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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 16, 2026 has been entered.
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.
4. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jefferson (EP 414026, of record) and further in view of Shimomura (US 2012/0138205, of record), Amaddeo (US 6,516,847, of record), and Matsuda (JP 1-160708, of record).
As best depicted in Figures 1 and 2, Jefferson is directed to a tire construction comprising a main belt structure defined by belt layers 18, 20, and 22. The tire of Jefferson further includes a rubber layer 26 between belts 20 and 22 (corresponds with claimed second rubber layer) and a rubber layer 24 between belts 20 and 22 (corresponds with claimed third belt layer). In such an instance, though, the tire of Jefferson is devoid of a first rubber layer having an axial width greater than a main belt structure and a protective belt layer radially outward thereof.
In any event, it is extremely well-known and conventional to form tread layers as a single layer or as a cap-base structure (base layer would correspond with claimed first rubber layer). It is emphasized that each of these tread designs is extensively used in almost all tire constructions. The specific use of a cap-base design is recognized as providing different properties for a ground contacting region (cap layer) and a non-ground contacting region (base layer). Shimomura provides one example of a conventional cap-base tread design (Paragraph 37). Additionally, Shimomura teaches the inclusion of a circumferential belt layer 93 (claimed protective layer) formed with circumferentially oriented cords and arranged between said cap and said tread in order to improve wear performance (Figure 5 and Paragraphs 8, 37, 45, and 46). Layer 93 extends continuously across a crown region of the tire. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to include a conventional cap-base design in the tire of Jefferson for the benefits detailed above and furthermore, to include a protective belt layer radially beyond a tread base for the benefits detailed above. In such an instance, a tread base layer would be expected to have a greater axial width than the belt structure as a whole (consistent with the conventional arrangement of tread cap-base designs).
Lastly, regarding claim 1 (and claims 2, 4, 9-12, and 18-20), Ammadeo (Column 3, Lines 45-50 and Column 9, Lines 50-55) recognizes the common thickness values associated with tread base layers (claimed first rubber layer) and such thickness values would be expected to substantially overlap the claimed quantitative relationship when using conventional belt cord diameters. Matsuda (see attached translation) also provides the general order of thickness values associated with rubber layers positioned between main belt layers and such thickness values would be expected to substantially overlap the claimed quantitative relationship when using conventional belt cord diameters.
With respect to claim 5, merged or hybrid cords are extensively used in tire belt layers (use of multiple materials allows the benefits of each material to be present). This position has been previously set forth by the Examiner and remains unchallenged- as such, it is taken to be Admitted Prior Art.
As to claims 7, 8, 16, and 17, either rubber layer arranged within the main belt structure of Jefferson can be viewed as the claimed second rubber layer or third rubber layer.
With respect to claims 13 and 14, respective rubber layers 24 have a width that is substantially the same as the width of the main belt layers. This arrangement is seen to satisfy the claimed quantitative relationship (even when including a width of the protective belt layer, the claimed ratio would be slightly less than 1).
As to claim 21, the language “configured to allow removal of the protective belt layer” fails to further define the structure of the claimed tire article.
With respect to claim 22, cords C9 are inclined at approximately 0 degrees with respect to the tire circumferential direction (Figure 5).
5. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda and further in view of Shimomura (US 2012/0138205, of record) and Amaddeo (US 6,516,847, of record).
As best depicted in Figure 1, Matsuda is directed to a tire construction comprising a plurality of belt layers 5, 5A, 10 that define a main belt structure and a rubber layer 11 having a thickness between 0.5 mm and 1.5 mm and a width equal to a main belt structure width and arranged within said main belt structure (corresponds with claimed second rubber layer). The tire of Matsuda further includes a tread cap layer 6 and a tread base layer 7 that corresponds with the claimed first rubber layer. In such an instance, though, the tire of Matsuda is devoid of a protective belt layer.
Shimomura is similarly directed to a tire construction comprising a tread cap layer and a tread base layer. More particularly, Shimomura teaches the inclusion of a cord reinforced layer 93 (corresponds with claimed protective belt layer) formed with circumferentially oriented cords and arranged between said cap layer and said base layer in order to improve wear performance (Paragraphs 8, 37, 45, and 46 and Figure 5). Layer 93 extends continuously across a crown region of the tire. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to include a circumferential cord reinforced layer in the tire of Matsuda, in view of Shimomura, for the benefits detailed above.
Lastly, regarding claim 1 (and dependent claims 2 and 4), said second rubber layer has a thickness between 0.5 mm and 1.5 mm and such values would be well recognized as substantially overlapping the claimed quantitative relationship (when using common or conventional belt cord diameters). Additionally, a substantial overlap would similarly be present when using conventional belt cord diameters and conventional tread base thickness values, as evidenced by Amaddeo (Column 3, Lines 45-50 and Column 9, Lines 50-55).
With respect to claim 5, merged or hybrid cords are extensively used in tire belt layers (use of multiple materials allows the benefits of each material to be present).
As to claim 21, the language “configured to allow removal of the protective belt layer” fails to further define the structure of the claimed tire article.
With respect to claim 22, cords C9 are inclined at approximately 0 degrees with respect to the tire circumferential direction (Figure 5).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-22 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.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 February 23, 2026