” in Fig. 1), the crown having a first side and a second side connected to a radially outer end of the sidewall layers (a first side is considered the side shown in Figs. 1-3, and the second side is considered the other side symmetrical about the tire equator. The sidewall clearly connects up to the crown region in Fig. 1),
At least one carcass reinforcement extending from the two beads to the crown (carcass “6” is composed of carcass ply “6a” made of steel cords [0013], which as in Fig. 1 extends from the crown region down to the bead portions), the at least one carcass reinforcement comprising a plurality of carcass reinforcing elements and being anchored in the two beads by a turn-up around an annular reinforcing structure so as to form a main part and a turn-up in each bead (the carcass is made of plurality steel cords which are considered the reinforcing elements [0013], wherein as in Figs. 1-3 the carcass is made to wrap around each bead portion forming the main portion “6a” and the turn up portion “6b”),
Two lower regions being portions of the tire, positioned on either side of a radial axis passing through a center O of the tire, with a first/second lower region being of a first/second side of the tire including the bead and sidewall (the lower region may be drawn as a horizontal line on both sides of the tire, wherein a “lower region” would clearly include both the sidewall and the bead, as the sidewall travels from the bead portion up the crown of the tire),
Where each lower region has a meridian surface delimited by an axial straight line passing at a radial distance equal to 70% of a distance H, where H is a radial distance between a first axial straight line and a second axial straight line tangent to the tread at its outermost point, and the lower region delimited by a contour of the bead intended to be in contact with a rim (an annotated Fig. 1 is included below to facilitate discussion. On it is marked what is considered each of the respective “lines”, and the lower region bounds are shown below by the solid double arrow below),
PNG
media_image1.png
804
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein each lower region occupying a volume obtained by rotation of the meridian surface about an axis of rotation of the tire (the volume would be considered to be the area of the tire within the lower region as defined above, over the circumference of the tire. As such, the volume relationships may be approximated based upon the cross-sectional area of the tire because the tire’s rubber layers are consistent throughout the circumference of the tire),
Where the bead of each lower region comprises at least one filler layer contained at least partially between the main part of the carcass reinforcement, the turn-up of the carcass reinforcement, and the radially outer portion of the annular reinforcing structure (the filler layer may be considered to be either the apex rubber “9” or the packing rubber “10”, wherein both are located between the main portion of the carcass “6a”, the turnup portion of the carcass “6b”, and the radially outer portion of the annular reinforcing structure “5”),
Wherein each layer of compound of each lower region having a viscoelastic loss tandeltamax less than or equal to 0.10 representing a volume of between 30% and 90% of a total volume of the lower region (Nimura discloses that the apex rubber “9” may have a tan delta from 0.1 to 0.2 [0006], the loss tangent of the packing rubber “10” is from 0.03 to 0.09 [0006], the loss tangent of the outer sidewall rubber “11” is from 0.065 to 0.125 [0006], the loss tangent of the ply edge cover rubber “12” is set from 0.125 to 0.150 [0042], the loss tangent of the inner sidewall rubber “13” is set from 0.050 to 0.100 [0042]. Therefore, each of the rubber layers 8 through 13 may have loss tangents that are equal to or less than 0.10 other than the ply edge cover rubber “12” which is set above 0.10. The total area of each lower region is shown in the annotated Figure above, and it is clear that the majority of the volume of the tire in this region is present in the bottom bead portion of the tire (as shown in Figs. 2-3 of Nimura), as the upper portions of the lower region have only very thin portions of the sidewall present. Therefore, based upon the suggested ranges of tan delta value by Nimura, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider each lower region to have a volume of rubber less than 0.10 to be within the range of 30% to 90% of the total volume of the lower region. It being noted that this is an extremely wide range that is being claimed, such that when at least the rubber portions mentioned herein have tandeltas equal or below 0.10 and the ply edge cover “12” is above 0.10, the claimed volume ratio would be made obvious. More precisely, the rubber layers of “10”, “11”, and “13” clearly encompass at least 30% of the rubber volume in this region (especially given that the sidewall “11” extends on its own past the bead region), and with regions “12” and optionally “9” being above 0.10, the volume of rubber below 0.10 would be reasonably expected to be below 90% of the total rubber. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Further, it is noted that Nimura doesn’t specifically provide a tandelta of its clinch rubber. Optionally applied, Tanada teaches an analogous art tire with a bead portion comprising multiple types of rubbers [see Fig. 1]. The clinch rubber “8” has a loss tangent between 0.12 and 0.18 [0078] and is set to be higher than the loss tangent of the sidewall [0004]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the clinch of Nimura to have the tan delta as suggested by Tanada. One would have been motivated in order to reduce energy loss and allow for excellent wear resistance to be achieved [0078]. In applying the tandelta of Tanada to the clinch of Nimura, the claimed volume relationship would further be made obvious by modified Nimura. Namely, the claimed range of 30% to 90% of the total volume of the lower region being less than 0.10 consequently means that at least 10% of this region would need a tandelta greater than 0.10 to satisfy the claim. In this modification, both the ply edge cover “12” and the clinch rubber “19” would be above 0.10 (and optionally the apex rubber “9” as well in certain embodiments given the range of values that is suggested for this rubber), such that it is immediately clear from only a simple observation of Figs. 1-3 that these rubber layers (“12”, “19”, and optionally “9”) would comprise over 10% of the total rubber used in each of the lower regions. And as clearly evident from a simply observation of Figs. 1-3, the total volume of the rubbers with tandeltas above 0.10 would be well below 70% (which would be the amount needed to be outside of the claimed volume range).
For additional clarity, an annotated Fig. 2 is copied below. The regions of “12” and “19” are colored in full black to indicate at least the regions where tan delta must be above 0.10. And in a lighter gray, the region “9” is colored in where the tandelta may be above 0.10 (or may be equal to 0.10). From Fig. 2 and the greater Fig. 2 featuring very thin sidewalls, it is clear from a simple observation that the portions of rubber about 0.10 would be greater than 10% of the rubber in each lower region, such that the claimed limitation is made obvious. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
PNG
media_image2.png
776
613
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nimura/Tanada does not directly calculate the tandelta at 23C (see Nimura [0007] which is calculated at 70C and Tanada which is calculated at 30C [0039]). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected for the resultant tandelta values to be substantially the same as if they had been calculated at 23C and at the specified claim conditions as in view of Wang. Wang discloses a variety of rubber compositions that are designed for the use in tires [see “Background”]. Fig. 1 shows these different rubber compositions with tan(delta) varying with temperature C. Each of the rubber compositions has a significant change in value from -90C to ~0C in Fig. 1 wherein the rubber undergoes its transition, before the tan(delta) value evens out and is substantially constant from degrees of 23C to 70C [see Fig. 1]. Based upon Wang, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the tandelta values as suggested by Nimura and Tanada to be substantially close to the values expected at the conditions of the claim, such that Nimura and Tanada reasonably suggest the suggested tan(delta) values as claimed.
Nimura does not explicitly define the elastic shear modulus of each sidewall layer in a range from 0.5 to 10MPa. However, this is an extremely broad range and is well known in the art for a sidewall layer to have such a modulus value. Lemarchand discloses a pneumatic tire of analogous art with a variety of rubber layers present in its sidewall/bead region, similar to that of the instant application. Lemarchand suggest that its modulus values are measured in accordance to ASTM D 5992-96 at a given temperature and strain percentage [0011]. The elastic shear modulus G’1 of the first sidewall layer is made to be 0.86 MPa or greater [0043], wherein the first sidewall layer “21” is located of the axial outside of the tire which contacts the atmosphere and ranges from a crown region to a bead region and is located axially outside of the bead apex/filler [see Fig. 1].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the sidewall layer “11” of Nimura to have the elastic shear modulus as suggested by Lemarchand. One would have been motivated in order to improve the crack propagation rate with reasonable expectation of success, [0047-0049, 0063-0065] as Nimura is silent as to the specific elastic shear modulus of its sidewall layer. And further, as suggested by Wang Fig. 1, the conditions of G’ at 60C would be expected to be similar or slightly lower than the values at 23C, such that the given value of at least 0.86MPa may be the same or slightly higher. A skilled artisan would still reasonably expect for the given shear modulus to be within the very wide range of 0.5 to 10MPa. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Modified Nimura further makes obvious the lateral reinforcing layer, which may be considered “13” as in Figs. 2-3 of Nimura, for example, as it is located between at least partially a sidewall layer “11” and the turn-up portion “6b” of the carcass. As previously stated, the layer “13” may have a tandelta of 0.05 to 0.1 [0042].
Nimura does not give an exact location of the lower end of the lateral reinforcing layer which is considered to be “13”. However, the height of the flange “hf” is shown to be substantially near the lower end of this layer [see Fig. 2-3]. The flange height hf in one example may be 12.7mm [0046] with a tire size of 11R22.5 [0045] (equating to section height of ~9.5”). This would equate to the flange height being roughly 5.3% of the tire height. Therefore, it would be expected that a radial height of the lower end of the lateral reinforcing layer would be substantially close to this and would have a position of roughly 5.3% of the tire height. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). And as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, In re Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Additionally, Applicant has not demonstrated unexpected results or criticality for the claimed range.
Regarding claim 17, modified Nimura makes obvious an elastic shear modulus of the sidewall between 1.5 and 10MPa (as in the rejection of claim 16 above, it would have been obvious to modify the sidewall layer to have an elastic shear modulus of greater than 0.86MPa as suggested by Lemarchand. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 18, modified Nimura makes obvious layers of compounds of the lower region having a viscoelastic loss tandelta less than or equal to 0.10 represent a volume between 40% and 90% of a total volume of the lower region (as in the rejection of claim 16 above, modified Nimura makes obvious a lower region with several rubber being of above 0.10 tandelta, whereas the majority of the rest of the rubber are below or equal to 0.10 tandelta. Given Figs. 1-3 and the sizing given to each element, it would be clearly evident to one of ordinary skill in the art that the rubber layers of greater than 0.10 tandelta (including at least “12”, “19”, and optionally “9”) clearly makes up at least 10% and less than 60% of the total volume of the lower region such that the claimed limitation would be satisfied. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 19, modified Nimura makes obvious the at least one filler layer consists of an elastomer compound with a viscoelastic loss tandeltamax less than or equal to 0.10 (the filler layer may be considered to be either “9” or “10”, as they may have tan delta ranges of respectively 0.10 to 0.20 or 0.03 to 0.09 [Nimura, 0006], and both are located between the bead and main/turn up portion of the carcass).
Regarding claim 20, modified Nimura makes obvious a tire wherein the bead comprises a lateral reinforcing layer constituting an elastomer compound occupying a volume contained at least partially between the sidewall layer and the urn-up of the carcass reinforcement (the lateral reinforcing layer may be considered “13” as in Figs. 2-3 of Nimura, for example, as it is located between at least partially a sidewall layer “11” and the turn-up portion “6b” of the carcass).
Regarding claims 22-23, modified Nimura makes obvious a tire wherein a rim contact curve in each bead connects points M1 and M2 where the tire is mounted on a rim and at loads and pressure in accordance with ETRTO, where a length of the rim contact curve LADC on a first section in the contact patch and a rim contact curve LCJ in the second section opposite of the contact patch have a ratio 100*(LADC-LCJ)/LCJ is greater than or equal to 30% and 40% (a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the claimed relationship of LADC to LCJ would be apparent on essentially every type of tire and rim assembly when under a load. In Nimura, the tire is shown as to be mounted on the rim, such that Nimura suggests an assembly of the trim with the tire. As defined, the rim contact length for the contact patch portion much be greater than the portion opposite of the contact patch. Because the contact patch is under a vertical load and is at standard inflation pressures, the tire deflects axially outwards such that the rim contact curve would necessarily be higher when under a load compared to no load. In other words, the LADC curve would always be higher than a LCJ curve for the portion of the tire opposite of the contact patch for any tire/wheel assembly under these conditions. It is not readily apparent how the tire/wheel assembly of the prior art would be different from the limitation as claimed, and applicant has not provided a sufficient showing of unexpected results as to why any prior art tire (such as Nimura) would not meet the claimed ratio. As Nimura meets all of the loss tangent relationship and shear modulus values, it would be expected that when Nimura is mounted onto a tire/wheel assembly it would similarly have a LADC/LCJ ratio as claimed. The figures taken together with what would be reasonably understood as the relationship between the claimed tire and the rim makes obvious the relationship being greater than 30 and greater than 40).
Regarding claim 24, modified Nimura makes obvious a tire wherein a distance DRB is less than or equal to 50% of the radial height H of the tire (from a simply observation of Figs. 1-3, both “8” and “9” clearly have a maximum height that is less than 50% of the total height of the tire. Further, when “10” is considered the filler layer, the outer end is h8 which may have a value from 5 to 8 times the flange height hf [Nimura, 0025]. When the tire size is 11R22.5 [0045] (equating to section height of ~9.5”) with a flange height of 12.7mm [0046], h8 would then range from 63.5mm to 101.6mm, which equates to roughly 26.3% to 42.1% of the total height of the tire. Similarly, when “9” is considered the filler layer, it may have a outer height of h4 that is from 2.8 to 4.3 times the flange height [0021]. Using the same above cited sizes of the tire and flange height, this would equate to a range of 35.56mm to 54.61mm which equates to 14.7% to 22.6% of the tire height. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 26, modified Nimura makes obvious a tire wherein a distance DRL is greater than or equal to 25% of the radial height H of the tire (Nimura suggests a maximum height h7 of its layer “13” which may have a value of 4.8 times the flange height in one embodiment [Nimura, 0046]. When the tire size is 11R22.5 [0045] (equating to section height of ~9.5”) with a flange height of 12.7mm [0046], the height h7 may have a value of 60.96mm or 25.3% of the total height of the tire. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). And as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, In re Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Regarding claim 27, modified Nimura makes obvious a tire wherein the turn-up of the carcass is in radially outer contact with the main part of the carcass reinforcement along the turn-up (the turn-up portion of the carcass and the main portion of the carcass, as in Nimura Figs. 1-3, are clearly in radial line with each other such that an axial line may be drawn connecting the two. It being noted that the claim language does not explicitly require for the main part and the turn-up part of the carcass to be in direct contact with each other, as it being considered under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim that the main and turn-up portions of the carcass are in outer contact when they are radially aligned with each other).
Regarding claim 28, modified Nimura makes obvious a tire wherein a reinforcement for strengthening the bead is axially outside the turn-up of the carcass and axially inside the sidewall (any of layers “12”, “13”, and the cord reinforcing layer “20” may be considered to be the reinforcement for strengthening the bead as they are each located axially inside the sidewall and outside the turn-up portion of the carcass).
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nimura (JP2002178724A, of record), optionally in view of Tanada (US2018/0126800A1, of record), in view of Wang (US2016/0024280A1, of record), and in view of Lemarchand (US2019/0351716A1, of record), as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Yang (US2008/0142131A1, of record).
Regarding claims 29-30, modified Nimura as applied to claim 20 above provides explanation of the different layers in each of the bead regions. Nimura does not explicitly give the compositions of its filler layer (“10” for example) its lateral reinforcing layer (“13” for example”) or its sidewall reinforcing layer “11” for example. Yang discloses a composition that may be used on a variety of tire parts, including as a tire sidewall, sidewall insert, rubber composite, tire inner liner [0082] and bead apex [see claim 13]. Yang’s composition includes a VPSBR which is Vinylpyridine-styrene-butadiene terpolymer [Table 3, abstract], which is recognized as a diene elastomer as being a type of butadiene elastomer. The composition includes a range of from 5 to 90phr of carbon black[0071], wherein carbon black is a recognized type of reinforcing filler in the instant specification [0014]. The composition of Yang further includes Sulfur and Sulfenamide accelerator [Table 3] which is considered the crosslinking system, wherein the instant specification recognizes that sulfur based components make up the crosslinking system [0014]. Yang discloses values of its tan delta and G’ that overlap with the claim and required amounts as in the rejection of claim 16 above [see Tables 4 to 6 of Yang, with multiple embodiments with tan delta at 10% being less than 0.10 and a G’ within the required ranges of claims 16-17].
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify some or all of the filler layer, lateral reinforcing layer, and sidewall reinforcing layer as in Nimura to have the composition as suggested by Yang. One would have been motivated in order to obtain a working tire as Nimura does not suggest a specific composition for its rubber layers, and the cited composition of Yang results in improved rolling resistance [0119] and to improve physical properties [0002, Tables 4-6]. As the tandeltas of each of layers “10”, “11”, and “13” in Nimura each have overlapping values [Nimura 0006, 0042], and because Yang specifically suggests that its composition may be used in sidewalls, apexes, inserts, etc., it would be obvious to use the composition as suggested by Yang in each of or in all of the rubber layers of “10”, “11”, and “13” of Nimura. And as such, each of these layers would then be formed of the same composition.
Claims 16-20, 22-24, 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruneau (US2014/0014250A1, of record) in view of Bruneau2 (US2014/0360647A1, of record), optionally in view of Tanada (US2018/0126800A1, of record), and alternatively further in view of Nimura (JP2002178724A, of record) and Lemarchand (US2019/0351716A1, of record).
Regarding claims 16-18, Bruneau discloses a tire (Fig. 3) for a passenger vehicle (this limitation is construed as intended use as it imparts no structural limitations onto the tire as claimed. That being said, it is noted that Bruneau is tied to a tire for passenger vehicles [0003]), comprising in a meridian place
Two beads intended to be mounted on a rim [“50” beads designed to come into contact with a mounting rim [0011, 0038]),
Two sidewall layers connected to the beads (“two sidewalls extending the beads radially outwards [0012]),
A crown comprising a tread, the crown having a first side and a second side connected to a radially outer end of the sidewall layers (the two sidewall meeting in a crown comprising a crown reinforcement surmounted by a tread [0012]. Wherein one side of the tire is considered the first side and the axially opposite side is considered the second)
At least one carcass reinforcement extending from the two beads to the crown (carcass reinforcement extending from the beads through the sidewall to the crown [0013]), the at least one carcass reinforcement comprising a plurality of carcass reinforcing elements and being anchored in the two beads by a turn-up around an annular reinforcing structure so as to form a main part and a turn-up in each bead (“the carcass reinforcement being anchored in the two beads by a turn-up around the annular reinforcing structure, so as to form, in each bead, a main portion and a wrapped-around portion” [0013]),
Two lower regions being portions of the tire, positioned on either side of a radial axis passing through a center O of the tire, with a first/second lower region being of a first/second side of the tire including the bead and sidewall (the lower region may be drawn as a horizontal line on both sides of the tire, wherein a “lower region” would clearly include both the sidewall and the bead, as the sidewall travels from the bead portion up the crown of the tire),
Where each lower region has a meridian surface delimited by an axial straight line passing at a radial distance equal to 70% of a distance H, where H is a radial distance between a first axial straight line and a second axial straight line tangent to the tread at its outermost point, and the lower region delimited by a contour of the bead intended to be in contact with a rim (the height “H” of the tire is shown in Fig. 4, defined in the same manner as the application [0043]. The lower region therefore would be from 70% of this height H down to the contact portion of the tire with a rim),
Wherein each lower region occupying a volume obtained by rotation of the meridian surface about an axis of rotation of the tire (the volume would be considered to be the area of the tire within the lower region as defined above, over the circumference of the tire. As such, the volume relationships may be approximated based upon the cross-sectional area of the tire because the tire’s rubber layers are consistent throughout the circumference of the tire),
Where the bead of each lower region comprises at least one filler layer contained at least partially between the main part of the carcass reinforcement, the turn-up of the carcass reinforcement, and the radially outer portion of the annular reinforcing structure (the filler layer may be considered to be the bead filler “120” as in Fig. 3),
Wherein each elastomer compound of the tire has an elastic shear modulus and a viscoelastic loss measured in accordance with ASTM D 5992-96 at 23C under a shear strain of 10% (Bruneau discloses that its values all are taken at 23C [0054]. Bruneau does not explicitly state that it uses the ASTM D 5992-96 standard under a shear strain of 10%. However, Bruneau2 (tied to the same inventors, assignee, and overlapping subject matter) states that its moduli and viscoelastic measurements are taken under these same conditions [0054-0055]. Because of the overlapping inventors/assignees and subject matter of the two references (note that Bruneau2 discloses a G’ of the outer strip less than 15MPa [0022] and Bruneau similarly discloses this [0016]), it would be reasonable to consider that the modulus and viscoelastic properties of Bruneau were completed at the same testing conditions as Bruneau2).
Wherein each layer of compound of each lower region having a viscoelastic loss tandeltamax less than or equal to 0.10 represents a volume between 30% and 90% of a total volume of the lower region (each bead filler “120” and each outer strip “130” may have an elastic modulus G’ less than 15MPa and that which meet the stated relationship G ″ [MPa]≦0.2·G ′ [MPa]−0.2 MPa [0014-0016]. With a G’ at 2 and G” at 0.2, as specifically suggested in Table I, that resultant tan delta would be 0.10, overlapping with the claimed limitation 0.10 or less. Given that “120” and “130” would clearly make up at least 30% of the volume of the lower region (see Figs. 3-6 for example), it would be reasonable to expect that the volume of elements that have a tandelta of less than 0.10 would meet the claimed volume range. The claimed volume range is extremely wide and would be reasonably be met by the combination of Bruneau with Bruneau2),
The lateral reinforcing layer of each bead has a loss tandelta less than or equal to 0.10 (the layer “130” may be considered the lateral reinforcing layer, as it is clearly located between a sidewall and a carcass reinforcement. As stated above, the tandelta may be 0.10 [Table 1]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)),
a distance DRI is from 5 to 20% of the height of the tire (the radially inner end of the outer strip “130” has a height DEI2 that ranges from 1% to 5% of the radial height of the tire [0017]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Wherein an elastic shear modulus of each sidewall layer is in a range from 0.5 or 1.5 to 10MPa (the sidewall rubber “40” may be considered to be the sidewall layer. It is noted that Bruneau2 suggests that the portion “130” may have the same composition as the rubber compound of the sidewalls “30” of the tire [0080]. Because Bruneau is completely silent as to the rubber composition or modulus of its sidewalls (and because Bruneau and Bruneau2 share inventors, assignees, and significant overlap in the subject matter), it would have been obvious to modify the sidewall layers of Bruneau to have the same composition as the outer strip “130” as suggested by Bruneau2 with a reasonable expectation of success. This would allow for a working tire to be formed, and this would reasonably be expected to improve the rolling resistance and cornering stiffness [Bruneau2 0082-0084]. The sidewall rubber “40” in that case would be considered the claimed “sidewall rubber”, and it would clearly meet the claimed range from 0.5 or 1.5 to 10MPa).
Optionally applied, Tanada teaches an analogous art tire with a bead portion comprising multiple types of rubbers [see Fig. 1]. The tire is made to have a chafer rubber “8”, wherein the chafer comes into contact with the rim and is made to have a different rubber from the sidewall in order to withstand the specific forces that are placed on this section of the tire [0004]. The chafer rubber “8” has a loss tangent between 0.12 and 0.18 [0078] and is set to be higher than the loss tangent of the sidewall [0004]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the rubber of Bruneau to have a specific chafer rubber so as to better protect the tire from wear at the rim contact portion [0004]. One would have put the chafer rubber to have the tan delta as suggested by Tanada, as one would have been motivated in order to reduce energy loss and allow for excellent wear resistance to be achieved [0078]. When there is a chafer rubber with a volume greater than 0.10, the volume range would further be made obvious. For example, in the above scenario when the sidewall is modified to have the same composition as the outer strip “130” and the chafer rubber is included, the chafer rubber would have a tandelta higher than the volume region and would reasonably bring the volume below 90% of the total volume of the lower region. And as at least the rubbers “120”, “130”, and optionally “40” when modified would have tandeltas at 0.10 or below, the volume would clearly be above 30% and above 40% as per the claim limitation, based upon Figs. 4-7 of Bruneau, and also below an upper bound of 90% at least because of the clinch rubber having a higher loss tangent.
In the alternate regarding the sidewall rubber, it may be considered that the sidewall “40” is of a separate rubber composition than that of the layers “130” and “120” with a different loss tangent and shear modulus (as opposed to above, where Bruneau2 makes obvious having the sidewall layer rubber being the same as the rubbers 120 and 130). Lemarchand discloses a pneumatic tire of analogous art with a variety of rubber layers present in its sidewall/bead region, similar to that of the instant application. Lemarchand suggest that its modulus values are measured in accordance to ASTM D 5992-96 at a given temperature and strain percentage [0011]. The elastic shear modulus G’1 of the first sidewall layer is made to be 0.86 MPa or greater [0043], wherein the first sidewall layer “21” is located of the axial outside of the tire which contacts the atmosphere and ranges from a crown region to a bead region and is located axially outside of the bead apex/filler [see Fig. 1]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the sidewall layer to have the elastic shear modulus as suggested by Lemarchand. One would have been motivated in order to improve the crack propagation rate with reasonable expectation of success, [0047-0049, 0063-0065]. And further regarding the sidewall layer, Nimura, suggests a pneumatic tire that may have a loss tangent for the outer sidewall rubber “11” from 0.065 to 0.110 [0041]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the sidewall rubber of Bruneau to have such a loss tangent so as to reduce energy loss and rolling resistance [0041]. Therefore, it would have been alternatively obvious to set the sidewall of Bruneau with a shear modulus within the claimed range of 0.5 to 10MPa and 1.5 to 10MPa, and the have a loss modulus that was lower or higher than 0.10. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the claimed shear modulus of the sidewall layer would be made obvious, and the claimed volume range would further be made obvious by having loss tangent of the sidewall layer range from 0.065 to 0.110.
Regarding claim 19, modified Bruneau makes obvious the at least one filler layer consists of an elastomer compound with a viscoelastic loss tandeltamax less than or equal to 0.10 (the filler layer may be considered to be “120”, as in the rejection of claim 16 above, and it may have a tandelta of 0.10 [Table I]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Bruneau makes obvious a tire wherein the bead comprises a lateral reinforcing layer constituting an elastomer compound occupying a volume contained at least partially between the sidewall layer and the turn-up of the carcass reinforcement (the lateral reinforcing layer may be considered “130” as in Fig 3 of Bruneau, for example, as it is located at least partially between a sidewall layer “40” and the turn-up portion of the carcass).
Regarding claims 22-23, modified Bruneau makes obvious a tire wherein a rim contact curve in each bead connects points M1 and M2 where the tire is mounted on a rim and at loads and pressure in accordance with ETRTO, where a length of the rim contact curve LADC on a first section in the contact patch and a rim contact curve LCJ in the second section opposite of the contact patch have a ratio 100*(LADC-LCJ)/LCJ is greater than or equal to 30% and 40% (a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the claimed relationship of LADC to LCJ would be apparent on essentially every type of tire and rim assembly when under a load. In Bruneau, the tire is shown as to be mounted on the rim, such that Bruneau suggests an assembly of the trim with the tire. As defined, the rim contact length for the contact patch portion much be greater than the portion opposite of the contact patch. Because the contact patch is under a vertical load and is at standard inflation pressures, the tire deflects axially outwards such that the rim contact curve would necessarily be higher when under a load compared to no load. In other words, the LADC curve would always be higher than a LCJ curve for the portion of the tire opposite of the contact patch for any tire/wheel assembly under these conditions. It is not readily apparent how the tire/wheel assembly of the prior art would be different from the limitation as claimed, and applicant has not provided a sufficient showing of unexpected results as to why any prior art tire (such as Bruneau) would not meet the claimed ratio. As Bruneau as modified meets all of the loss tangent relationship and shear modulus values, it would be expected that when Bruneau is mounted onto a tire/wheel assembly it would similarly have a LADC/LCJ ratio as claimed. The figures taken together with what would be reasonably understood as the relationship between the claimed tire and the rim makes obvious the relationship being greater than 30 and greater than 40).
Regarding claim 24, modified Bruneau makes obvious a tire wherein a distance DRB is less than or equal to 50% of the radial height H of the tire (the radial distance DEE1 of “120” ranges from 30% to 50% of the radial height H of the tire [0015]).
Regarding claim 26, modified Bruneau makes obvious a tire wherein a distance DRL is greater than or equal to 25% of the radial height H of the tire (the radially outer end of the outer strip “130” has a height of DEE2 which ranges from 30 to 50% of the radial height H of the tire [0017]).
Regarding claim 27, modified Bruneau makes obvious a tire wherein the turn-up of the carcass is in radially outer contact with the main part of the carcass reinforcement along the turn-up (the turn-up portion of the carcass and the main portion of the carcass, as in Bruneau Fig 3, are clearly in radial line with each other such that an axial line may be drawn connecting the two. It being noted that the claim language does not explicitly require for the main part and the turn-up part of the carcass to be in direct contact with each other, as it being considered under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim that the main and turn-up portions of the carcass are in outer contact when they are radially aligned with each other).
Regarding claim 28, modified Bruneau makes obvious a tire wherein a reinforcement for strengthening the bead is axially outside the turn-up of the carcass and axially inside the sidewall (the outer strip “130” may be considered the reinforcement for strengthening the bead, as the claim is broad as to what is considered a “reinforcement”, such that any structure to the outside of the bead is reasonably considered a reinforcement).
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruneau (US2014/0014250A1, of record) in view of Bruneau2 (US2014/0360647A1, of record), optionally in view of Tanada (US2018/0126800A1, of record), and alternatively further in view of Nimura (JP2002178724A, of record) and Lemarchand (US2019/0351716A1, of record), as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Belin (US2017/0362413A1, of record).
Regarding claim 29, modified Bruneau suggests that its rubber composition as applied to “120” and “130” (and possibly the sidewall “40” when modified with Bruneau2) has a rubber composition that is based on at least one diene elastomer, a reinforcing filler, and a crosslinking system [0056]. The reinforcing filler of the composition of Bruneau may be carbon black, silica, or other agents [0060]. Bruneau does not specifically suggest a value of its reinforcing filler between 50 and 75phr. However, such values are very conventional within the art. For example, Belin discusses conventional compositions for tire sidewalls, wherein these conventional compositions may have carbon black of 50phr or a combined filler of 60phr with 30phr carbon black and 30phr silica [0007]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the compositions of Bruneau to have a filler amount as conventionally suggested by Belin. One would have been motivated in order to obtain a conventionally working tire with conventional benefits associated with having a proper amount of filler.
Regarding claim 30, modified Bruneau suggests the filler layer, the lateral reinforcing layer, and the elastomer compound all have the same composition (as in the rejection of claim 16 above, Bruneau suggests that a bead filler “120” and an outer strip “130” may have the same composition [0014-0016, Table 1], and as in the rejection of claim 16 above, Bruneau2 suggests that the tire sidewall may have the same composition as that of the outer strip [0080]. Therefore, it is reasonably suggested by the combination that the same composition is used for all three of these rubber layers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Specifically, the arguments merely state that “Nimura and Bruneau do not disclose or suggest” the cited claim limitations, with no specific explanation of why Applicant contends this and why Applicant believes that these amendments would overcome the rejections of record. The Examiner contends that the rejections in view of the bases of Nimura and Bruneau each clearly suggest the newly combined limitations of canceled claims 21 and claim 25, see rejections above for greater detail.
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 THOMAS F SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-4857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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.