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 .
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma (JP2021-030765, with English machine translation) in view of Kameda (US 20130118662), Ogawa (JPS 62-094402, with English machine translation), Fabing (US 20140338806), and Eromaeki (SE 524433 C2, with English machine translation).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 16, and 19-21, Sakuma discloses a tyre comprising:
a tread comprising tread blocks such that grooves are arranged between the tread blocks, and studs installed into at least some of the tread blocks (see tire with tread in Fig. 1; [0025-0027], see holes 48 for [0088]), wherein:
a central region of the tread is arranged between a first shoulder region of the tread and a second shoulder region of the tread, the central region comprising a circumferential central line of the tread, at least some of the tread blocks of the central region are provided with sipes, such that the tyre has a first density of sipes, the first density of sipes being defined as a total length of the sipes arranged in the central region divided by an area of the central region, at least some of the tread blocks of the first shoulder region are provided with sipes, such that the tyre has a second density of sipes, the second density of sipes being defined as a total length of the sipes arranged in the first shoulder region divided by an area of the first shoulder region, at least some of the tread blocks of the second shoulder region are provided with sipes, such that the tyre has a third density of sipes, the third density of sipes being defined as a total length of the sipes arranged in the second shoulder region divided by an area of the second shoulder region, (Sakuma's tread inherently has central, first shoulder and second shoulder regions and sipes are provided across the tread and thus have a density; Examiner notes that there are no particular structural limitations defining boundaries between the central vs shoulder areas).
Sakuma discloses a hardness of 50 to 56 degrees at 23C ([0091]).
As to the sipe density, Sakuma discloses sipes but does not disclose the sipe density of the central region as at least 15% greater than the sipe density of the shoulder regions; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the sipe density as claimed since Kameda, similarly directed towards a tire tread, teaches configuring the sipe density of the center region to be 1.3 to 2.0 times the sipe density of the shoulder regions to enhance both dry steering stability and snow steering stability ([0008,0041,0073]).
Sakuma discloses the tread blocks are provided with sipes 6 which terminate near the stud holes 48 (see Fig. 1; [0033]). Sakuma does not disclose the distance between the sipes and the center of the stud hole. In the same field of endeavor of studded tires, Ogawa discloses a tire provided with spike pins wherein sipes that have a depth greater than 20% of the height of the grooves and spike pins are provided only outside of a specific area, that area defined as 1.5 times the diameter of the spike pin's shank diameter with the axis of the shank pin as the center (pg 2-3; lines 76-101). Ogawa discloses that this distance ensures that the sipes are not too close to the spike pins, which results in a lowering of elastic modulus when shear force is applied and a reduction in braking performance (pg 3, lines 102-115). Ogawa gives an example spike diameter of 5.5 mm (pg 3, line 110). In such instance, the specific area would be 8.25 mm with the axis of the spike pin as the center (1.5 times 5.5 mm). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the sipes with distance of greater than 6 and less than 10 mm or 12 mm in view of Ogawa's teaching of arranging sipes outside an area that is 1.5 times the stud diameter from the center axis of the stud to ensure braking performance and Ogawa's example stud diameter of 5.5 mm (pgs 2-3; lines 76-115), said range overlapping the claimed ranges. As to the maximum distance, Examiner notes that the sipes provide high frictional force on icy and snowy roads (Sakuma, [0032]) and one would have been motivated to position the sipes across the blocks and near the studs so as to provide the friction enhancing effect across the block surface.
Sakuma does not expressly disclose the reinforcement structure or tread rubber structure of the tire. As to the ply and metal belt, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the tire with a carcass ply and steel belt since Examiner takes Official Notice that it is extremely well known and conventional in the tire art to provide a carcass ply and steel belt to reinforce tire structure.
Examiner also notes that cap and base tread structures are also well known and conventional in the prior art. In the same field of endeavor of studded tires, Fabing discloses a tire having an outer tread part 201 and an inner tread part 202 (Fig. 7) wherein Fabing discloses the inner part 202 comprises 10-60 phr of natural rubber; 5 to 50 phr of BR; 30 to 60 phr of SBR (S-SBR, [0076]); 70 to 100 phr of silica and 1 to 10 phr of carbon black or 10 to 30 phr of silica and 60 to 80 phr of carbon black ([0041-0043]). Fabing discloses plasticizing resins ([0077]) and gives an example content of 20 phr of C5/C9 resin (see table 1). Fabing discloses the rubber composition remains rigid at low temperatures but softer at high temperatures so that the stud remains protruding from the tread when the ground is cold and is inclined when the ground is warmer ([0071]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the underlayer with NR, BR, SBR, reinforcing filler, and resin content as claimed since Fabing discloses providing a studded tread with underlayer composition having natural rubber, BR, SBR, reinforcing filler, and resin in amounts that overlap or lie within the claimed ranges ([0041-0043,0077]; Table 1). One would have been motivated to provide a temperature dependent underlayer that supports the stud when temperatures are cold and deforms when the temperature is warm ([0071]).
Sakuma does not expressly disclose the stud body shape as having first and second flange; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the stud body with first and second flange surrounded by an underlayer and cap layer, respectively, since Fabing discloses providing the body with head 70 and body 80 that anchor the stud to the underlayer and cap layers of the tread ([0063,0068,0069]). One would have been motivated to anchor the stud to the tread.
Sakuma and Fabing do not expressly disclose the hardness of the underlayer's first rubber compound; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the underlayer with hardness of 45-65 ShA since Eromaeki, similarly directed towards a studded tire, teaches configuring the tread an underlayer such that the underlayer has hardness of 45-55 ShA to reduce the stud force of the stud when driving on hard surfaces, thereby reducing tire noise ([0007,0012]).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Examiner notes that there is no particular structural boundary between the central and shoulder regions required in the claims--in other words, these are regions defined by imaginary lines on the tread. Sakuma's tread is capable of being defined as having central and shoulder regions of any size, including the claimed sizes.
Regarding claim 5, Sakuma has multiple studs in multiple stud holes in multiple blocks (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Sakuma discloses a 205/55R16 example tire (tire width is 205 mm) with 173 mm tread width ([0093]).
Regarding claim 11, the tread grooves are inclined such that the grooves define half of a V-shape (see Fig. 1) and define a direction of rotation R that is revers to the direction to which the half a V-shape opens. Examiner also notes that a preferred rotational direction is a limitation directed towards the intended use of the tire and that tires are capable of being mounted and rotated in either direction of a vehicle.
Regarding claim 12, Sakuma discloses the land ratio as 60 to 80%, [0090] with working example of 62%, [0093].
Regarding claim 17, Sakuma clearly illustrates the central and shoulder regions as each provided with studs (Fig. 1).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma (JP2021-030765, with English machine translation) in view of Kameda (US 20130118662), Ogawa (JPS 62-094402, with English machine translation), Fabing (US 20140338806), Eromaeki (SE 524433 C2, with English machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Omura (EP4052927).
Regarding claim 8, Sakuma does not disclose the position of the tan delta maximum. In the same field of endeavor of tire treads, Omura discloses a tire tread comprising a multi-layer structure comprising a first layer 6 on the outer surface (cap layer) and a third layer 8 adjacent to the second layer 7 (underlayer) ([0025]). Omura discloses the glass transition temperature in the disclosure refers to the tan delta peak temperature ([0043]). Omura discloses the Tg of each layer of the tread is preferably 15C or lower ([0043]). Omura discloses the layered tread provides improved chipping resistance and that energy loss (measured as loss tangent) is closely related to fuel efficiency and grip performance. This temperature range is also consistent with the studded tire of Fabing, which discloses the underlayer composition comprises SBR elastomer having glass transition temperature of -25 to +20C, preferably -15C to 0C ([0038-0039]) and a marked increase in shear modulus when the temperature transitions from warm to icy conditions ([0071]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the tread with an underlayer having tan delta maximum of -10C to +15C since (1) Omura discloses configuring a tread with multiple layers to provide grip, fuel efficiency and chipping resistance, wherein the tan delta peak of each tread layer is preferably 15C or lower ([0002,0004,0038-0039,0043]) and (2) Fabing discloses employing high Tg SBR having glass transition temperature of -15C to 0C ([0038-0039]) and to configure the underlayer with temperature dependence such that shear modulus increases under icy conditions ([0071]).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the tread with an intermediate layer that laterally surrounds a waist of the studs since Eromaeki, similarly directed towards a studded tire, teaches providing an intermediate layer having relatively harder rubber that surrounds a waist of the stud to enhance stud retention ([0007,0012]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma (JP2021-030765, with English machine translation) in view of Kameda (US 20130118662), Ogawa (JPS 62-094402, with English machine translation), Fabing (US 20140338806), Eromaeki (SE 524433 C2, with English machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ikeda (US 20080202658)
Regarding claim 13, Sakuma does not expressly disclose the central land ratio as 1 to 30% point greater than either or both of the first and second shoulder land ratios; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the ratio difference as claimed since Ikeda, similarly directed towards a winter tire, teaches configuring the groove area ratio of the shoulder regions as 3 to 7% larger than the groove area ratio of the crown region (i.e., land ratio of crown region is 3 to 7% larger than shoulder regions) to secure large ground contact area in the crown region to increase frictional force on an icy road, thus improving grip and braking force while also enhancing snow expelling performance in the shoulder regions ([0045-0046]).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma (JP2021-030765, with English machine translation) in view of Kameda (US 20130118662), Ogawa (JPS 62-094402, with English machine translation), Fabing (US 20140338806), Eromaeki (SE 524433 C2, with English machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zimmerman (DE102013113043, with English machine translation).
Regarding claim 14, Fabing discloses a stud having a pin with second area (protuberance 60), a base flange with first area (see head 70), a waist with third area (narrowed portion of body), and a second flange with fourth area (upper wide portion), see Fig. 2, 5-8; [0063,0066]. As clearly illustrated in the figures, the fourth area is greater than the second and third areas and the first area is greater than the second and third areas (first/second flange diameters are greater than the waist/pin diameters). As to the first area being 20 to 80 mm2, Fabing discloses the maximum dimension DT of the head is 8 to 10 mm, [0034]--which equates to an area of 50 to 78 mm2 (area = pi*(DT/2)2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing of the invention to have configured the studs of Sakuma with shape disclosed by Fabing to achieve a good compromise between facility of stud incorporation and stud retention in the tread ([0034]).
Sakuma(combined) does not disclose the pin material; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the pin with hard metal or ceramic since Zimmerman, similarly directed towards a tire stud, teaches a stud having pin comprising ceramic or metal ([0010-0011]). One would have been motivated to employ a conventional stud pin material known to be suitable for increasing ice traction.
Regarding claim 15, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the stud with shape and dimensions as claimed in view of Zimmerman's disclosure that wear pin protrudes a height of 1.0 to 1.4 mm from the holder ([0031]) and that the base flange has a diameter of 8.2 mm ([0029]), which yields an area of 53 mm2--thus, the ratio of the first area to the first height is 38 to 53, (53/1 to 53/1.4), said range overlapping the claimed range. One would have been motivated to have employed a cost-effective stud that is optimized for improving ice and snow traction ([0004,0010-0011]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma (JP2021-030765, with English machine translation) in view of Sakuma (JP2021-030765, with English machine translation) in view of Kameda (US 20130118662), Ogawa (JPS 62-094402, with English machine translation), Fabing (US 20140338806), Eromaeki (SE 524433 C2, with English machine translation) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Ajovita (US 20170368889).
Regarding claim 18, Sakuma does not disclose the center and shoulder regions as having different kinds of studs; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the center and shoulder regions with different stud types since Ajovita, similarly directed towards a studded tire tread, teaches configuring a tire with first and second kinds of studs to provide different effects on braking, acceleration, and lateral roadholding properties, wherein the center and shoulder sections have different stud types ([0004-0008,0098], Fig. 4a).
Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma (JP2021-030765, with English machine translation) in view of Sakuma (JP2021-030765, with English machine translation) in view of Kameda (US 20130118662), Ogawa (JPS 62-094402, with English machine translation), Fabing (US 20140338806), Eromaeki (SE 524433 C2, with English machine translation) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Rodewald (DE 4208861, with English machine translation).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Sakuma (combined) does not disclose the dynamic modulus of the underlayer at 20C or -25C. In the same field of endeavor of studded tire treads, Rodewald discloses a tire having an underlayer/base layer 2.2 upon which studs 5 are positioned (see Fig. 1). Rodewald discloses the base is configured such that the logarithmic dynamic modulus curve is exceptionally steep near 0C and the dynamic modulus at -10C is at least 6 times as large as at +10C ([0012], claim 4; dynamic modulus is a synonym for dynamic stiffness). Rodewald discloses the force with which the spikes press against the road surface is highly temperature dependent where at high temperatures, the spike pressing force is low and at low temperatures, the force is high ([0005]; Fabing also discloses temperature dependent behavior of the underlayer, [0071]). Two working examples are presented in tables for mixtures 1 and 2 (col 3) wherein the dynamic modulus at 20C is 17 N/mm2 and 22 N/mm2 (1 N/mm2 = 1 MPa) and the dynamic modulus at -20C is 36 and 42 times the dynamic modulus at 20C (Examiner notes modulus increases with lower temperatures such that -25C would have an even higher ratio). Both working examples also disclose the dynamic modulus at 0C as at least two times the dynamic modulus at 20C (see tables of col 3 wherein ratio is 4 and 5 for mixtures 1 and 2, respectively).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the underlayer of Sakuma (combined) with dynamic stiffness of less than 25 MPa at 20C, a dynamic stiffness at -25C that is at least 20times the dynamic stiffness at 20C, and a dynamic stiffness at 0C that is at least 2 times the dynamic stiffness at 20C since Rodewald discloses configuring the base layer of a studded tire with dynamic modulus values that sharply increase near 0C wherein both working examples disclose dynamic modulus values that satisfy the claimed relationships ([0012,see tables of col 3 and discussed above). One would have been motivated to ensure spike pressing force is low at high temperatures and high at low temperatures, thereby decreasing road abrasion and increasing ice traction ([0002,0005,0012,0013]).
Regarding claims 24 and 25, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the underlayer thickness as 0.5 to 8 mm since Eromaeki discloses configuring the underlayer with thickness of 2.5 to 4.5 mm ([0011]). One would have been motivated to reduce the stud force of the stud when driving on hard surfaces, thereby reducing tire noise ([0007,0012]). Examiner further notes that Rodewald discloses configuring the underlayer to be at least as thick as the studs protruding from the running surface; otherwise, the maximum stud contact force is maintained ([0013,0005]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Arguments directed towards Pagano are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection to address the claim amendments. Fabing discloses a studded tire having temperature underlayer composition to support a stud having first and second flanges.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT C DYE whose telephone number is (571)270-7059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Anna Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/ROBERT C DYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619