DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response of December 22, 2025 has been fully considered. Claims 11, 15, and 20 are amended. Claims 11-20 are pending.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11-13, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamada (US 2012/0302664) in view of Ryba et al. (US 2011/0048599) and Meuret et al. (US 2010/0012248).
Regarding claims 11-13, 15, 18, and 19, Kamada teaches a rubber composition for a tire tread comprising 90 parts by mass of a combination of two styrene-butadiene polymers and 10 parts by mass of natural rubber (an isoprene polymer) (Table 2, Examples 1-14) to form 100 parts by mass of a rubber component, from 40 to 100 parts by mass of the total amount of carbon black and silica (reinforcing filler) (¶10), and from 0.1 to 10 parts by mass of a vulcanizing agent (¶34). The rubber composition can also include other additives such as a softener or a plasticizer (¶34). In the rubber component, one of the styrene butadiene polymers is formed by emulsion polymerization, has a styrene content of from 15 to 45% by mass, and a Tg of from -60° C to
-35° C (¶23); the other styrene butadiene polymer is formed by solution polymerization, has a styrene content of from 10 to 45% by mass, and a Tg of from -50° C to -10° C (¶17). The glass transition temperature of natural rubber is from -70° C to -60° C (see, Thermal Properties of Rubber, included previously).
Kamada does not teach that the rubber composition comprises from 15 phr to 50 phr of a resin mixture comprising at least one resin with a softening temperature lower than 50° C in an amount ranging from 5 to 45 phr, and at least one resin with a softening temperature higher than 110° C in an amount ranging from 5 to 45 phr. However, Ryba et al. teaches a rubber composition for tire treads comprising styrene butadiene rubber (¶25-28) and from about 8 to about 30 phr of at least three resins, each resin being present in a range of from about 0.5 to about 10 phr, selected from (1) polyester terephthalate resin having a melting point in a range of from about 20° C to about 26° C (corresponds to resin with a softening temperature lower than 50° C), (2) styrene/alpha methyl styrene resin having a melting point in a range of from about 80° C to about 90° C (corresponds to a resin with a softening temperature ranging from 50° C to 110° C), (3) gum rosin having a melting point in a range of from about 50° C to about 70° C (corresponds to a resin with a softening temperature ranging from 50° C to 110° C), and (4) coumarone indene resin having a melting point in a range of from about 90° C to about 120° C (¶37-41) (corresponds to a resin with a softening temperature higher than 110° C). Kamada and Ryba et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely rubber compositions comprising styrene butadiene rubber and used for tire treads. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add the resin mixture, as taught by Ryba et al., to the rubber composition, as taught by Kamada, and would have been motivated to do so in order to promote a hysteretic property of the rubber composition over a broad temperature range to thereby promote internal dynamic heat generation within the rubber composition to consequently promote an increase of the rubber temperature of the tire tread itself to thereby promote enhanced traction of the tread over ground over a broad tire tread operating temperature range (¶14).
Kamada does not teach that the tire comprises a carcass structure with opposite side edges associated with respective bead structures; a belt structure applied in a radially external position with respect to the carcass structure; and a tread band applied in a radially external position with respect to the carcass structure, the belt structure, or both. However, Meuret et al. teaches a tire comprising a carcass structure having opposite lateral edges associated with respective bead structures, a belt structure applied in a radially external position with respect to the carcass structure; and a tread band radially superimposed on said belt structure (¶27). Kamada and Meuret et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely that of tires comprising styrene butadiene rubber and fillers used for tire treads. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the tread rubber composition to form the tread of a tire, as taught by Kamada, and use the tire tread as part of the overall tire construction, as taught by Meuret et al., and would have been motivated to do so because the claimed tire construction is standard for a pneumatic tire and one of ordinary skill in the art would know to form a tire in this way.
Claims 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamada (US 2012/0302664) in view of Ryba et al. (US 2011/0048599) and Meuret et al. (US 2010/0012248) as applied to claims 11 and 15 above, and further in view of De Gaudemaris et al. (US 2020/0392314).
Kamada, Ryba et al., and Meuret et al. teach the tire of claims 11 and 15 as set forth above. Kamada does not teach that the vinyl content of the emulsion polymerized styrene-butadiene polymer is from 10 to 20%, or that the vinyl content of the solution polymerized styrene-butadiene polymer is from 15 to 65%. However, De Gaudemaris et al. teaches a rubber composition for a tire tread comprising a rubber component comprising from 50 to 100 phr of a styrene-butadiene copolymer and from 0 to 50 phr of an isoprene elastomer (¶6), wherein the vinyl content of either an emulsion polymerized or solution polymerized styrene-butadiene copolymer is from 15 to 80% (¶21). Kamada and De Gaudemaris et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely that of rubber compositions for tire treads that comprising styrene-butadiene copolymer and isoprene rubber. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use an emulsion or solution polymerized styrene-butadiene copolymer with a vinyl content of from 15 to 80%, as taught by De Gaudemaris et al., in the composition, as taught by Kamada, and would have been motivated to do so because De Gaudemaris et al. teaches that this vinyl content in the styrene butadiene copolymer is a suitable amount for styrene-butadiene copolymers used in rubber compositions for tire treads.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamada (US 2012/0302664) in view of Ryba et al. (US 2011/0048599).
Regarding claim 20, Kamada teaches a rubber composition for a tire tread comprising 90 parts by mass of a combination of two styrene-butadiene polymers and 10 parts by mass of natural rubber (an isoprene polymer) (Table 2, Examples 1-14) to form 100 parts by mass of a rubber component, from 40 to 100 parts by mass of the total amount of carbon black and silica (reinforcing filler) (¶10), and from 0.1 to 10 parts by mass of a vulcanizing agent (¶34). The rubber composition can also include other additives such as a softener or a plasticizer (¶34). In the rubber component, one of the styrene butadiene polymers is formed by emulsion polymerization, has a styrene content of from 15 to 45% by mass, and a Tg of from -60° C to
-35° C (¶23); the other styrene butadiene polymer is formed by solution polymerization, has a styrene content of from 10 to 45% by mass, and a Tg of from -50° C to -10° C (¶17). The glass transition temperature of natural rubber is from -70° C to -60° C (see, Thermal Properties of Rubber, included previously).
Kamada does not teach that the rubber composition comprises from 15 phr to 50 phr of a resin mixture comprising at least one resin with a softening temperature lower than 50° C in an amount ranging from 5 to 45 phr, and at least one resin with a softening temperature higher than 110° C in an amount ranging from 5 to 45 phr. However, Ryba et al. teaches a rubber composition for tire treads comprising styrene butadiene rubber (¶25-28) and from about 8 to about 30 phr of at least three resins, each resin being present in a range of from about 0.5 to about 10 phr, selected from (1) polyester terephthalate resin having a melting point in a range of from about 20° C to about 26° C (corresponds to resin with a softening temperature lower than 50° C), (2) styrene/alpha methyl styrene resin having a melting point in a range of from about 80° C to about 90° C (corresponds to a resin with a softening temperature ranging from 50° C to 110° C), (3) gum rosin having a melting point in a range of from about 50° C to about 70° C (corresponds to a resin with a softening temperature ranging from 50° C to 110° C), and (4) coumarone indene resin having a melting point in a range of from about 90° C to about 120° C (¶37-41) (corresponds to a resin with a softening temperature higher than 110° C). Kamada and Ryba et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely rubber compositions comprising styrene butadiene rubber and used for tire treads. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add the resin mixture, as taught by Ryba et al., to the rubber composition, as taught by Kamada and would have been motivated to do so in order to promote a hysteretic property of the rubber composition over a broad temperature range to thereby promote internal dynamic heat generation within the rubber composition to consequently promote an increase of the rubber temperature of the tire tread itself to thereby promote enhanced traction of the tread over ground over a broad tire tread operating temperature range (¶14).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kamada does not teach a styrene-butadiene polymer with a Tg within the claimed range of -45° C to -15°C, but instead teaches a styrene-butadiene polymer with a Tg of from -53° C to -49°C (Examples, Table 2). Applicant argues that this styrene-butadiene polymer cannot be included in the composition due to the closed claim language used to claim the elastomeric polymer component. Further, applicant argues that while Kamada does teach a broader range of Tg for the styrene-butadiene polymer of from -60° C to -35° C (¶23), that this teaching is not enough to lead one of ordinary skill in the art to choose a styrene-butadiene polymer with a Tg within the claimed range. This argument is unpersuasive.
As stated by applicant, Kamada does teach that the Tg of the styrene-butadiene polymer used in the composition is preferably -60° C to -35° C. This range does overlap with the claimed range of -45° C to -15°C. In the case where the claimed ranges “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). See MPEP 2144.05. Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). MPEP 2123. The Tg range taught by Kamada is a preferable range for the Tg of the styrene-butadiene polymer and it does indeed have overlap with the claimed range. Therefore, the broader teaching of Kamada is sufficient to suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a styrene-butadiene polymer with a Tg which does fall into the range claimed by applicant. This argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in art would not combine the references of Kamada and Ryba et al. because they are at odds with each other due to their stated goals and due to their specific combination of rubbers used. These arguments are unpersuasive.
First, as for the references being at odds regarding the goals for their individual rubber compositions, applicant argues that Kamada seeks to lower rolling resistance (to get better fuel economy) and that Ryba et al. seeks to enhance traction by the incorporation of the resin components, and that these two properties are opposites. While it is true that these two properties of the tire are opposing goals, most tires are not seeking to only optimize one property. Kamada wants to seek a balance between rolling resistance performance, wet performance, and wear performance. It is well known to those of skill in the tire art that it is often preferable to give up a little in one property to have a gain in another. Therefore, the Office still finds that it would have been obvious to use the resins of Ryba et al. in the composition of Kamada to enhance traction because it is clear that the overall goal of Kamada is to produce a tire with balanced properties. Further, to have good wet performance, traction is often needed.
Second, as for not combining the references due to differing specific rubber combinations, this argument is unpersuasive. The rubber component of the instant claims is taught by Kamada as discussed above. Ryba et al. does not need to teach the specifically claimed rubber component nor must the rubber component of Ryba et al. be combined with that of Kamada. Both compositions teach using a majority amount of styrene-butadiene rubber and that is enough of a similarity to conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use additives of one composition in the other with a reasonable expectation of success for making the combination. These arguments are unpersuasive.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA C SCOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00, EST.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/ANGELA C SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights