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
This action is in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 3/30/2026. Claims 10-13, 15-20, and 22-26 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 10-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (US Patent No. 4,433,094 – of Record) in view of Kitago (US 2022/0389206 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 10, Ogawa teaches a tire (Col. 1, Line 59 – Col. 2, Line 12) comprising a tread portion comprising a cap and an undertread (Col. 8, Lines 1-6), a carcass layer (Col. 7, Lines 55-57), and a belt layer (Col. 7, Lines 52-55). Ogawa does not explicitly teach a pair of bead cores, but they are an intrinsic part of tires that are intended to be mounted on vehicles (Col. 9, Lines 11-15). The tire size is 165SR13 (Col. 8, Lines 48-50), which gives a tire width of 165 mm. The tire aspect ratio is not specified, but with a 13-inch rim the aspect ratio could be as much as 100% and still have the outer diameter of the tire be less than or equal to 660 mm. Finally, Ogawa teaches a tire where the cap rubber has a 40 phr of natural rubber, 50 phr of carbon black (filler), and a strength at break of 254 kg/cm2 (24 mPa) (Table 3, Example 44). Ogawa does not teach the relationship between change in ground contact area based on load capacity; however, since Ogawa teaches a tire that has the same composition as mentioned in the instant application (Page 34, Lines 22-31) and claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the tire of Ogawa would have the same physical properties as claimed. Additionally, there is no disclosure in the instant specification that would suggest that the mechanical properties of the cap tread are due to non-composition related factors such as method of production. Ogawa does not teach the thickness of the cap tread.
In an analogous art, Kitago teaches a tire where the cap rubber layer (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 11) has a thickness (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. t1) between 3.5 and 11.5 mm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 5.87 and 22.6 mm 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 Ogawa with Kitago in order to have the cap layer thickness be from 3.5 to 11.5 mm. This modification will improve the advantageous effects of wet grip performance (Para. [0123], [0126]). Modified Ogawa does not teach the relationship between the cap thickness and the brittle temperature; however, since Ogawa teaches a tire that has the same composition as mentioned in the instant application (Page 34, Lines 22-31) and claims 10, 13, and 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the tire of Ogawa would have the same physical properties, brittle temperature, as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Ogawa teaches that the outer diameter is less than 660 mm (Col. 8, Lines 48-50), which would mean the strength at break should be between 10.6 and 28.8 mPa, and the strength at break is 24 mPa (Table 3, Example 44) which meets those requirements.
Regarding claims 12 and 19, Ogawa does not teach the relationship between change in ground contact area based on load capacity and strength at break; however, since Ogawa teaches a tire that has the same composition as mentioned in the instant application (Page 34, Lines 22-31) and claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the tire of Ogawa would have the same physical properties as claimed.
Regarding claims 13 and 20, Ogawa teaches a tensile strength of 24 mPa (Table 3, Example 44) and Kitago teaches that the cap rubber layer (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 11) has a thickness (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. t1) between 3.5 and 11.5 mm. To satisfy the claimed inequality with a tensile strength of 24 mPa, the thickness will have to be between 5.87 and 22.6 mm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 3.5 to 11.5 mm which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claims 15 and 22, Ogawa does not teach the relationship between the cap thickness and the hardness; however, since Ogawa teaches a tire that has the same composition as mentioned in the instant application (Page 34, Lines 22-31) and claims 10, 13, and 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the tire of Ogawa would have the same physical properties as claimed.
Regarding claims 16 and 23, Ogawa does not teach the relationship between the cap thickness and the tan delta; however, since Ogawa teaches a tire that has the same composition as mentioned in the instant application (Page 34, Lines 22-31) and claims 10, 13, and 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the tire of Ogawa would have the same physical properties as claimed.
Regarding claims 17 and 24, Ogawa does not teach the relationship between the tan delta of the cap and undertread; however, since Ogawa teaches a tire that has the same composition as mentioned in the instant application (Page 34, Lines 22-31) and claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the tire of Ogawa would have the same physical properties as claimed.
Regarding claims 18 and 25, Ogawa teaches a tire having 40 phr of natural rubber, 50 phr of carbon black (filler) (Table 3, Example 44).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (US Patent No. 4,433,094 – of Record) in view of Araujo da Silva et al. (US 2017/0327617 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Ogawa teaches a tire (Col. 1, Line 59 – Col. 2, Line 12) comprising a tread portion comprising a cap and an undertread (Col. 8, Lines 1-6), a carcass layer (Col. 7, Lines 55-57), and a belt layer (Col. 7, Lines 52-55). Ogawa does not explicitly teach a pair of bead cores, but they are an intrinsic part of tires that are intended to be mounted on vehicles (Col. 9, Lines 11-15). The tire size is 165SR13 (Col. 8, Lines 48-50), which gives a tire width of 165 mm. The tire aspect ratio is not specified, but with a 13-inch rim the aspect ratio could be as much as 100% and still have the outer diameter of the tire be less than or equal to 660 mm. Finally, Ogawa teaches a tire where the cap rubber has a 40 phr of natural rubber, 50 phr of carbon black (filler), and a strength at break of 254 kg/cm2 (24 mPa) (Table 3, Example 44). Ogawa does not teach the relationship between change in ground contact area based on load capacity; however, since Ogawa teaches a tire that has the same composition as mentioned in the instant application (Page 34, Lines 22-31) and claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the tire of Ogawa would have the same physical properties as claimed. Additionally, there is no disclosure in the instant specification that would suggest that the mechanical properties of the cap tread are due to non-composition related factors such as method of production. Ogawa does not teach the thickness of the cap tread.
In an analogous art, Araujo da Silva teaches a tire with multiple rubber layers where the thickness of the cap layer of heavy-goods tires is between 2 and 20 mm (Para. [0152]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 12 to 22 mm which is a prima facie case of obviousness. Ogawa additionally teaches that the tire is advantageously large tires for trucks and busses (Col. 8, Lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ogawa with Araujo da Silva in order to have the cap layer thickness be from 2 to 20 mm. This a thickness known in the art for being advantageous for heavy-goods tires (Araujo da Silva; Para. [0152]). To satisfy the claimed inequality with a tensile strength of 24 mPa, the thickness will have to be between 5.87 and 22.6 mm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 2 to 20 mm which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ogawa does not teach a belt layer as the cord reinforcement referred to does not have to be a belt layer. While a cord reinforcement does not have to be a belt layer, a belt layer is a type of cord reinforcement and a type that is very well known in tire art. Additionally, the ‘furthermore’ in the next sentence does not mean that the cord reinforcement referred to is the carcass layer, but could be referring to the more generic tire construction.
Applicant argues that neither Ogawa or Kitago teach the brittle temperature of the tire. While Ogawa does not teach the brittle temperature of the tire, it does teach a composition that is the same as the claimed tire. Due to the similar composition, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the tire of Ogawa would have a similar brittle temperature as the claimed tire. As Kitago teaches the tire having a cap thickness similar to the claimed tire, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the tire would have a similar relationship between brittle temperature and cap tread thickness as the claimed tire.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights