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 12/16/2025 have been accepted. Claim 1 is amended. Claim 25 is new. Claims 18-24 are canceled. Claims 1-17 and 25 are pending.
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 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majumdar (US2011/0146869A1), in view of Murata (US2013/0092304A1, of record), optionally in view of Matsumura (US6578612B1, of record), in view of Giannini (US2018/0361693A1), and in view of Kuwayama (US2017/0028788A1, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Majumdar teaches a pneumatic tire [title, Fig. 1] comprising a tread portion (tread “14” in Fig. 1), a pair of sidewall portions (sidewalls “12” in Fig. 1), a pair of bead portions (spaced apart beads “18” in Fig. 1), a carcass extending between the beads (carcass ply “17” clearly extends between beads in Fig. 1), and an inner rubber extending between the pair of bead portions on the inner side of the carcass (layers “22” and “20” are both parts of inner rubber which is on the inner side of the carcass in Fig. 1),
The inner rubber comprises a first potion extending in the tread portion with a first thickness (the first portion is considered the rubber from the carcass through the inner liner that is axially between the tread portions of the tire in Fig. 1. As in Fig. 1, this first thickness would encompass the layers “22” and “20” which are both present therein), and a second portion extending in the pair of sidewall portions with a second thickness (the inner liner “22” that is present in the sidewall regions of the tire is considered to be the second portion in Fig. 1),
The first thickness is greater than the second thickness (as in Fig. 1, the thickness of “22” and “20” in the tread portion is clearly greater than the thickness of just the inner liner “22” in the sidewall portions, from only a simple observation of the figure. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979), see MPEP 2125).
Majumdar is silent as to the land ratio of its tread portion, as well as being silent to further tread details (other than showing in Fig. 1 that the tread portion comprises circumferential grooves). As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to look to other tires within the art for exemplary cases of advantageous tread patterns. A fair reading of Majumdar involves its tire utilized in a wide variety of tire sizes (including passenger and trucks [0036]), such that it would be utilized in a variety of uses. Murata teaches a pneumatic tire with a tread pattern wherein the tread pattern is not explicitly limited to a specific type of tire. Murata suggests that the tire improves stability in all load ranges [0005] including low loads [0005] and large loads [0060], such that the tire’s tread pattern would be found to be reasonably pertinent to all types of tires (from low load passenger type tires to high load/heavy-duty type tires). The tread pattern of Murata has 4 circumferential grooves (akin to what is suggested by Fig. 1 of Majumdar). Murata has 5 land portions divided by the circumferential grooves, with a crown rib “5”, middle ribs “6”, and shoulder ribs “7”. The groove volume ratio of the crown and middle ribs are from 5 to 30% (substantially equivalent to land ratios from 70 to 95%) and the shoulder ribs groove volume ratios are from 7 to 35% (substantially equivalent to land ratios from 65 to 93%) [0026]. Of the four circumferential grooves, the respective widths may range from 5 to 10% of the tread grounding-contacting width TW [0061]. The overall land ratio of the tread portion of Murata would be dependent upon the combined land ratios of the rib portions and the circumferential groove portions (which would then give an overall value of the tire). There are numerous embodiments within the suggested ranges wherein the land ratio of the tread would be greater than 65%. For example, when the circumferential grooves have widths of 5% of the TW each, the groove ratio of the 4 circ grooves would be 20%. When each of the ribs have a land ratio that is near the upper portion of their suggested range (around 90%), the anticipated overall land ratio would be approximately 72%. 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).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the tire of Majumdar to have the tread portion as suggested by Murata. One would have been motivated in order to improve the cornering power in all load ranges so as to improve steering stability, ensure sufficient drainage, and wear life [0088-0094].
Optionally applied regarding the land ratio of the tread portion, Matsumura teaches a pneumatic tire with a variety of tread patterns [see Figs. 1-12] which isn’t restricted to a specific type of tire. The negative ratio of the overall tread portion is set from 15-35% (equivalent to a land ratio of 65-85%) [Col5 L9-22]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the land ratio as suggested by Matsumura in order to have sufficient traction and drainage on wet roads and to reduce wear [Col5 L9-22].
Majumdar’s layer “20” in the first portion is considered to be the additional layer which is disposed between the inner liner “22” and the carcass “17”. Because the inner liner “22” contacts the tire cavity, the inner liner would necessarily be the air-impermeable rubber layer. The layer “20” would reasonably be considered an air-permeable rubber layer as it does not contact the cavity in the tread portion. It being noted that the claim does not define any specific amounts of air permeability required, such that a first portion containing two distinct rubber layers in the radial direction would reasonably read upon this limitation.
Majumdar is silent as to the loss tangent of both the additional layer “20”, and of the inner liner “22”, such that it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art to look to the art for ideal examples of the loss tangent to employ to build a working tire. Giannini teaches a pneumatic tire which comprises a sealing composition layer “10” which is formed radially inside of the carcass [Fig. 1], such that this layer is highly related to Majumdar’s “20”. Giannini teaches that the loss tangent of this layer is preferably between 0.25 and 0.6 [0165], such as a value of 0.35 [0291], wherein this value is taken at 60C [0287]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the layer “20” of Majumdar to have a tan delta as suggested by Giannini. One would have been motivated so as to provide adequate viscoelastic properties to the tire [0165] and to improve the sealing effects behavior [0286+].
Majumdar does not explicitly define a loss factor for its inner liner rubber. Kuwayama, which does not limit the application of its tire to specific uses, teaches a pneumatic tire [Fig. 1] with an inner liner “17” and a tread rubber outside of the belt regions [Fig. 1]. The loss tangent of the inner liner ranges from 0.1 to 0.3 [0051], at a temperature of 60C [0068]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the inner liner of Majumdar to have the loss factors as suggested by Kuwayama. One would have found it obvious to maintain elasticity and suppress loss increase [0051].
When Majumdar is modified by Giannini/Kuwayama, the claimed loss tangent relationship is made obvious. The loss tangent of the sealing layer may have much greater values such as 0.35 and up to 0.6 [Giannini 0165, 0291], while the inner liner loss tangent has lower values such as from 0.1 to 0.3 [0051]. 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). Additionally, as both loss tangents are taken at 60 degrees C, and because both rubbers would see a similar minor change in value from 60C to 70C, the same loss tangent relationship would be present, such that the layer “20” would have a higher loss tangent than that of the inner liner layer.
Regarding claim 2, modified Majumdar makes obvious a tire wherein an average value of the first thickness is from 1.5 to 3.5 times an average value of the second thickness (Fig. 1 clearly depicts the thickness of the first portion is much greater than that of the second portion. From a measurement of Fig. 1, the thickness of the first portion in the tread, including layers “20” and “22” has a measured standard value of 1.00, compared to a thickness in the sidewall of the second portion of just the layer “22” which has a thickness of about 0.33. From Fig. 1, it is suggested that the first thickness have a value of approximately 3 times that of the second portion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the scale of the drawings as a starting point in their design process, specifically in choosing a thickness relationship between the first/second portion as described above. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). Based on Fig. 1 of Majumdar, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that the first thickness is about 3 times greater than the second thickness, thus suggesting the claimed limitation of this value from 1.5 to 3.5. 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 3, modified Majumdar makes obvious a tire wherein an average value of the first thickness is 2 to 4.5mm (Majumdar teaches that the thickness of its layer “20” may range from 0.13 cm to 1.9cm [0036], which is from 1.3mm to 19mm. The thickness for many passenger tires is in the range of about 3.3mm [0036]. Given that the thickness of the first portion is primarily driven by the thickness of the layer “20” [see Figs. 1 and 3], and that the thickness of the inner liner “22” is minimal comparatively, it would be reasonably expected that the claimed thickness is satisfied when the suggested ranges of “20” are in the lower portions of its suggested range. 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 4, modified Majumdar makes obvious a tire wherein the tread portion comprises a first tread edge (the tread edge of the tread pattern of Murata would be at “2t” at the end of the tread width. The first tread edge may be considered the rightmost “2t”), a tire equator (“C”), a crown land portion arranged on the tire equator (crown rib “5” on the equator C [0070]), a first middle land portion on the first tread edge side (middle rib “6” located on the right of the tread pattern) via a first crown circumferential groove (crown circumferential groove “3” [0061, Fig. 1]),
A land ratio of the crown land portion is more than a land ratio of the first middle land portion (a groove volume ratio of the crown rib Rc is less than or equal to the groove volume ratio of the middle rib Rs [0074-0075, 0091]. This is substantially equivalent to requiring the land ratio of the crown rib to be greater than or equal to the land ratio of the middle rib (as the land ratio is the inverse of a groove ratio). 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). One of ordinary skill in the art would have arranged the land ratios as such in order to improve the cornering stability and steering stability [0091].
Regarding claim 5, modified Majumdar makes obvious a tire wherein the first middle land portion is not divided in the tire circumferential direction by grooves having a groove width of 2mm or more (the middle land portions “6” comprises sipes “S2” and “S3” [Fig. 1]. Each of the sipes have widths ranging from 0.4 to 1.5mm [0068]. 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 6, modified Majumdar makes obvious a tire wherein the tread portion comprises a first shoulder land portion adjacent to the first middle land portion on the first tread edge side (shoulder land portion “7” which is on the right portion of the tread is considered the first shoulder land portion) via a first shoulder circumferential groove (“4” shoulder circumferential groove [0056]),
The land ratio of the first middle land portion is more than a land ratio of the first shoulder land portion (the groove volume ratio Rm of the middle rib is less than the groove volume ratio Rs of the shoulder rib [0074]. This is substantially equivalent to the land ratio of the middle rib being greater than the land ratio of the shoulder rib (as the land ratio is the inverse of a groove ratio). 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). One of ordinary skill in the art would have arranged the land ratios as such in order to improve the cornering stability and steering stability [0090, 0092].
Regarding claim 7, modified Majumdar makes obvious a tire wherein the maximum groove width of the first crown circumferential groove is more than the maximum groove width of the first shoulder circumferential groove (as in Fig. 1 of Murata, the crown circumferential grooves “3” clearly have a greater width than the shoulder circumferential grooves. The crown grooves are made wider than the shoulder circumferential grooves so as to properly balance drainage performance and steering stability [0061].
Regarding claim 8, modified Majumdar makes obvious a tire wherein the tread portion comprises a plurality of circumferential grooves extending in the tire circumferential direction (as in Fig. 1, there are 2 crown circ grooves “3” and 2 shoulder circ grooves “4”),
The total groove width of the plurality of circumferential grooves is 20% to 25% of a tread width of the tread portion (Of the four circumferential grooves, the respective widths range from 5 to 10% of the tread grounding-contacting width TW [0061]. The total groove width of the circumferential grooves would then clearly overlap with the claimed range, such as when the crown grooves have a width of 6.25%TW and the shoulder grooves have a width of 5%TW for a total groove width of 22.5%TW. 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 17, modified Majumdar suggests a tire wherein the tread portion comprises a first tread edge (the tread edge of the tread pattern of Murata would be at “2t” at the end of the tread width. The first tread edge may be considered the rightmost “2t”), a tire equator (“C”), a plurality of circumferential grooves extending in the circumferential direction (two crown circ grooves “3” and 2 shoulder circ grooves “4”), and a plurality of land portions divided by the plurality of circumferential grooves (5 total land portions, 1 crown land “5”, 2 middle land portions “6”, and 2 shoulder land portions “7”),
the plurality of circumferential grooves includes a first shoulder circumferential groove closest to the first tread edge (this is considered the groove “4” on the right of the tread), and a first crown circumferential groove (this is considered “3” on the right of the equator),
the plurality of land portions includes a crown land portion on the equator (crown land portion “5”), a first middle land portion (middle land portion “6” which is to the right of the equator), and a first shoulder land portion (shoulder land portion “7” to the right of the equator),
the tread portion is provided with a belt layer on the outer side of the carcass in the tire radial direction (belt package “2” is shown in Fig. 1, and it is clearly to the radial outside of the carcass),
the belt layer comprises a first belt ply and a second belt ply disposed outside the first belt ply in the tire radial direction (the tire of Majumdar may encompass multiple belt plies “16”),
on the first tread edge side, the outer end in the axial direction of the second belt ply is located inward in the axial direction of the outer end of the first belt ply (as in Majumdar which may encompass multiple belt plies [0020], it is conventional/known within the art to have an outer belt ply have ends located inside of those of the inner belt ply),
A land ratio of the crown land portion is more than a land ratio of the first middle land portion (a groove volume ratio of the crown rib Rc is less than or equal to the groove volume ratio of the middle rib Rs [0074-0075, 0091]. This is substantially equivalent to requiring the land ratio of the crown rib to be greater than or equal to the land ratio of the middle rib (as the land ratio is the inverse of a groove ratio). 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). One of ordinary skill in the art would have arranged the land ratios as such in order to improve the cornering stability and steering stability [0091]),
The land ratio of the first middle land portion is more than a land ratio of the first shoulder land portion (the groove volume ratio Rm of the middle rib is less than the groove volume ratio Rs of the shoulder rib [0074]. This is substantially equivalent to the land ratio of the middle rib being greater than the land ratio of the shoulder rib (as the land ratio is the inverse of a groove ratio). One of ordinary skill in the art would have arranged the land ratios as such in order to improve the cornering stability and steering stability [0090, 0092]),
the first middle land portion is not divided in the tire circumferential direction by grooves having a groove width of 2mm or more (the middle land portions “6” comprises sipes “S2” and “S3” [Fig. 1]. Each of the sipes have widths ranging from 0.4 to 1.5mm [0068]),
The total groove width of the plurality of circumferential grooves is 20% to 25% of a tread width of the tread portion (Of the four circumferential grooves, the respective widths range from 5 to 10% of the tread grounding-contacting width TW [0061]. The total groove width of the circumferential grooves would then clearly overlap with the claimed range, such as when the crown grooves have a width of 6.25%TW and the shoulder grooves have a width of 5%TW for a total groove width of 22.5%TW),
the maximum groove width of the first crown circumferential groove is more than the maximum groove width of the first shoulder circumferential groove (as in Fig. 1 of Murata, the crown circumferential grooves “3” clearly have a greater width than the shoulder circumferential grooves. The crown grooves are made wider than the shoulder circumferential grooves so as to properly balance drainage performance and steering stability [0061]),
the first thickness is substantially the same from the position of the tire equator to a position beyond the first shoulder circumferential groove (as in Fig. 1 of Majumdar, the first portion has a substantially constant thickness from the tire equator past the outer shoulder groove, where the thickness only decreases beyond the shoulder groove),
a tire wherein an average value of the first thickness is from 1.5 to 3.5 times an average value of the second thickness (Fig. 1 clearly depicts the thickness of the first portion is much greater than that of the second portion. From a measurement of Fig. 1, the thickness of the first portion in the tread, including layers “20” and “22” has a measured standard value of 1.00, compared to a thickness in the sidewall of the second portion of just the layer “22” which has a thickness of about 0.33. From Fig. 1, it is suggested that the first thickness have a value of approximately 3 times that of the second portion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the scale of the drawings as a starting point in their design process, specifically in choosing a thickness relationship between the first/second portion as described above. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). Based on Fig. 1 of Majumdar, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that the first thickness is about 3 times greater than the second thickness, thus suggesting the claimed limitation of this value from 1.5 to 3.5. 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),
the average value of first thickness is in a range from 2.0 to 4.5mm (Majumdar teaches that the thickness of its layer “20” may range from 0.13 cm to 1.9cm [0036], which is from 1.3mm to 19mm. The thickness for many passenger tires is in the range of about 3.3mm [0036]. Given that the thickness of the first portion is primarily driven by the thickness of the layer “20” [see Figs. 1 and 3], and that the thickness of the inner liner “22” is minimal comparatively, it would be reasonably expected that the claimed thickness is satisfied when the suggested ranges of “20” are in the lower portions of its suggested range. 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)).
the first portion of the inner rubber has an outer end on the first tread edge side of the tire equator (the inner rubber as in Fig. 1 of Majumdar is symmetric about the tire equator, such that one end would clearly be located on a first tread edge side),
the outer end of the first portion is located outward of the first shoulder circumferential groove (the first portion may be considered to end anywhere outside of the shoulder circumferential groove, such as at the outermost portion of the belt ply),
the outer end of the first portion is at a same position as the outer end of the second belt ply or located axially inward within 10mm thereof and the first portion of the inner rubber has a portion where the thickness continuously decreases towards the outer end (as above, the end of the first portion may be considered to end outside of the shoulder circumferential groove and around the end of the belt ply layers. The first portion sees a continuous decrease in thickness towards an outer end thereof (see Fig. 1), such that Majumdar’s tire would clearly satisfy these cumulative limitations).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majumdar (US2011/0146869A1), in view of Murata (US2013/0092304A1, of record), optionally in view of Matsumura (US6578612B1, of record), in view of Giannini (US2018/0361693A1), and in view of Kuwayama (US2017/0028788A1, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hayashi (JP2021054301A, of record).
Regarding claims 9-10, Majumdar doesn’t explicitly disclose a serration portion with a plurality of grooves/ridges. Hayashi, tied to a pneumatic tire which is not limited to any specific type of tire. The tire has a sidewall with a serration region “3” [see Figs. 1-2]. The serration region has a plurality of grooves “6” recessed into the surface and ridges “7” formed between the adjacent grooves [0026]. The grooves extend in the radial direction and repeat around the circumferential direction of the sidewall [see Fig. 2]. The groove depth D of the groove is made to range from 0.1 to 0.5mm [0037, Fig. 3b], such that the outer end would overlap with the limitation “not more than 0.2mm”. The groove depth D is made to become continuously smaller moving from the inner end portion of the tire towards the radial outer direction of the tire [0040, Fig. 3b], such that the depth of the groove decreases from the inner end portion to the outer end portion.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the sidewalls of Majumdar to have the serration portion and grooves/ridges as suggested by Hayashi. One would have been motivated in order to reduce air resistance and improve bulge dent concealment [0033-0037].
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majumdar (US2011/0146869A1), in view of Murata (US2013/0092304A1, of record), optionally in view of Matsumura (US6578612B1, of record), in view of Giannini (US2018/0361693A1), and in view of Kuwayama (US2017/0028788A1, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuwayama (US2017/0028788A1, of record) and in view of Wang (US2016/0024280A1, of record).
Regarding claim 11, Majumdar does not explicitly define a loss factor for its inner liner rubber or for that of its tread portion. Kuwayama, which does not limit the application of its tire to specific uses, teaches a pneumatic tire [Fig. 1] with an inner liner “17” and a tread rubber outside of the belt regions [Fig. 1]. The tread rubber may have a loss tangent at 60C from 0.05 to 0.15 [0078]. The loss tangent of the inner liner ranges from 0.1 to 0.3 [0051].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the rubber layers of Majumdar to have the loss factors as suggested by Kuwayama. One would have found it obvious in order to reduce rolling resistance [0078], and to maintain elasticity and suppress loss increase [0051]. In having such loss tangents, the first/second portion’s inner liner would have the same loss tangent value of 0.1 to 0.3, and the tread rubber would have a value of from 0.05 to 0.15. It being noted that the two ranges significantly overlap, such that, absent of a conclusive showing of unexpected results, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to situate the tread rubber to be equivalent or greater than that of the inner liner rubber portions by working within the suggested ranges (with it being noted that tread rubbers that have the same tanδ value satisfy the claimed language). 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).
Kuwayama does not explicitly suggest the loss tangents at 70 degrees C for the inner liner and at 30 degrees C for the tread portion. However, there would be expected to be very little difference in the loss tangent values from a temperature of 60degrees as suggested by Kuwayama [0078] to the values at 30C or 70C. Wang, for example, discloses a graph of the relationship of tanδ with temperature in Fig. 1 for rubber compositions used in tires. The tanδ in the temperature range from 30C to 70C is substantially flat with only a minor decrease in values from the 30C point to the 70C point, whereas the major changes in tanδ occur at significantly lower temperatures below 0C. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have expected for the tanδ values suggested by Kuwayama at 60C to be substantially equal to the rubber values at 30C for the tread rubber and 70C for the inner liner rubber. And as such, the claimed relationship of the first portion at 70C being equal to or less than a tread rubber at 30C would be made obvious by the range of values suggested by Kuwayama.
Regarding claim 12, modified Majumdar makes obvious a tire wherein the loss tangent of the first portion is 1.0 to 2.0 times the loss tangent of the second portion (as in the rejection of claim 11 above, the limitation allows for the loss tangent of the first and second portions to have the same value. As such, because they have the same type of the rubber in the inner liner, the loss tangents would be the same and within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 13, modified Majumdar further makes obvious a loss tangent of the first portion being 0.4 to 0.7 times a loss tangent of the tread rubber (within the ranges in the above rejection of claim 11, there are numerous embodiments where the claimed relationship would be satisfied. For example, when the tanδ of the inner liner is 0.1 and the tanδ of the tread rubber is 0.15, the first portion would be 0.66 of the tread 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).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majumdar (US2011/0146869A1), in view of Murata (US2013/0092304A1, of record), optionally in view of Matsumura (US6578612B1, of record), in view of Giannini (US2018/0361693A1), and in view of Kuwayama (US2017/0028788A1, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakajima (US2016/0046155A1, of record).
Regarding claim 14, Majumdar comprises a carcass which extends from bead region to bead region [see Fig. 1], wherein the carcass comprises cords [pg. 1 of machine translation]. Majumdar is silent as to what the twist coefficient of the carcass cords is, and it would be obvious to look to other tires for ideal twist coefficients. Nakajima teaches a pneumatic tire with a carcass “4” with carcass cords, wherein the twist coefficient of the cords ranges from 1500 to 2500 [0022]. 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). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the twist coefficient as suggested by Nakajima to the tire of Majumdar. One would have been motivated in order to balance the tire durability and steering stability [0030, Nakajima].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majumdar (US2011/0146869A1), in view of Murata (US2013/0092304A1, of record), optionally in view of Matsumura (US6578612B1, of record), in view of Giannini (US2018/0361693A1), in view of Kuwayama (US2017/0028788A1, of record), and in view of Nakajima (US2016/0046155A1, of record), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kajita (US2004/0238094A1, of record).
Regarding claim 15, Majumdar discloses that the carcass may have a main portion extending between the bead portions and a turned up portion that extends around the bead core [see Fig. 1]. The specification of Majumdar is silent as to any preferred locations of the turned up portion of the carcass, and it is well known in the art of tires that modifying the turned up portion location affects the properties of the tire and may be in different locations dependent upon the properties required. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to look to an ideal placement for the carcass turned-up portion to improve the properties of the tire of Majumdar. Kajita, for example, applies to a variety of pneumatic tires wherein the carcass comprises an ultrahigh-turnup ply that extend radially outwardly into the tread portion through the sidewall portions and terminate axially inward of the axial ends of the belt [0017]. Such a turned-up portion clearly extends radially outwards of a maximum width position.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the high turned-up carcass to the tire of Majumdar. One would have been motivated in order to increase the rigidity of the sidewall portion against circumferential torsional strain so as to reduce the transfer lag of the braking force or driving force [0045, Kajita].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majumdar (US2011/0146869A1), in view of Murata (US2013/0092304A1, of record), optionally in view of Matsumura (US6578612B1, of record), in view of Giannini (US2018/0361693A1), and in view of Kuwayama (US2017/0028788A1, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hayashi (JP2021054301A, of record), Kuwayama (US2017/0028788A1, of record), in view of Wang (US2016/0024280A1, of record), and in view of Nakajima (US2016/0046155A1, of record).
Regarding claim 16, Majumdar clearly suggests a tire with the tread portion which would comprise a tread rubber on the radially outermost portion of the tire which forms the ground portion of the tire [see Fig. 1]. Majumdar discloses a carcass with carcass cords [0020]. Majumdar doesn’t explicitly disclose a serration portion with a plurality of grooves/ridges. Hayashi, tied to a pneumatic tire which is not limited to any specific type of tire. The tire has a sidewall with a serration region “3” [see Figs. 1-2]. The serration region has a plurality of grooves “6” recessed into the surface and ridges “7” formed between the adjacent grooves [0026]. The grooves extend in the radial direction and repeat around the circumferential direction of the sidewall [see Fig. 2]. The groove depth D of the groove is made to range from 0.1 to 0.5mm [0037, Fig. 3b], such that the outer end would overlap with the limitation “not more than 0.2mm”. The groove depth D is made to become continuously smaller moving from the inner end portion of the tire towards the radial outer direction of the tire [0040, Fig. 3b], such that the depth of the groove decreases from the inner end portion to the outer end portion.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the sidewalls of Majumdar to have the serration portion and grooves/ridges as suggested by Hayashi. One would have been motivated in order to reduce air resistance and improve bulge dent concealment [0033-0037].
Majumdar does not explicitly define a loss factor for its inner liner rubber or for that of its tread portion. Kuwayama, which does not limit the application of its tire to specific uses, teaches a pneumatic tire [Fig. 1] with an inner liner “17” and a tread rubber outside of the belt regions [Fig. 1]. The tread rubber may have a loss tangent at 60C from 0.05 to 0.15 [0078]. The loss tangent of the inner liner ranges from 0.1 to 0.3 [0051].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the rubber layers of Majumdar to have the loss factors as suggested by Kuwayama. One would have found it obvious in order to reduce rolling resistance [0078], and to maintain elasticity and suppress loss increase [0051]. In having such loss tangents, the first/second portion’s inner liner would have the same loss tangent value of 0.1 to 0.3, and the tread rubber would have a value of from 0.05 to 0.15. It being noted that the two ranges significantly overlap, such that, absent of a conclusive showing of unexpected results, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to situate the tread rubber to be equivalent or greater than that of the inner liner rubber portions by working within the suggested ranges (with it being noted that tread rubbers that have the same tanδ value satisfy the claimed language). 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).
Kuwayama does not explicitly suggest the loss tangents at 70 degrees C for the inner liner and at 30 degrees C for the tread portion. However, there would be expected to be very little difference in the loss tangent values from a temperature of 60degrees as suggested by Kuwayama [0078] to the values at 30C or 70C. Wang, for example, discloses a graph of the relationship of tanδ with temperature in Fig. 1 for rubber compositions used in tires. The tanδ in the temperature range from 30C to 70C is substantially flat with only a minor decrease in values from the 30C point to the 70C point, whereas the major changes in tanδ occur at significantly lower temperatures below 0C. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have expected for the tanδ values suggested by Kuwayama at 60C to be substantially equal to the rubber values at 30C for the tread rubber and 70C for the inner liner rubber. And as such, the claimed relationship of the first portion at 70C being equal to or less than a tread rubber at 30C would be made obvious by the range of values suggested by Kuwayama.
Majumdar is silent as to what the twist coefficient of the carcass cords is, and it would be obvious to look to other tires for ideal twist coefficients. Nakajima teaches a pneumatic tire with a carcass “4” with carcass cords, wherein the twist coefficient of the cords ranges from 1500 to 2500 [0022]. 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). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the twist coefficient as suggested by Nakajima to the tire of Majumdar. One would have been motivated in order to balance the tire durability and steering stability [0030, Nakajima].
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleffmann (DE102013103077, of record) in view of Murata (US2013/0092304A1, of record), optionally in view of Matsumura (US6578612B1, of record), and in view of Yamamoto (JP2001260609A).
Regarding claim 25, Kleffmann discloses a pneumatic tire (see Fig. 1) comprising a tread portion (tread “1” in Fig. 1), a pair of sidewall portions (sidewall “7” in Fig. 1. The tire is symmetric about an equator line of the tire in Fig. 1, so the opposite sidewall would be on the other axial end of the tire), a pair of bead portions (bead area “4”, where the other bead would be on the opposite axial side of the tire in Fig. 1), a carcass extending between the pair of bead portions (carcass “3” which extends around each of the bead portions), an inner rubber extending between the pair of bead portions on an inner side of the carcass (the inner layer “8” is located radially inward of the carcass “3”. As in Fig. 1, it clearly extends from the bead area up and to the tire equator, and on the opposite axial end of the tire it would wrap in the same manner),
the inner rubber comprises a first portion extending in the tread portion with a first thickness (the inner layer section “8a” is located in the tread portion of the tire. As in Fig. 1, it clearly has the largest thickness portion of the inner layer, and it may have a thickness of at least 100% greater than the portion in the sidewall area [pg. 2, 3 of machine translation]), and a second portion extending in the pair of sidewall portions with a second thickness (the section of the inner layer “8b” is located in the sidewall of the tire and may be considered to be the second portion. From Fig. 1, the thickness is clearly smaller than that of the first portion “8a”),
the first thickness is greater than the second thickness (as explained above, the thickness of the “8a” may preferably be at least 100% greater than the portion in the sidewall area [pg. 2, 3 of machine translation]).
Kleffmann is silent as to the land ratio of its tread portion, as well as being silent to further tread details (other than showing in Fig. 1 that the tread portion comprises circumferential grooves). As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to look to other tires within the art for exemplary cases of advantageous tread patterns. While Kleffmann suggests preferred uses of its tire [pg. 1 of machine translation], a fair reading of Kleffmann does not limit the inventive tire to its preferred embodiments and a skilled artisan would find the inventive teachings of Kleffmann applicable to a wide variety of tire sizes and uses. Murata teaches a pneumatic tire with a tread pattern wherein the tread pattern is not explicitly limited to a specific type of tire. Murata suggests that the tire improves stability in all load ranges [0005] including low loads [0005] and large loads [0060], such that the tire’s tread pattern would be found to be reasonably pertinent to all types of tires (from low load passenger type tires to high load/heavy-duty type tires). The tread pattern of Murata has 4 circumferential grooves (akin to what is suggested by Fig. 1 of Kleffmann). Murata has 5 land portions divided by the circumferential grooves, with a crown rib “5”, middle ribs “6”, and shoulder ribs “7”. The groove volume ratio of the crown and middle ribs are from 5 to 30% (substantially equivalent to land ratios from 70 to 95%) and the shoulder ribs groove volume ratios are from 7 to 35% (substantially equivalent to land ratios from 65 to 93%) [0026]. Of the four circumferential grooves, the respective widths may range from 5 to 10% of the tread grounding-contacting width TW [0061]. The overall land ratio of the tread portion of Murata would be dependent upon the combined land ratios of the rib portions and the circumferential groove portions (which would then give an overall value of the tire). There are numerous embodiments within the suggested ranges wherein the land ratio of the tread would be greater than 65%. For example, when the circumferential grooves have widths of 5% of the TW each, the groove ratio of the 4 circ grooves would be 20%. When each of the ribs have a land ratio that is near the upper portion of their suggested range (around 90%), the anticipated overall land ratio would be approximately 72%. 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).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the tire of Kleffmann to have the tread portion as suggested by Murata. One would have been motivated in order to improve the cornering power in all load ranges so as to improve steering stability, ensure sufficient drainage, and wear life [0088-0094].
Optionally applied regarding the land ratio of the tread portion, Matsumura teaches a pneumatic tire with a variety of tread patterns [see Figs. 1-12] which isn’t restricted to a specific type of tire. The negative ratio of the overall tread portion is set from 15-35% (equivalent to a land ratio of 65-85%) [Col5 L9-22]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the land ratio as suggested by Matsumura in order to have sufficient traction and drainage on wet roads and to reduce wear [Col5 L9-22].
Kleffmann in Fig. 3 shows that the first portion may include two separate rubber layers “10a” and “8a” which may have different rubber compounds [pg. 4 of machine translation]. The inner liner may be considered to be the layer which extends continuously from the first portion to the second portion “8”, while the additional layer is considered “10b” as in Fig. 3. The additional layer is disposed radially inside of the inner liner layer “8”. Because the inner layer “8” extends as a single rubber type from the tread to the sidewall and is the sole rubber contacting the tire cavity at many points, the inner layer would necessarily be air-impermeable so as to appropriately seal the tire from the inner cavity air pressure. And as “8” is considered the inner liner with the air-impermeable layer, the additional layer “10a” would be considered an air-permeable layer as the sealing effect is already completed by “8”. It being noted that the claim does not define any specific amounts of air permeability required, such that a first portion containing two distinct rubber layers in the radial direction would reasonably read upon this limitation.
Kleffmann does not explicitly suggest the loss tangents of the inner liner “8” and of the additional layer “10a”. Yamamoto teaches a pneumatic tire which has two rubber layers which are disclosed radially inside of the carcass [see Figs. 1-3], such that Yamamoto’s inner layers would be particularly relevant for Kleffmann’s two radially inner rubber layers. Yamamoto has the medium liner rubber “9” and the inner liner rubber “10” [0030]. The inner liner layer “10” is made to have a higher tan delta compared to the medium liner rubber “9” [0030-0031]. In other words, the radially inner layer has a higher loss tangent than the radially outer layer which is contacting the carcass.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the layers of Kleffmann with the loss tangent relationship as suggested by Yamamoto. One would have been motivated so as to more easily control the propagation of cracks and of the heat generation and thermal oxidation of the layers [Yamamoto, 0030-0031]. And because the additional layer “10a” is located radially inside of the inner liner “8”, the additional layer “10a” would have the higher loss tangent. Yamamoto’s tan delta is taken at 25C [0009], but because both rubber layers are taken at the same temperature, Yamamoto’s relationship (of the radially inner rubber having a higher values than the radially outer rubber) at 25C would be the exact same as when taken at 70C. Loss tangents see changes primarily around the glass transition temperatures, and glass transition temperatures for rubber are significantly below 25C or 70C, such that there would not be a significant change from 25C to 70C.
Response to Arguments
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.
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