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 4/22/2026 have been accepted. Claims 16 and 18 are amended. Claims 16-19, 22-24, 26-29 are pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 12/22/2025.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that the presence of a fourth layer distinct from the lateral reinforcing layer, filler layer, and sidewall layer (as in claim 16 pg. 2 lines 16-17) is required in each of conditions 1-3 which are detailed on pg. 3 of the claim. While only condition 3 explicitly states the presence of the fourth layer in that embodiment, conditions 1 and 2 would implicitly also require the presence of the fourth layer which is distinct from each of the other rubber layers per the limitations on pg. 2 lines 16-17.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 pg. 2 line 17 should read “…reinforcing layer, the at least one filler layer, and the sidewall layer…”, so as to be consistent with how the filler layer was introduced in line 9 pg. 2 of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16-19, 22-24, 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruneau (US2014/0014250A1) in view of Bruneau2 (US2014/0360647A1, of record), in view of Waki (US2004/0025997A1), and in view of Tanada (US2018/0126800A1, 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 bead of each lower region comprises a lateral reinforcing layer occupying a volume between the sidewall and the turnup (the layer “130” may be considered the lateral reinforcing layer, as it is clearly located between a sidewall and a carcass reinforcement, see 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. And further, Bruneau2 provides evidence that these testing conditions of ASTM D 5992-96 with shear strain of 10% are well-known in the art for determining shear modulus values, so that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious for the modulus to be taken under these conditions),
The lateral reinforcing layer of each bead has a loss tandelta less than or equal to 0.10 (Bruneau teaches that the layer “130” may have the composition with the tandelta at 0.10 [Table 1, 0014-0016, 0054]. 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)).
Bruneau teaches that the sidewall rubber “40” [Fig. 4] is the sidewall layer. Bruneau does not specifically give the composition of the sidewall rubbers. However, it is well understood in the art of tires that a sidewall rubber may have the same composition as that of the bead apex/filler/reinforcing layers. Waki, for example, teaches a pneumatic tire, as in Fig. 3, which comprises a bead filler “4” located radially above the bead core, a carcass “5” which turns up around the bead core, and a cushion rubber layer “16” which is located between a sidewall portion and the turn-up portion of the carcass [see Fig. 3, 0050]. The cushion rubber layer is akin to the instant applications lateral reinforcing layer in this way. Waki teaches that it is preferably such that the sidewall rubber may be made of the same rubber material as the cushion rubber layer [0031].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the sidewall of Bruneau to have the same rubber material as the reinforcing layer as suggested by Waki. One would have been motivated so as to prevent the increase of the kind of rubbers used so as to improve the production economy [0031]. And further, as Bruneau is silent as to its sidewall composition thereof, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art to look to the art for recommended compositions so as to obtain a working tire.
Bruneau does not explicitly suggest the loss tangent of the chafer/clinch portion of the tire (although such portions are ubiquitous in the art of tires to provide targeted protection for where the tire contacts the rim). 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]. And one would have considered the fourth layer to be this chafer portion of the tire which clearly would have a different elastomer compound than each of the others, as it has a higher loss tangent.
Modified Bruneau makes obvious a tire wherein the tire satisfies one of the following three conditions: condition (3) the sidewall layer, the lateral reinforcing layer, and the filler layer each consist of the third elastomer layer and the fourth layer includes the fourth elastomer compound (as detailed above, it would have been obvious to situate sidewall “40” of Bruneau to have the same rubber composition as “130” of as reasonably suggested by Waki. Bruneau suggests that both its filler “120” and lateral layer “130” each preferably have the exact same characteristics of G’ and G” [0014-0016, 0052-0054]. Therefore, it is also reasonably suggested by Bruneau that both “120” and “130” would have the same composition because they each require the exact same properties (and one would have utilized a composition as suggested in Table 1 for example). Therefore, both “120”, “130”, and “40” would have been obvious to utilize a same composition in each rubber layer, and each of these layers is considered to be the third elastomer. Each of these rubber layers would have the values G’ at 2 and G” at 0.2 suggested by Bruneau [Table 1], which yields a tan delta of 0.10. The fourth layer, which is considered the chafer portion which has a composition as suggested by Tanada, has a loss tangent of 0.12 to 0.18 and would clearly be a different elastomer compound than these other elastomers. As such, condition 3 is considered satisfied by the combination),
The third elastomer compound has a lower viscoelastic loss tandeltamax than that of the first/second/fourth elastomer compound (as stated above, the rubber layers of the sidewall “40”, the lateral reinforcing layer “130”, and the filler layer “120” are each considered the third elastomer compounds. The chafer rubber as suggested by Tanada is considered the fourth elastomer. There is no first/second elastomers in this embodiment. As Bruneau suggests these rubber layers have a tan delta of 0.10 (0.2/2) and Tanada suggests a tan delta of 0.12 – 0.18, the third elastomers would clearly be less than the fourth elastomer compound).
Bruneau as modified by Waki and Tanada makes obvious the limitation wherein each compound of the lower region with a tandeltamax less than or equal to 0.10 represents a volume between 30% and 90% of a total volume of the lower region. As explained previously, it would have been obvious for each of the layers “120”, “130”, and “40” to have the same composition as suggested by Bruneau/Waki and thus also the same G’ and G” values. Bruneau suggests a G’ at 2 and G” at 0.2 [Table 1], which yields a resultant tan delta of 0.10, overlapping with the claimed limitation 0.10 or less. And in contrast, a clinch/chafer portion as suggested by Tanada would have a tan delta which is above 0.10 (values from 0.12 to 0.18 suggested by Tanada). Therefore, because the clinch/chafer is above 0.10 and the sidewall/filler/reinforcing layer are all at or below 0.10 (and because these are the primary rubber compounds in the lower region of Fig. 3 of Bruneau), the claimed volume ratio would be reasonably satisfied. 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. Additionally, it is noted that the tire of Bruneau satisfies each of the preferred rubber layer sizing criteria (distance DRI, DRB, DRL), such that the tire sizing of Bruneau would be expected to highly correlate to Applicant’s testing example Table 3 tire P3. In tire P3 of Applicant’s specification, the sidewall layer, filler, and reinforcing layer each have a tan delta of 0.10 or less which the clinch is higher, wherein this yields a volume % of 54 [Table 3], such that modified Bruneau would be expected to yield a similar volume % given their overwhelming similarities. And lastly, this claimed volume range is extremely wide and would be reasonably met this combination. Applicant has not demonstrated a showing of criticality or unexpected results.
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 claims 22-23, modified Bruneau makes obvious an assembly with a tire attached to a rim wherein a rim contact curve in each bead connects points M1 and M2 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).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruneau (US2014/0014250A1) in view of Bruneau2 (US2014/0360647A1, of record), in view of Waki (US2004/0025997A1), and in view of Tanada (US2018/0126800A1, of record), as applied to 16 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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Remarks pgs. 12-15 recite various conclusions/quotations from the previous office action. Applicant states that they take “issue with these conclusions and preserves the right to challenge them on appeal”. However, no specific arguments are tied in any way with these statements, such that 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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, while Bruneau2 is still relied upon for suggesting the obviousness of the measurement method/conditions, Bruneau2 is not relied upon for other teachings thereof in light of the substantial claim amendments provided. It being noted that Waki is relied upon for suggesting a sidewall and the bead apex/filler having the same composition thereof as detailed in the rejection above.
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.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.
/T.F.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights