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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/14/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 10/14/2025. Claims 1-9, 11-14, and 16-22 are pending for examination.
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 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US 2010/0139826 A1) in view of Yukawa (US 2005/0275277 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto teaches a tire assembly comprising a rim (Para. [0066]) and a pneumatic tire intended for noise reduction (Para. [0046]) mounted on a rim (Para. [0065]) where the rim diameter is 18 inches (Para. [0064]), the ratio of SH/SW (aspect ratio) is 40% (Para. [0064]), and the ratio of RW/SW is 88% based on a rim width of 8.5 in (Para. [0066]). However, Matsumoto does not teach that the tire has a sound damper.
In an analogous art, Yukawa teaches a tire with a noise damper (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 4) that is made of a sponge material (Para. [0048]) adhered to the inner surface of the tire (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 4) and has a volume of 0.4% to 20% of the tire inner cavity volume (Para. [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Matsumoto with Yukawa in order to add a noise damper to the tire. This modification will reduce tire noise (Yukawa; Para. [0050]).
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto teaches that the rim diameter is 18 inches (Para. [0065]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Matsumoto teaches that the volume of the sponge material is 0.4% to 20% of the tire inner cavity volume (Yukawa; Para. [0050]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Matsumoto teaches that the ratio W/SW of the noise damper is 5% to 100% (Yukawa; Para. [0064]), which overlaps the claimed range of 10% to 70% which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 6, modified Matsumoto teaches that the maximum height of the damper is 10 to 45 mm (Yukawa; Para. [0063]), which overlaps with the claimed range of not greater than 30 mm which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 9, modified Matsumoto teaches that the sponge material has a specific gravity of 0.005 to 0.06 (Yukawa; Para. [0049]), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.014 to 0.052 which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 19, Matsumoto does not explicitly say that this tire assembly can be included on a low-floor small bus. However, low-floor small buses are also road vehicles and it would be obvious to use this tire assembly on a low-floor small bus as it is a known technique to improve a similar device to improve noise reduction (Para. [0046]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Matsumoto teaches that the ratio W/SW of the noise damper is 5% to 100% (Yukawa; Para. [0064]), which overlaps the claimed range of 10% to 30% which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US 2010/0139826 A1) in view of Yukawa726 (US 2009/0038726 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto teaches a tire assembly comprising a rim (Para. [0066]) and a pneumatic tire intended for noise reduction (Para. [0046]) mounted on a rim (Para. [0065]) where the rim diameter is 18 inches (Para. [0064]), the ratio of SH/SW (aspect ratio) is 40% (Para. [0064]), and the ratio of RW/SW is 88% based on a rim width of 8.5 in (Para. [0066]). However, Matsumoto does not teach that the tire has a sound damper.
In an analogous art, Yukawa726 teaches a tire with a noise damper (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 4) that is made of a sponge material (Para. [0022]) adhered to the inner surface of the tire (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 4A) and has a volume of 0.4% to 20% of the tire inner cavity volume (Para. [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Matsumoto with Yukawa726 in order to add a noise damper to the tire. This modification will reduce tire noise (Yukawa726; Para. [0023]).
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto teaches that the rim diameter is 18 inches (Para. [0065]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Matsumoto teaches that the volume of the sponge material is 0.4% to 20% of the tire inner cavity volume (Yukawa726; Para. [0026]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Matsumoto teaches that the width of the sponge material is 100 mm (Yukawa726; Table 2) and the sectional width is 195 mm (Para. [0060]) which would make the ratio W/SW of the noise damper 51% which is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, modified Matsumoto teaches a tire with a noise damper made of sponge material where the sponge material has a hardness of 10 to 250 N (Yukawa726; Para. [0044]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Matsumoto teaches a noise damper made of sponge material where the sponge material has a tensile strength of not less than 70 kPa (Yukawa726; Para. [0044]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Matsumoto teaches that the sponge material has a specific gravity of 0.014 to 0.052 (Yukawa726; Para. [0044]).
Regarding claim 19, Matsumoto does not explicitly say that this tire assembly can be included on a low-floor small bus. However, low-floor small buses are also road vehicles and it would be obvious to use this tire assembly on a low-floor small bus as it is a known technique to improve a similar device to improve noise reduction (Para. [0046]).
Regarding claim 22, modified Matsumoto teaches a tire with a noise damper made of sponge material where the sponge material has a hardness of 10 to 250 N (Yukawa726; Para. [0044]).
Claims 4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US 2010/0139826 A1) in view of Yukawa (US 2005/0275277 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2020/0023692 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 4, modified Matsumoto teaches that the sponge material is provided intermittently in the circumferential direction (Yukawa; Para. [0093]), but does not teach the total angle over which the sponge material is provided.
In an analogous art, Liu teaches a tire with a noise damper where the sponge material is provided intermittently with a gap of 10 to 30 degrees between adjacent sponge materials (Para. [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Matsumoto with Liu in order to have a gap of 10 to 30 degrees between adjacent sponge materials. This modification will reduce the weight and cost (Liu; Para. [0047]). When there are 3 or more discreet sponge materials in the circumferential direction, the total sum of the angles will be 270 degrees or less, which overlaps with the claimed range of 108 to 270 degrees which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 20, modified Matsumoto teaches that the sponge material is provided intermittently in the circumferential direction (Yukawa; Para. [0093]) which would include there being four portions, but does not teach the total angle over which the sponge material is provided and that the gap between portions is 10 to 30 degrees between adjacent sponge materials (Para. [0047]). When there are five distinct portions, the sum of the gaps between portions will be 50 degrees to 150 degrees, which means the sum of the sponge angles is 210 to 310 degrees, which overlaps with the claimed range of 108 to 240 degrees which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claims 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US 2010/0139826 A1) in view of Yukawa (US 2005/0275277 A1) and Yukawa726 (US 2009/0038726 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Matsumoto teaches a tire assembly comprising a rim (Para. [0066]) and a pneumatic tire intended for noise reduction (Para. [0046]) mounted on a rim (Para. [0065]) where the rim diameter is 18 inches (Para. [0064]) and the ratio of SH/SW (aspect ratio) is 40% (Para. [0064]). However, Matsumoto does not teach that the tire has a sound damper.
In an analogous art, Yukawa teaches a tire with a noise damper (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 4) that is made of a sponge material (Para. [0048]) adhered to the inner surface of the tire on the tire equator (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 4) and has a maximum height of 10 to 45 mm (Para. [0063]), which overlaps with the claimed range of not greater than 30 mm which is a prima facie case of obviousness. The sound damper also has a ratio W/SW of the noise damper is 5% to 100% (Yukawa; Para. [0064]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 10% to 70% which is a prima facie case of obviousness, and a specific gravity of 0.005 to 0.06 (Para. [0049]), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.014 to 0.052 which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Matsumoto with Yukawa in order to add a noise damper to the tire. This modification will reduce tire noise (Yukawa; Para. [0050]). However, modified Matsumoto does not teach the hardness of the sponge material.
In an analogous art, Yukawa726 teaches a noise damper made of sponge material where the sponge material has a hardness of 10 to 250 N (Para. [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the noise damper of modified Akashi with Yukawa726 in order to have a hardness of 10 N to 250 N. This modification will limit elongation of the spongy material (Yukawa726; Para. [0045]). However, modified Matsumoto does not teach the tensile strength of the sponge material.
In an analogous art, Yukawa726 teaches a noise damper made of sponge material where the sponge material has a tensile strength of not less than 70 kPa (Para. [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the noise damper of modified Matsumoto with Yukawa726 in order to have a tensile strength of not less than 70 kPa. This modification will enhance stress endurance (Yukawa7260; Para. [0046]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Matsumoto teaches that the ratio RW/SW is 88% based on a rim width of 8.5 in (Para. [0066]) and that the volume of the sponge material is 0.4% to 20% of the tire inner cavity volume (Yukawa; Para. [0050]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Matsumoto teaches that the ratio W/SW of the noise damper is 5% to 100% (Yukawa; Para. [0064]), which overlaps the claimed range of not more than 30% which is a prima facie case of obviousness and that the maximum height of the damper is 10 to 45 mm (Para. [0063]), which overlaps with the claimed range of not greater than 20 mm which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 16, modified Matsumoto teaches that the sponge material has two protruding portions (Yukawa; Fig. 14, Ref. Num. 8).
Regarding claim 17, modified Matsumoto teaches that the two protruding portions are spaced from opposite ends of the sponge material (Yukawa; Fig. 14, Ref. Num. 8).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US 2010/0139826 A1) in view of Yukawa (US 2005/0275277 A1) and Yukawa726 (US 2009/0038726 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Bschorr (US Patent No. 4,392,522 - of Record).
Regarding claim 12, modified Matsumoto teaches that the sponge material is adhered to the inner surface of the pneumatic tire (Yukawa; Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 4), but not that it is adhered to the rim.
In an analogous art, Bschorr teaches a tire with a noise damper where the damper is attached to both the tire and the rim (Fig. 1, 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Matsumoto with Bschorr to attach the sponge material to the rim. This modification will reduce the vibration of the rim (Bschorr; Col. 4, Lines 34-50).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US 2010/0139826 A1) in view of Yukawa (US 2005/0275277 A1) and Yukawa726 (US 2009/0038726 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2020/0023692 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 18, modified Matsumoto teaches that the sponge material is provided intermittently in the circumferential direction (Yukawa; Para. [0093]), but does not teach the total angle over which the sponge material is provided.
In an analogous art, Liu teaches a tire with a noise damper where the sponge material is provided intermittently with a gap of 10 to 30 degrees between adjacent sponge materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Matsumoto with Liu in order to have a gap of 10 to 30 degrees between adjacent sponge materials. This modification will reduce the weight and cost (Liu; Para. [0047]). When there are 3 or more discreet sponge materials in the circumferential direction, the total sum of the angles will be 270 degrees or less, which overlaps with the claimed range of 108 to 270 degrees which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J WEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-2664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:30pm.
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.
/N.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749