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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/7/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 1/7/2026. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are pending for examination. Claim 15 is withdrawn from consideration.
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 1-8, 10-14, and 16-20 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.
Claims 1 and 16 recite the limitation, ‘the second layer interfacing with the first layer at a depth located between the road-contacting surface and the interface’. If the second and first layer only interface at one point, as ‘the interface’ implies, then it is unclear how they can interface between that interface and the tread surface. If the first and second layers interface at multiple locations, then it is unclear what specific interface ‘the interface’ is referring to. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as the ‘the second layer interfacing with the first layer at a depth located between the road-contacting surface and the radially innermost interface between the first and second layer’ as illustrated in figure 2 and described in applicant arguments.
Claims 2-8, 10-14, and 17-20 are also indefinite for depending on an indefinite base in either claim 1 or claim 16 and failing to cure the deficiencies of said claim.
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 1-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gornard (US 2024/0416683 A1) in view of Milan et al. (US 2023/0094443 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 1, Gornard teaches a tire comprising a tread with a first layer of a first rubber composition (Fig. 7, Ref. Num. 51) defining a first portion of the road contacting surface and a second layer of a second rubber composition (Fig. 7, Ref. Num. 52) that is partially covered by the first layer. As the first and the second layer interface with each other throughout the radial extension of the block, the second layer will interface with the first layer at a depth between the tread surface and the radially innermost interface between the first and second layer. While the tire is not explicitly described as a racing tire, that limitation is intended use that does not require structure not shown by Gornard and the tire would be capable of being used as a racing tire as the tire has improved road holding (Para. [0047]), attributes that are beneficial for a racing tire. Gornard also teaches that the second rubber layer has a polyisoprene amount of 50 to 100 phr (Para. [0068], [0069]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 70 to 100 phr which is a prima facie case of obviousness, a filler amount, made of carbon black and silica (Para. [0081]), of 20 to 200 phr (Para. [0090]) and resin of 1 to 30 phr (Para. [0095]). As the filler amount is 20 to 200 phr and is a combination of both silica and carbon black, Gornard teaches combinations where the silica is 5 to 30 phr and the carbon black is greater than the carbon black of the first layer. However, Gornard does not teach the rubber composition of the first rubber layer.
In an analogous art, Milan teaches a tire with an outermost rubber layer (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 10) where the rubber composition has a SBR concentration of 70 to 100 phr (Para. [0008]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 70 to 90 which is a prima facie case of obviousness, at least one of an isoprene rubber and polybutadiene rubber (Para. [0038]), 1 to 100 phr of carbon black (Para. [0055]), 40 to 200 phr of filler (Para. [0008]) predominantly being silica (Para. [0027]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 100 to 160 phr which is a prima facie case of obviousness, and a resin concentration of at least 0.5 phr (Para. [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gornard with Milan to use this composition for the first (outermost) tread layer. This modification will have a good balance of grip and hysteresis (Milan; Para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Gornard teaches that the second layer includes a chimney (Fig. 7, Ref. Num. 52) extending from a base portion (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 610) that defines the second portion road contacting surface.
Regarding claim 3, modified Gornard teaches that the chimney defines an annulus (Para. [0045]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Gornard teaches that each chimney is less than 50% of the tread width of a block (Fig. 7) and with 8 chimneys on the tire, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for a single chimney to define less than 15% of a width of a road contacting surface of the tire.
Regarding claim 5, as Gornard teaches that both the first (Fig. 7, Ref. Num. 51) and second (Fig. 7, Ref. Num. 52) layers are present on both shoulders, both layers are adjacent to the inside and outside shoulder.
Regarding claim 6, modified Gornard teaches that the second layer (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 52) extending is intermediate to both the inside and outside shoulder.
Regarding claim 7, modified Gornard teaches that each chimney is less than 50% of the tread width of a block (Fig. 7), which means the total width of the second layer is 50% or less of the road contacting surface, which overlaps with the claimed range of at least 20% which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 8, modified Gornard teaches that each chimney is less than 50% of the tread width of a block (Fig. 7), which means the total width of the second layer is 50% or less of the road contacting surface.
Regarding claim 10, modified Gornard teaches that the first rubber composition comprises a resin concentration of at least 0.5 phr (Milan; Para. [0008]), which overlaps the claimed range of at least 10 phr which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 11, modified Gornard teaches that the resin is rosin based (Milan; Para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Gornard teaches that the second rubber composition has a filler amount, made of carbon black and silica (Para. [0081]), of 20 to 200 phr (Para. [0090]) which means Gornard teaches combinations where the second rubber composition has at least 30 phr of carbon black.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gornard (US 2024/0416683 A1) and Milan et al. (US 2023/0094443 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cato et al. (US 2016/0280007 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 13, modified Gonard teaches that the second layer comprises an organosilane coupling agent (Para. [0088], [0089]), but does not teach that the first rubber layer has an organosilane coupling agent.
In an analogous art, Cato teaches a rubber composition for a tire tread where organosilane is used as a coupling agent (Para. [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Gornard with Cato in order to use an organosilane coupling agent in the first rubber layer. This modification will help the filler couple to the diene elastomers (Cato; Para. [0042]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gornard (US 2024/0416683 A1) and Milan et al. (US 2023/0094443 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pawlikowski (US 2002/0161073 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 14, modified Gornard does not teach a cure package.
In an analogous art, Pawlikowski teaches a that for forming rubber for tire treads (Para. [0014]), a cure package with a sulfur curing agent, a cure activator, and accelerators (Para. [0038]) should be included.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Gornard with Pawlikowski to include a cure package. This modification will promote the formation of sulfur crosslinks during vulcanization (Pawlikowski; Para. [0038]).
Claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gornard (US 2024/0416683 A1) in view of Milan et al. (US 2023/0094443 A1), Cato et al. (US 2016/0280007 A1) and Pawlikowski (US 2002/0161073 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Gornard teaches a tire comprising a tread with a first layer of a first rubber composition (Fig. 7, Ref. Num. 51) defining a first portion of the road contacting surface and a second layer of a second rubber composition (Fig. 7, Ref. Num. 52) that is partially covered by the first layer. As the first and the second layer interface with each other throughout the radial extension of the block, the second layer will interface with the first layer at a depth between the tread surface and the radially innermost interface between the first and second layer. While the tire is not explicitly described as a racing tire, that limitation is intended use that does not require structure not shown by Gornard and the tire would be capable of being used as a racing tire as the tire has improved road holding (Para. [0047]), attributes that are beneficial for a racing tire. Gornard also teaches the rubber composition of the second rubber layer:
polyisoprene amount of 50 to 100 phr (Para. [0068], [0069]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 70 to 100 phr which is a prima facie case of obviousness
filler amount of 20 to 200 phr (Para. [0090]) which includes carbon black and silica (Para. [0081]), which means Gornard teaches combinations where the silica is within the range of 5 to 25 phr and the carbon black is within the range of 30 to 60 phr
resin of 1 to 30 phr (Para. [0095]), which overlaps the claimed range of no more than 5 phr which is a prima facie case of obviousness
processing oil of less than 33 phr (Para. [0114])
organosilane coupling agent (Para. [0088], [0089])
However, Gornard does not teach the rubber composition of the first rubber layer.
In an analogous art, Milan teaches a tire with an outermost rubber layer (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 10) that comprises the following:
SBR concentration of 70 to 100 phr (Para. [0008]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 70 to 92 which is a prima facie case of obviousness
0-30 of at least one diene-based rubber (Para. [0008]), which can include Polyisoprene (Para. [0038]), which overlaps the claimed range of 0 to 30 which is a prima facie case of obviousness
0-30 of at least one diene-based rubber (Para. [0008]), which can include Polybutadiene (Para. [0038]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0 to 30 which is a prima facie case of obviousness
40 to 200 phr of filler (Para. [0008]) predominantly being silica (Para. [0027]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 101 to 160 phr which is a prima facie case of obviousness
1 to 100 phr of carbon black (Para. [0055]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0 to 25 which is a prima facie case of obviousness
1 to 9 phr of vegetable oil (Para. [0032]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 2 to 70 which is a prima facie case of obviousness
resin concentration of at least 0.5 phr (Para. [0008]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 10 to 70 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 Gornard with Milan to use this composition for the first (outermost) tread layer. This modification will have a good balance of grip and hysteresis (Milan; Para. [0004]).
However, neither reference teaches the first layer having an organosilane coupling agent.
In an analogous art, Cato teaches a rubber composition for a tire tread where organosilane is used as a coupling agent (Para. [0042]) at an amount of 2-12 phr (Para. [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Gornard with Cato in order to use an organosilane coupling agent in the first rubber layer. This modification will help the filler couple to the diene elastomers (Cato; Para. [0042]). However, none of the references teach a cure package.
In an analogous art, Pawlikowski teaches a that for forming rubber for tire treads (Para. [0014]), a cure package with a sulfur curing agent, a cure activator, and accelerators (Para. [0038]) should be included.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Gornard with Pawlikowski to include a cure package. This modification will promote the formation of sulfur crosslinks during vulcanization (Pawlikowski; Para. [0038]).
Regarding claim 17, Milan teaches that the first rubber composition comprises the following:
SBR concentration of 70 to 100 phr (Para. [0008]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 75 to 90 which is a prima facie case of obviousness
0-30 of at least one diene-based rubber (Para. [0008]), which can include Polyisoprene (Para. [0038]), which overlaps the claimed range of 10 to 25 which is a prima facie case of obviousness
0-30 of at least one diene-based rubber (Para. [0008]), which can include Polybutadiene (Para. [0038]), which overlaps the claimed range of 0 to 2 phr which is a prima facie case of obviousness
40 to 200 phr of filler (Para. [0008]) predominantly being silica (Para. [0027]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 105 to 150 phr which is a prima facie case of obviousness
1 to 100 phr of carbon black (Para. [0055]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0 to 15 which is a prima facie case of obviousness
1 to 9 phr of vegetable oil (Para. [0032]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 4 to 10 which is a prima facie case of obviousness
resin concentration of at least 0.5 phr (Para. [0008]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 20 to 60 which is a prima facie case of obviousness
Regarding claim 18, Milan teaches that the first rubber composition comprises the following:
SBR concentration of 70 to 100 phr (Para. [0008]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 85 to 92 which is a prima facie case of obviousness
0-30 of at least diene based rubber (Para. [0008]), which can include Polyisoprene (Para. [0038]), which overlaps the claimed range of 0 to 2 phr which is a prima facie case of obviousness
0-30 of at least one diene-based rubber (Para. [0008]), which can include Polybutadiene (Para. [0038]), which overlaps the claimed range of 8 to 15 phr which is a prima facie case of obviousness
40 to 200 phr of filler (Para. [0008]) predominantly being silica (Para. [0027]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 105 to 120 phr which is a prima facie case of obviousness
1 to 100 phr of carbon black (Para. [0055]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 15 to 25 which is a prima facie case of obviousness
1 to 9 phr of vegetable oil (Para. [0032]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 5 to 60 which is a prima facie case of obviousness
resin concentration of at least 0.5 phr (Para. [0008]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 10 to 30 which is a prima facie case of obviousness
Regarding claim 20, Gornard teaches that the second rubber composition comprises the following:
polyisoprene amount of 50 to 100 phr (Para. [0068], [0069]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 90 to 100 phr which is a prima facie case of obviousness
filler amount of 20 to 200 phr (Para. [0090]) which includes carbon black and silica (Para. [0081]), which means Gornard teaches combinations where the silica is within the range of 10 to 20 phr and the carbon black is within the range of 30 to 50 phr
resin of 1 to 30 phr (Para. [0095]), which overlaps the claimed range of no more than 2 phr which is a prima facie case of obviousness
processing oil of less than 33 phr (Para. [0114])
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gornard (US 2024/0416683 A1) in view of Milan et al. (US 2023/0094443 A1), Cato et al. (US 2016/0280007 A1) and Pawlikowski (US 2002/0161073 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Ryba et al. (US 2011/0048599 A1 – of Record) and Hamamura (US 2023/0264519 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 19, modified Gornard teaches that the molecular weight of the SBR is 100,000 to 2 million (Hamamura; Para. [0068]), which overlaps with the claimed range of greater than 1 million, does not teach that the SBR comprises two different types.
In an analogous art, Ryba teaches a tire tread comprising 30 to 70 phr of a first SBR (Para. [0028]) having a styrene amount of 35% to 45%, a vinyl amount of 20% to 40%, and a glass transition temperature of -28 to -40 degrees C, which overlaps with the claimed range of -20 to -40 degrees which is a prima facie case of obviousness. The tire tread also comprises 30 to 70 phr of a second SBR rubber (Para. [0027]) having a styrene amount of 35% to 45%, a vinyl content of 20% to 40%, and a glass transition temperature of -15 to -22 degrees C. This would make the difference in glass transition temperature of the two SBRs between 6 to 25 degrees C, which overlaps with the claimed range of 10 to 20 degrees 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 the modified Gornard in order to have the SBR comprise two different SBRs. This modification will give the tire good resistance over a broad range of temperatures (Ryba; Para. [0012]). However, none of the references teach the molecular weight of the SBR.
In an analogous art, Hamamura teaches a tire where the SBR has a molecular weight of 100,000 to 2 million (Para. [0068]), which overlaps with the claimed range of greater than 1 million.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Gornard with Hamamura to use SBR with a molecular weight of 100,000 to 2 million. This modification will balance wet grip and high-speed running (Hamamura; Para. [0068]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 16 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