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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/03/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments entered on 12/03/2025 have been accepted. Claims 1 and 13 are amended. Claim 9 is canceled. Claims 1-8 and 10-16 are pending, and claim 2 is withdrawn from consideration. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objections previously set forth.
The declaration under 37 C.F.R. 1.132 filed 12/03/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1, 3-8, and 10-16 based upon 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth because:
It is noted that in declarations, opinion evidence is entitled to consideration and some weight so long as the opinion is not on the ultimate legal conclusion at issue. While an opinion as to a legal conclusion is not entitled to any weight, the underlying basis for the opinion may be persuasive. In re Chilowsky, 306 F.2d 908, 134 USPQ 515 (CCPA 1962). It is further noted that “In assessing the probative value of an expert opinion, the examiner must consider the nature of the matter sought to be established, the strength of any opposing evidence, the interest of the expert in the outcome of the case, and the presence or absence of factual support for the expert’s opinion. Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 227 USPQ 657 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986). See MPEP 716.01(c). In this case, it is noted that much of the declaration is tied to opinion arguments (see paragraph 5, “In my opinion…”), and these arguments are given the proper amount of weight.
Paragraphs 6-7 and 9 include statements which amount to an affirmation that the claimed subject matter functions as it was intended to function. This is not relevant to the issue of nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter and provides no objective evidence thereof. See MPEP § 716.
Paragraphs 8-9 includes arguments and a citation to the NHTSA reference that the tread layer and the underlayer have different purposes and the materials are chosen respectively for these different purposes. Kemppainen’s statements demonstrate why the instant application decided to apply their inventive composition to the underlayer of the tread. While each of these factors may be true (and demonstrate the rationale behind some of the determinations of the invention), this does not overcome the obviousness of providing the composition of Ryba/Mangili in the undertread of the tire. Ryba specifically states that the composition may be utilized in a tread (including cap and base) [0071]. A fair reading of Ryba [0071] suggests that the cap and base are not required to have the same composition (as otherwise the cap/base structure would be a singular tread component and not have the cited structure). And Mangili specifically states that the tread may have the cap-and-base structure where the composition may be utilized in “one or both layers” [0132]. Given that there exist a finite number of identified predictable solutions in each of the references, it would have been obvious to utilize this composition exclusively in the base component in the tread to achieve the respective beneficial properties of the compositions. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Paragraph 10 includes arguments that the prior art does not teach or suggest a tire with an underlayer comprising the two-phase polymer system and a tread layer having a different composition. See responses above regarding the obviousness of Ryba/Mangili regarding the use in the underlayer. The declaration argues that the required two-phase polymer system is a result of having the suitable elastomers with low miscibility towards each other (as a result of the glass transition temperatures) with the specific use of NR which is biogenic in origin with a MW from 100,000 to 1,000,000 and SBR which is S-SBR. It is noted that the amended rejections below satisfy each of these requirements (with new reference being applied to suggest the MW range), such that the claimed two-phase polymer system would be obvious over each of the combinations of Ryba/Mangili.
Paragraph 10 argues that the molecular weight of natural rubber may range from 104 to 106, which is much broader than the newly claimed range of 105 to 106. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. This cited range in the declaration (citing to J. Sci Technol) entirely encompasses the claimed range of from 105 to 106 (100,000 to 1,000,000). 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). Therefore, the cited range in the declaration actually suggest the obviousness of such a claimed range. In addition, Applicant has not provided any evidence of criticality or unexpected results of their claimed range compared to the prior art, such that arguments tied to the “broader” range of J. Sci Technol compared to the claimed ranged are not persuasive, as the person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to work within this wide range so as to find the optimum MW for the composition.
Paragraph 11 argues that NR and S-SBR are not inherently poorly miscible. The declaration cites to both Han and Polymers as evidence that NR and S-SBR are not inherently poorly miscible, as Han has NR and S-SBR in a homogeneous phase (as demonstrated by a single glass transition temperature across all blend ratios) and Polymers has a single relaxation peak (indicating miscibility). The Examiner does not find this evidence convincing in overcoming the allegations of inherency in the prior art. Both of the evidentiary references submitted are not commensurate in scope to the prior art that is applied in the rejections of record, nor is it commensurate to the claims. As indicated in the declaration paragraph 7, the inventions’ immiscibility is a result of NR and S-SBR having glass transition temperatures which are sufficiently far apart and in a predefined temperature range, which results in S-SBR becoming gradually glassy while NR remains rubbery. Notably, the prior art references of Ryba and Mangili each satisfy all of the claimed glass transition temperature ranges, such that they would not have the overlapping glass transition temperature of Han and Polymers. As in the respective rejections, Ryba suggests SSBR which may have a Tg from -30C to -10C (equivalent to 243K to 263K) [0005, 0013, 0021], and Natural Rubber with a Tg from -60C to -70C (equivalent to 203K to 213K). This results in both the glass transition temperatures with a difference of larger than 20K, AND meeting the more preferred ranges as in dependent claim 4. And similarly in the rejections of Mangili, the SSBR may have a Tg from -45C to -15C (equivalent to 228K to 258K) and the NR may have a Tg from -80C to -50C (equivalent to 193K to 223K) [0013]. Again, Mangili satisfies each of the preferred ranges of its glass transition temperatures. In stark contrast, the evidentiary references of Han and Polymers both only have single peaks (such that they do not have the same properties as demonstrated by Ryba/Mangili and by the instant application). Therefore, the evidentiary references submitted in this declaration (which both have glass transition temperatures of the two components that are demonstrated by single temperatures/peaks) is substantially divergent from Ryba/Mangili which explicitly suggest the preferred glass transition temperatures (which Applicant details as a prime factor on the miscibility characteristics). Where Ryba and Mangili each satisfy the preferred ranges of the composition and glass transition temperature ranges, it would reasonably be considered that these references would similarly necessarily be immiscible towards each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-8, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryba (US2021/0079198A1, of record), in view of Skurich (US2009/0151845A1, of record), in view of Sakurai (US2018/0312002A1), and optionally in view of Tadiello (US2020/0095387A1, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Ryba teaches a pneumatic tire [0011] which may have a tread with a tread cap and tread base [0071], wherein the rubber composition as taught by Ryba may be employed in the tread base (synonymous with underlayer) [0071]. The underlayer would necessarily be “thermally adaptive”, as the properties of all rubber change significantly with changes in temperature. For example, the underlayer specifies glass transition temperatures [abstract], wherein it is well known that a polymer undergoes a transition over this temperature from a rigid state to a more flexible state. The composition of Ryba may include fillers such as silica and carbon black [0007-0008], additives [0066-0067], curing agents [0067], and a polymer system [0012].
Ryba teaches a first elastomer of the polymer system being 25 to 35phr of a styrene-butadiene rubber [0012], wherein the first elastomer may be a solution polymerized styrene-butadiene [0005] having a glass transition temperature Tg ranging from -30C to -10C [0005, 0013, 0021], equivalent to 243K to 263K.
Ryba further teaches that a second elastomer of the polymer system is 35 to 45 phr of a natural rubber [0012], wherein the natural rubber has a glass transition temperature from -60C to -70C [0013], equivalent to 203 to 213K. This amount of natural rubber is clearly above the at least 20 parts per hundred as claimed. The natural rubber is polyisoprene and may be “natural” and not synthetic [0029]. The natural rubber would therefore necessarily be “biogenic” in origin, meaning that it comes from natural sources.
Optionally applied regarding the natural rubber being from a biogenic origin, Tadiello teaches a tire with a composition which may be used for an underlayer [0164]. The composition comprises a natural rubber that is obtained from tropical plants such as Hevea Brasiliensis [0069]. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on suitability for its intended use support prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045)". See MPEP 2144.07. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize the well-known type of natural rubber (Hevea) as suggested by Tadiello in the composition of Ryba with a reasonable expectation of success, as an example of a selection of a known material based on suitability for its intended purpose (i.e, a natural rubber which is from biogenic origins in a tire composition in a tread underlayer).
Ryba does not specifically give the molecular weight of its natural rubber from 100,000 to 1,000,000 g/mol. However, this is a very broad range and an extremely common range for natural rubber to be. Sakurai provides a rubber composition which may be used for the tread rubber [abstract], where the composition may include natural rubber [0072]. The molecular weight of natural rubber may range from 50,000 to 700,000 [0073]. 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 before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the composition of Ryba so as to have the MW as suggested by Sakurai, as Ryba is silent as to the specific MW of its natural rubber. One would have been motivated so as to obtain good breaking resistance, wear resistance, and processability [0073].
Ryba teaches that the difference between the two glass transition temperatures is larger than 20K (as above, the SSBR may range from 243-263K, and the natural rubber ranges from 203-213K. Therefore, the difference between the temperatures would necessarily be at least 30K regardless of which temperatures were specifically chosen). The testing method of the glass transition temperatures are according to standard ASTM D7426 or equivalent [0027], wherein a reading is taken at a linear rate of 10 degrees per minute [0027]. In this manner, ASTM D7426 is substantially similar to the measurement method of ISO 11357-2, such that the specific values would similarly be expected to be substantially similar. Additionally, as Ryba states that other similar testing methods may be utilized, the testing method of ISO 11357-2 would similarly be employed in Ryba which would obtain similar Tg values.
Ryba does not specifically state that the elastomers have low miscibility towards each other. It is considered that the component of Ryba would have the elastomers with low miscibility would implicitly be achieved, as "When the claimed and prior art products of identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established”, see MPEP 2112.01 I. And further, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”, see MPEP 2112.01 II. In this case, because the component of Ryba has the same elastomers (SSBR and Natural Rubber) at the same concentrations, and because Ryba has each of these elastomers at substantially the same glass transition temperatures (including the difference between temperatures being larger than 20K) the component would therefore also have the elastomers having low miscibility towards each other. And similarly, because the polymer system as detailed herein satisfies each of the preferred aspects of the invention (elastomer types, molecular weight, biogenic origin, concentration, glass transition temperatures and differences) it would reasonably be suggested that the polymer system would be the continuous matrix of natural rubber with discrete zones of the SSBR because of the immiscibility properties towards each other. It being noted that the Declaration filed 12/03/2025 paragraph 10 specifies that each of these factors result in the two-phase polymer system as claimed, such that as modified Ryba meets each of these aspects it would clearly satisfy the claimed polymer system.
Ryba specifies that the rubber composition may be employed in the tread, including as the tread cap and tread base [0071]. A fair reading of Ryba [0071] suggests that the cap and base are not required to have the same composition (as otherwise the cap/base structure would be a singular tread component and not have the cited structure). Therefore, Ryba is clearly suggesting the use of the composition in either the cap or base when there is a cap/base structure. Ryba therefore provides “a finite number of identified predictable solutions” regarding the placement of its composition into the tread, wherein the use of the composition in one of the tread regions would result in improved properties [see Table 2, 0001-0002]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try both of the identified possible locations of the composition in the tread component with an expectation of these cited improved properties, and they would have found it obvious to have the composition exclusively in the underlayer with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 I. E.
Ryba does not specifically state that its tire has a textile component radially beneath the underlayer of the pneumatic tire. However, such structures are ubiquitous in the art of tires to provide additional structure/stability to the tire. Skurich, for example, is tied to a pneumatic tire which has a cap/underlayer tread design [Fig. 2], wherein a plurality of textile components is included radially below the underlayer to provide structure to the tire. The textile components include a belt structure “8”, and a carcass “12” which are both located in the tread region. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the tire of Ryba to have textile components such as the belt/carcass of Skurich. One would have been motivated to include these conventional aspects in the tire of Ryba for the conventional benefits of improved stability, structure, load, etc. with a reasonable expectation of success [0036-0039].
Regarding claim 4, modified Ryba makes obvious a tire wherein the first elastomer has the glass transition temperature ranging from 235K to 260K and the second elastomer natural rubber has a glass transition temperature of less than 215K (as in the rejection of claim 1 above, the solution styrene-butadiene may have a Tg ranging from 243 to 263K [0005, 0021]. And the natural rubber may have a Tg ranging from 203 to 213K [0013]. 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 5, modified Ryba makes obvious a tire wherein the thermally adaptive underlayer component contains the reinforcing filler material in an amount equal to or higher than 30 parts per hundred rubber (the composition may include 60 to 80phr of prehydrophobateed silica [0015] and 1-10phr of carbon black [0016], wherein these components are well understood to be types of fillers. See also Table 1, wherein the amount of these fillers in Sample 2 is 71phr).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ryba makes obvious silica that has a specific surface area from 70 to 250m2/g (the silica may have a surface area from 80 to 300m2/g [0060]. 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)).
Ryba further makes obvious any combination of carbon black and silica (see Table 1 sample 2, which utilized both Silica and Carbon black. Also, [0015-0016] wherein amounts of both silica and carbon black are included).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ryba makes obvious a tire wherein the thermally adaptive underlayer contains polybutadiene rubber from 0-30parts (the composition includes 25 to 35phr of a polybutadiene [0004]), wherein the polybutadiene is a cis-1,4 polybutadiene (the polybutadiene is a cis 1,4 polybutadiene [0005, Table 1], and wherein the polybutadiene has a glass transition temp from 160K to 193K (the polybutadiene has a Tg ranging from -110 to -90C [0005]. This is equivalent to 163 to 183K, such that it is entirely within the claimed range. And as noted previously regarding the testing method of the glass transition temperatures, the Tg is obtained through a substantially similar process through a similar standard ASTM D7426 [0027], such that the specific values of glass transitional temperature would be substantially similar).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ryba makes obvious a tire wherein the underlayer includes additive in an amount from 1-30parts (the composition includes 5 to 25phr of at least one hydrocarbon resin [0010]), wherein the additive is a resin that is selected from the specified group (the resin may be aromatic [0036-0037] or terpene [0034], as a few examples), wherein the resin has a high miscibility towards the first elastomer (the instant specification lists that hydrocarbon resins which are of the specified group in the claim, including aromatic resins and terpene resins, have high miscibility towards the SSBR [see pg. 25 of the instant specification]. Therefore, the aromatic or terpene resins of Ryba would reasonably be considered to have a high miscibility towards the SSBR, as "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”, see MPEP 2112.01 II),
Wherein the glass transition temp is above the freezing temp of water (the resins have a Tg greater than 20C [0010]).
Regarding claims 12-13, modified Ryba makes obvious a tire wherein the underlayer produces two peak maximums at temperatures separated by at least 35K, with one peak from 273-290K and the second from 213-238K (it is noted that the instant specification pg. 9 details that when an underlayer contains the polymer system described above, the “two peak maximums” at the required temperatures are produced. In other words, the two peak maximums are a direct result of the composition and the glass transition temperatures of the polymer system containing the first and the second elastomers. It is considered, the claimed two peak maximum would implicitly be achieved, as "When the claimed and prior art products of identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established”, see MPEP 2112.01 I. And further, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”, see MPEP 2112.01 II. Because Ryba teaches an underlayer composition which has SSBR within the preferred ranges of the instant application, 25-35phr and Tg from 243K to 263K [0004-0005] (compared to the most preferred Tg of 240-255K), and containing natural rubber at 35-45phr and 203 to 213K [0013] (compared to the most preferred Tg of less than 215K), it would be reasonably suggested that the composition would similarly produce the two peak maximums as required in the claim. Additionally, it is noted that Ryba satisfies all other preferred ranges for its compositional aspects, see rejection of claim 15 below which details each of these aspects).
Regarding claim 14, modified Ryba makes obvious a tire wherein the underlayer comprises a dynamic stiffness onset point temperature which is in the range of 278K to 300K (it is noted that the instant specification pg. 9 details that when an underlayer contains the polymer system described above, the result is “a dynamic stiffness E* onset point temperature which is in a range of 278K to 300K”. in other words, the dynamic stiffness E* onset point temperature is a direct result of the composition and the glass temperatures of the polymer system containing the first and second elastomers. It is considered, the dynamic stiffness onset point temperature would implicitly be achieved, as "When the claimed and prior art products of identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established”, see MPEP 2112.01 I. And further, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”, see MPEP 2112.01 II. Because Ryba teaches an underlayer composition which has SSBR within the preferred ranges of the instant application, 25-35phr and Tg from 243K to 263K [0004-0005] (compared to the most preferred Tg of 240-255K), and containing natural rubber at 35-45phr and 203 to 213K [0013] (compared to the most preferred Tg of less than 215K), it would be reasonably suggested that the composition would similarly produce the onset point temperature within the range of 278 to 300K. Additionally, it is noted that Ryba satisfies all other preferred ranges for its compositional aspects, see rejection of claim 15 below which details each of these aspects, such that it is further made clear that the underlayer would have this property).
Regarding claim 15, modified Ryba makes obvious a tire wherein the thermally adaptive underlayer comprises natural rubber from 20 to 80phr (35 to 45phr [0004]),
Solution-polymerized styrene-butadiene rubber (25 to 35phr [0005, 0021]),
Polybutadiene rubber in the range of 0 to 30phr (25 to 35phr of polybutadiene [0012]),
Reinforcing filler material in the range of 30 to 80phr (60 to 80phr of silica [0050] and 1 to 10phr of carbon black [0016]),
Resin that has a high miscibility towards the first elastomer in the range of 1 to 30phr (the composition includes 5 to 25phr of at least one hydrocarbon resin [0010]. The resin may be aromatic [0036-0037] or terpene [0034], as a few examples. The instant specification lists that hydrocarbon resins which are of the specified group in the claim, including aromatic resins and terpene resins, have high miscibility towards the SSBR [see pg. 25 of the instant specification]. Therefore, the aromatic or terpene resins of Ryba would reasonably be considered to have a high miscibility towards the SSBR, as "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”, see MPEP 2112.01 II),
Oil in the range of 0 to 30phr (it is noted that oil is not specifically required. However, oil may range from 1-3phr [0048]),
Antidegradants ranging from 0 to 10phr (these are not specifically required),
ZnO from 2 to 4phr (the composition may include zinc oxide from 2 to 5phr [0067]),
Stearic acid from 1 to3phr (the composition may include stearic acid from 0.5 to 3phr [0067]),
Vulcanization accelerators from 1 to 5phr (the amout of the accelerator may range from 0.5 to 4phr [0068]),
Sulphur from 1 to 5phr (the amount of sulfur may range from 1-10phr [0066], r 0.5 to 8phr [0067]). 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryba (US2021/0079198A1, of record), in view of Skurich (US2009/0151845A1, of record), in view of Sakurai (US2018/0312002A1), and optionally in view of Tadiello (US2020/0095387A1, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of either Kanbara (US2020/0207956A1, of record) or Sekine (US2018/0179364, of record).
Regarding claim 3, Ryba does not explicitly give the styrene and vinyl content of its ssbr. Kanbara teaches a tire with a rubber composition which has SBR which may be ssbr [0041, 0051]. The styrene content of the SBR’s would preferably range from 5 to 50% by mass [0037]. The vinyl content in the SBR’s range from 0.1 to 80% with respect to the amount of butadiene-derived units contained in the SBR [0037-0038]. This is a wide range that would reasonably be considered to significantly overlap with the claimed 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). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the SSBR of Ryba to have the amounts of styrene/vinyl as suggested by Kanbara because Ryba is silent as to its preferred ranges. One would have been motivated to improve the properties of the tire such as wet grip, strength, abrasion resistance, steering stability [0036-0040].
Alternatively, Sekine teaches a tire with a rubber composition which may be applied to the undertread [0079]. The composition has SBR which may be made via solution polymerization [0059], such that it is highly relevant to Ryba. The styrene content is preferably from 10 to 40% by wt% [0024]. The vinyl content is preferably from 20% to 50% by mol compared to the butadiene, wherein the measurement method is 1H-NMR [0057]. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the composition of the ssbr of Ryba to have the percentages of styrene/vinyl suggested by Sekine. One would have been motivated so as to balance wet skid and wear resistance [0024, 0057].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryba (US2021/0079198A1, of record), in view of Skurich (US2009/0151845A1, of record), in view of Sakurai (US2018/0312002A1), and optionally in view of Tadiello (US2020/0095387A1, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oshimo (US2022/0371372A1, of record) or Sandstrom (US5997673A, of record).
Regarding claim 10, Ryba is silent as to the specific thickness of the underlayer. However, it is very common in the art for underlayers to have a thickness less than 7mm. Oshimo, for example, teaches a tire which may be used on passenger vehicles or other vehicles [0021, 0100] (similar to Ryba [see 0072]). Oshimo has a cap/base rubber layer configuration in its tread [see Fig. 1]. The sum of the thickness of the cap and base layers combined is from 5.5 to 8.5mm [0082]. Under such an arrangement, the base layer would necessarily be 7mm or less at least when the combined thickness is 7mm. 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 tread layers of Ryba to have a thickness as suggested by Oshimo. One would have been motivated to provide good abrasion resistance and handling stability [0082].
Alternatively, Sandstrom teaches a pneumatic tire with a cap/base rubber layer arrangement [Fig. 1]. The thickness of the base rubber portion “12” is conventionally in a range from 0.6mm to 2mm for passenger tires using conventional passenger wheel rims [Col5 L34+]. Ryba may similarly be tied to passenger tires [0072]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the base rubber thickness to the tire of Ryba because Ryba is silent as to the thickness and Sandstrom indicates that these are conventionally used values. One would have been additionally motivated improve rolling resistance [Col5 L34+].
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryba (US2021/0079198A1, of record), in view of Skurich (US2009/0151845A1, of record), in view of Sakurai (US2018/0312002A1), and optionally in view of Tadiello (US2020/0095387A1, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of De Barsy (US2009/0095387A1, of record).
Regarding claims 11 and 16, Ryba does not specifically state that the tire comprises sipes. However, sipes are ubiquitous within the art of tires as means for improving traction and they would have been obvious to include in the tread thereof. Barsy, for example, teaches that the pneumatic tire tread includes narrow grooves called sipes [0005]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include sipes in the tire tread of Ryba. One would have been motivated to form additional edges in the tread elements that improve traction performance in all road conditions [Barsy, 0005].
Claims 1, 3-8, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangili (WO2022254328A1, citing to English Equivalent US2024/0253395A1, of record), in view of Sakurai (US2018/0312002A1), and optionally in view of Tadiello (US2020/0095387A1, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Mangili teaches a pneumatic tire (Fig. 1) comprising an underlayer (“111”, forming the base of the cap and base structure [0132]) positioned between a textile component and a tread layer (“111” is formed between the cap “109” and the textiles which is the belt and carcass structures “101” and “106” [Fig. 1]. Additionally, Mangili specifies that the base layer may be made with the inventive compound [0132]), wherein the underlayer is a thermally adaptive rubber component (The underlayer would necessarily be “thermally adaptive”, as the properties of all rubber change significantly with changes in temperature. For example, the underlayer specifies glass transition temperatures [abstract], wherein it is well known that a polymer undergoes a transition over this temperature from a rigid state to a more flexible state), which contains reinforcing filler material (filler from 10 to 120phr [0101]), additive (may comprise commonly used additives [0120]), curing agents (accelerants are utilized [0116]), and a polymer system comprising:
a first elastomer at 20-80phr of solution-polymerized styrene-butadiene rubber (a styrene-butadiene polymer has an amount ranging from 40 to 100phr [0013]. The SBR may be an S-SBR [0067]), where the first elastomer has a first glass transition temperature (the SBR have a glass transition temperature Tg from -45C to -15C [0013], equivalent to 228K to 258K),
a second elastomer higher than 20phr which is natural rubber with a second glass transition temperature (the component may comprise isoprene rubber from 0 to 30phr. 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 isoprene rubber is preferably a natural rubber [0077], where the natural rubber is polyisoprene and may be “natural” and not synthetic [0029]. The natural rubber would therefore necessarily be “biogenic” in origin, meaning that it comes from natural sources. The glass transition temperature ranges from -80C to -50C [0013], equivalent to 193K to 223K),
Optionally applied regarding the natural rubber being from a biogenic origin, Tadiello teaches a tire with a composition which may be used for an underlayer [0164]. The composition comprises a natural rubber that is obtained from tropical plants such as Hevea Brasiliensis [0069]. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on suitability for its intended use support prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045)". See MPEP 2144.07. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize the well-known type of natural rubber (Hevea) as suggested by Tadiello in the composition of Mangili with a reasonable expectation of success, as an example of a selection of a known material based on suitability for its intended purpose (i.e, a natural rubber which is from biogenic origins in a tire composition in a tread underlayer).
Mangili does not specifically give the molecular weight of its natural rubber from 100,000 to 1,000,000 g/mol. However, this is a very broad range and an extremely common range for natural rubber to be. Sakurai provides a rubber composition which may be used for the tread rubber [abstract], where the composition may include natural rubber [0072]. The molecular weight of natural rubber may range from 50,000 to 700,000 [0073]. 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 before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the composition of Mangili so as to have the MW as suggested by Sakurai, as Mangili is silent as to the specific MW of its natural rubber. One would have been motivated so as to obtain good breaking resistance, wear resistance, and processability [0073].
Mangili teaches that the difference between the two glass transition temperatures has a difference greater than 20K (with a first Tg of 228K to 258K and a second Tg from 193K to 223K, the difference would be greater than 20K in a multitude of embodiments. At midpoints, the temps would be 243K and 208K for example, which is a difference of well above 20K. The testing method of the glass transition temperatures are according to standard ASTM D7426 or other well-known methods known within the art [0083]. Therefore, it would clearly be considered that the measurement method of ISO 11357-2 is a substantially equivalent testing method of Tg within the art, such that the values obtained via this testing method would be substantially similar to those via ASTM D7426 or other methods known within the art).
Mangili does not specifically state that the elastomers have low miscibility towards each other. It is considered that the component of Mangili would have the elastomers with low miscibility would implicitly be achieved, as "When the claimed and prior art products of identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established”, see MPEP 2112.01 I. And further, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”, see MPEP 2112.01 II. In this case, because the component of Mangili has the same elastomers (SSBR and Natural Rubber) at the same concentrations, and because Mangili has each of these elastomers at substantially the same glass transition temperatures (including the difference between temperatures being larger than 20K) the component would therefore also have the elastomers having low miscibility towards each other. And similarly, because the polymer system as detailed herein satisfies each of the preferred aspects of the invention (elastomer types, molecular weight, biogenic origin, concentration, glass transition temperatures and differences) it would reasonably be suggested that the polymer system would be the continuous matrix of natural rubber with discrete zones of the SSBR because of the immiscibility properties towards each other. It being noted that the Declaration filed 12/03/2025 paragraph 10 specifies that each of these factors result in the two-phase polymer system as claimed, such that as modified Mangili meets each of these aspects it would clearly satisfy the claimed polymer system.
Mangili specifies that the rubber composition may be employed in one of the cap-and-base structure when the tire has a two-layer structure [0131-0132]. Therefore, Mangili is clearly suggesting the use of the composition in either the cap or the base. Mangili is providing “a finite number of identified predictable solutions” regarding the placement of its composition into the tread, wherein the use of the composition in the tread region results in a resistance to wear and the formation of cracks [0132]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try both of the identified possible locations of the composition in the tread component with an expectation of these cited improved properties, and they would have found it obvious to have the composition exclusively in the underlayer with a reasonable expectations of success. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 3, Mangili makes obvious a tire wherein the SSBR has as styrene content from 25 to 45% by mass (styrene ranging from 20-45% by weight [0060]) and vinyl content from 33 to 65% relative to the butadiene (vinyl percent ranging from 10 to 70% with respect to butadiene [0060]. Because the weights of vinyl and butadiene are similar, it would be reasonably expected that the mol% content would substantially overlap with the claimed range, as the molecular weights may be 62.5 for Vinyl and ~54 for Butadiene, for example. 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, Mangili makes obvious a tire wherein the first elastomer has the glass transition temperature ranging from 235K to 260K and the second elastomer natural rubber has a glass transition temperature of less than 215K (as in the rejection of claim 1 above, the solution styrene-butadiene may have a Tg ranging from 228K to 258K [0013]. And the natural rubber may have a Tg ranging from 193 to 223K [0013]. 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 5, Mangili makes obvious a tire wherein the thermally adaptive underlayer component contains the reinforcing filler material in an amount equal to or higher than 30 parts per hundred rubber (the composition may include filler in amounts from 10 to 120phr [0101]).
Regarding claim 6, Mangili makes obvious carbon black surface area from 20-140 m2/g (the carbon black surface area is greater than 20 m2/g [0102]),
or silica has a surface area from 70 to 250 m2/g (the silica surface area may range from 120-220 m2/g [0104]),
or a combination of carbon black and silica (see Tables 1 and 3 which clearly shows the carbon black and silica used together).
Regarding claim 7, Mangili makes obvious a tire wherein the thermally adaptive underlayer contains polybutadiene rubber from 0-30parts (it is noted that the composition is not required to have polybutadiene rubber present).
Regarding claim 8, Mangili makes obvious a tire wherein the underlayer contains an additive in an amount from 1 to 30 parts (the composition includes 10-50phr of a resin mixture [0013]), the resin is selected from the specified group (the resins may be aromatic [0007-0008], phenolic [0086], terpene [0089], rosin [0095]), wherein the resin has a high miscibility towards the first elastomer (the instant specification lists that hydrocarbon resins which are of the specified group in the claim, including aromatic resins, phenol resin, etc., have high miscibility towards the SSBR [see pg. 25 of the instant specification]. Therefore, the resins of Ryba would reasonably be considered to have a high miscibility towards the SSBR, as "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”, see MPEP 2112.01 II),
The resin has a glass transition temp above the freezing point of water (see 0081-0083. Additionally, at least one of the resins is a high temperature softening resin with temperatures greater than 110C [0013], such that this clearly have a glass transition temp above 0C).
Regarding claims 12-13, modified Mangili makes obvious a tire wherein the underlayer produces two peak maximums at temperatures separated by at least 35K, with one peak from 273-290K and the second from 213-238K (it is noted that the instant specification pg. 9 details that when an underlayer contains the polymer system described above, the “two peak maximums” at the required temperatures are produced. In other words, the two peak maximums are a direct result of the composition and the glass transition temperatures of the polymer system containing the first and the second elastomers. It is considered, the claimed two peak maximum would implicitly be achieved, as "When the claimed and prior art products of identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established”, see MPEP 2112.01 I. And further, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”, see MPEP 2112.01 II. Because Mangili teaches an underlayer composition which has SSBR within the preferred ranges of the instant application, 40+ phr and Tg from 228K to 258K [0013] (compared to the most preferred Tg of 240-255K), and containing natural rubber at 0-30 phr and 193 to 223K [0013] (compared to the most preferred Tg of less than 215K), it would be reasonably suggested that the composition would similarly produce the two peak maximums as required in the claim. Additionally, it is noted that Mangili satisfies all other preferred ranges for its compositional aspects, see rejection of claim 15 below which details each of these aspects).
Regarding claim 14, modified Mangili makes obvious a tire wherein the underlayer comprises a dynamic stiffness onset point temperature which is in the range of 278K to 300K (it is noted that the instant specification pg. 9 details that when an underlayer contains the polymer system described above, the result is “a dynamic stiffness E* onset point temperature which is in a range of 278K to 300K”. in other words, the dynamic stiffness E* onset point temperature is a direct result of the composition and the glass temperatures of the polymer system containing the first and second elastomers. It is considered, the dynamic stiffness onset point temperature would implicitly be achieved, as "When the claimed and prior art products of identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established”, see MPEP 2112.01 I. And further, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”, see MPEP 2112.01 II. Because Mangili teaches an underlayer composition which has SSBR within the preferred ranges of the instant application, 40+ phr and Tg from 228K to 258K [0013] (compared to the most preferred Tg of 240-255K), and containing natural rubber at 0-30 phr and 193 to 223K [0013] (compared to the most preferred Tg of less than 215K), it would be reasonably suggested that the composition would similarly produce the onset point temperature within the range of 278 to 300K. Additionally, it is noted that Mangili satisfies all other preferred ranges for its compositional aspects, see rejection of claim 15 below which details each of these aspects, such that it is further made clear that the underlayer would have this property).
Regarding claim 15, modified Mangili makes obvious a tire wherein the thermally adaptive underlayer comprises natural rubber from 20 to 80phr (0 to 30phr [0013]),
Solution-polymerized styrene-butadiene rubber from 20 to 80phr (40+phr [0013]),
Polybutadiene rubber in the range of 0 to 30phr (this component is not specifically required),
Reinforcing filler material in the range of 30 to 80phr (filler is provided from 10 to 120phr [0101]),
Resin that has a high miscibility towards the first elastomer in the range of 1 to 30phr (the composition includes 10-50phr of a resin mixture [0013]), the resin is selected from the specified group (the resins may be aromatic [0007-0008], phenolic [0086], terpene [0089], rosin [0095]. The instant specification lists that hydrocarbon resins which are of the specified group in the claim, including aromatic resins, phenol resin, etc., have high miscibility towards the SSBR [see pg. 25 of the instant specification]. Therefore, the resins of Ryba would reasonably be considered to have a high miscibility towards the SSBR, as "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”, see MPEP 2112.01 II),
Oil in the range of 0 to 30phr (it is noted that oil is not specifically required. However, oil may be present at 2phr [see Tables]),
Antidegradants ranging from 0 to 10phr (these are not specifically required, but may have a value of 5phr [see Tables]),
ZnO from 2 to 4phr (the composition may include zinc oxide from 0.5 to 10phr [0114-0115]),
Stearic acid from 1 to3phr (the composition may include stearic acid at similar amounts as ZnO [0114-0115, Tables]),
Vulcanization accelerators from 1 to 5phr (the amount of the accelerator may range from 0.5 to 10phr [0117]),
Sulphur from 1 to 5phr (the amount of sulfur may range from 0.1 to 12phr [0112-0113]. 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)).
In the alternate, claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangili (WO2022254328A1, citing to English Equivalent US2024/0253395A1, of record), in view of Sakurai (US2018/0312002A1), and optionally in view of Tadiello (US2020/0095387A1, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sekine (US2018/0179364, of record).
Regarding claim 3, Sekine teaches a tire with a rubber composition which may be applied to the undertread [0079]. The composition has SBR which may be made via solution polymerization [0059], such that it is highly relevant to Mangili. The styrene content is preferably from 10 to 40% by wt% [0024]. The vinyl content is preferably from 20% to 50% by mol compared to the butadiene, wherein the measurement method is 1H-NMR [0057]. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the composition of the ssbr of Mangili to have the percentages of styrene/vinyl suggested by Sekine. One would have been motivated so as to balance wet skid and wear resistance [0024, 0057].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangili (WO2022254328A1, citing to English Equivalent US2024/0253395A1, of record), in view of Sakurai (US2018/0312002A1), and optionally in view of Tadiello (US2020/0095387A1, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oshimo (US2022/0371372A1, of record) or Sandstrom (US5997673A, of record).
Regarding claim 10, Magili is silent as to the specific thickness of the underlayer. However, it is very common in the art for underlayers to have a thickness less than 7mm. Oshimo, for example, teaches a tire which may be used on passenger vehicles or any other vehicles [0021, 0100]. Oshimo has a cap/base rubber layer configuration in its tread [see Fig. 1]. The sum of the thickness of the cap and base layers combined is from 5.5 to 8.5mm [0082]. Under such an arrangement, the base layer would necessarily be 7mm or less at least when the combined thickness is 7mm. 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 tread layers of Magili to have a thickness as suggested by Oshimo. One would have been motivated to provide good abrasion resistance and handling stability [0082].
Alternatively, Sandstrom teaches a pneumatic tire with a cap/base rubber layer arrangement [Fig. 1]. The thickness of the base rubber portion “12” is conventionally in a range from 0.6mm to 2mm for passenger tires using conventional passenger wheel rims [Col5 L34+]. Magili does not restrict its inventive tire to any specific use. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the base rubber thickness to the tire of Magili because Magili is silent as to the thickness and Sandstrom indicates that these are conventionally used values. One would have been additionally motivated improve rolling resistance [Col5 L34+].
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangili (WO2022254328A1, citing to English Equivalent US2024/0253395A1, of record), in view of Sakurai (US2018/0312002A1), and optionally in view of Tadiello (US2020/0095387A1, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barsy (US2009/0095387A1, of record).
Regarding claims 11 and 16, Mangili does not specifically state that the tire comprises sipes. However, sipes are ubiquitous within the art of tires as means for improving traction and they would have been obvious to include in the tread thereof. Barsy, for example, teaches that the pneumatic tire tread includes narrow grooves called sipes [0005]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include sipes in the tire tread of Mangili. One would have been motivated to form additional edges in the tread elements that improve traction performance in all road conditions [Barsy, 0005].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 10 of the Remarks filed 12/03/2025 that the new limitation requiring the NR to have molecular weight from 100,000 to 1,000,000 overcomes the prior art rejections. And further, Applicant argues on pg. 10-11 that a weight distribution of NR can range from 10^4 to 10^6 (J. Sci Technol) compared to the claimed 10^5 to 10^6, such that the distribution is broader than the claimed range. Similar arguments pertain to the base of Ryba and Mangili (pg. 14-15).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, it is noted that the Examiner does not contend that Ryba/Mangili explicitly suggest the natural rubber molecular weight (MW) ranging from 100,000 to 1,000,000 g/mol. The newly cited reference Sakurai is relied upon to suggest this aspect, for where Ryba/Mangili are silent as the MW, it would have been obvious to employ the MW of Sakurai for the benefits of breaking resistance and wear resistance (see rejections above for further details).
Applicant’s citations (to J. Sci Technol) are not found convincing. This cited range from 104 to 106 entirely encompasses the claimed range of from 105 to 106 (100,000 to 1,000,000). 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). Therefore, the cited range in the declaration/arguments actually suggest the obviousness of such a claimed range. In addition, Applicant has not provided any evidence of criticality or unexpected results of their claimed range compared to the prior art, such that arguments tied to the “broader” range of J. Sci Technol compared to the claimed ranged are not persuasive, as the person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to work within this wide range so as to find the optimum MW for the composition. The instant specification does not appear to provide any support for criticality or unexpected results of this range.
Applicant argues that the Examiner has not established that NR and SSBR have low miscibility towards each other, in each of the primary references Ryba and Mangili. Applicant argues that Han and Polymers both show that NR and SSBR can form homogenous phases with “a single glass transition temperature across all blend ratios”, on pgs. 10-11.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that both of the evidentiary references submitted are not commensurate in scope to the prior art that is applied in the rejections of record, nor is it commensurate to the claims. As on pg. 11 of the arguments, both references Han and Polymers are cited to show a homogenous mixture of “a single glass transition temperature across all blend ratios”. And by contrast, Applicants invention has the glass transition temperatures of the NR and SSBR to be sufficiently far apart and in a predefined temperature range, which results in S-SBR becoming gradually glassy while NR remains rubbery (see Declaration paragraph 7). Notably, the prior art references of Ryba and Mangili each satisfy all of the claimed glass transition temperature ranges, such that they would not have the overlapping glass transition temperature of Han and Polymers. As in the respective rejections, Ryba suggests SSBR which may have a Tg from -30C to -10C (equivalent to 243K to 263K) [0005, 0013, 0021], and Natural Rubber with a Tg from -60C to -70C (equivalent to 203K to 213K). This results in both the glass transition temperatures with a difference of larger than 20K, AND meeting the more preferred ranges as in dependent claim 4. And similarly in the rejections of Mangili, the SSBR may have a Tg from -45C to -15C (equivalent to 228K to 258K) and the NR may have a Tg from -80C to -50C (equivalent to 193K to 223K) [0013]. Again, Mangili satisfies each of the preferred ranges of its glass transition temperatures. In stark contrast, the evidentiary references of Han and Polymers both only have single peaks (such that they do not have the same properties as demonstrated by Ryba/Mangili and by the instant application). Therefore, the evidentiary references submitted (which both have glass transition temperatures of the two components that are demonstrated by single temperatures/peaks) is substantially divergent from Ryba/Mangili which explicitly suggest the preferred glass transition temperatures (which Applicant details as a prime factor on the miscibility characteristics). Where Ryba and Mangili each satisfy the preferred ranges of the composition and glass transition temperature ranges, it would reasonably be considered that these references would similarly necessarily be immiscible towards each other.
Applicant argues that in addition to the NR and SSBR of Ryba/Mangili not having low miscibility, each of these compositions do not suggest the polymer system which have a continuous matrix of natural rubber and discrete zones of the SSBR.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the Declaration filed 12/03/2025 paragraphs 7 and 10 (as well as in the written specification), the claimed polymer system with the continuous matrix of natural rubber and discrete SSBR is a result of the associated conditions. Namely, having NR (of biogenic origin at MW from 100,000 to 1,000,000), SSBR, with both elastomers at the preferred concentrations, and with the required glass transition temperatures in the preferred ranges results in the SSBR becoming gradually glassy while NR remains rubbery, which results in the polymer system as claimed. Because Ryba and Mangili (as each modified in the rejections above) satisfy each and every one of the factors that influences the behavior of the polymer system as identified, the resultant component would necessarily be the polymer system as claimed. "When the claimed and prior art products of identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established”, see MPEP 2112.01 I. And further, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”, see MPEP 2112.01 II.
Applicant argues that Ryba does not suggest having the polymer system arranged exclusively in the underlayer of the tread.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ryba specifies that the rubber composition may be employed in the tread, including as the tread cap and tread base [0071]. A fair reading of Ryba [0071] suggests that the cap and base are not required to have the same composition (as otherwise the cap/base structure would be a singular tread component and not have the cited structure). Therefore, Ryba is clearly suggesting the use of the composition in either the cap or base when there is a cap/base structure. Ryba therefore provides “a finite number of identified predictable solutions” regarding the placement of its composition into the tread, wherein the use of the composition in one of the tread regions would result in improved properties [see Table 2, 0001-0002]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try both of the identified possible locations of the composition in the tread component with an expectation of these cited improved properties, and they would have found it obvious to have the composition exclusively in the underlayer with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 I. E.
Applicant argues that Mangili does not suggest having the polymer system arranged exclusively in the underlayer of the tread.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Mangili specifies that the rubber composition may be employed in one of the cap-and-base structure when the tire has a two-layer structure [0131-0132]. Therefore, Mangili is clearly suggesting the use of the composition in either the cap or the base. Mangili is providing “a finite number of identified predictable solutions” regarding the placement of its composition into the tread, wherein the use of the composition in the tread region results in a resistance to wear and the formation of cracks [0132]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try both of the identified possible locations of the composition in the tread component with an expectation of these cited improved properties, and they would have found it obvious to have the composition exclusively in the underlayer with a reasonable expectations of success. See MPEP 2143.
Conclusion
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