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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-8, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 1019330099, of record) and further in view of Tsuchida (US 10,137,733, of record).
As best depicted in Figure 2, Kim teaches a tire construction comprising a carcass or body ply 150 (claimed “at least one ply”), a tread 110, a pair of sidewall 120, a bead 130, steel belt plies 141,143 (claimed “at least one metal belt”), a cap layer 110A, an underlayer 110C, and an intermediate layer therebetween 110B. The tire of Kim further includes studs 200 and such studs would be recognized as being included after the tire assembly is vulcanized.
Furthermore, while Kim is silent with respect to the thickness of the underlayer and the intermediate layer, the claims define a broad range of thickness values that are consistent with those that are conventionally used in tread assemblies including three layers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use conventional thickness values for the tread layers of Kim absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Lastly, regarding claim 1 (and claims 11-15), the claimed mechanical properties appear to be consistent with conventional rubber compositions that are commonly used in tire underlayers or base layers. Tsuchida, for example, is similarly directed to a tire tread formed with a plurality of layers (e.g. 3) and teaches the use of rubber compositions formed with natural rubber, polybutadiene rubber, SSBR, 20-100 phr of carbon black, 15-125 phr of silica, and 1-30 phr of conventional resins (Column 2, Lines 29-42, Column 7, Lines 4-58, Column 8, Lines 66-67, and Column 10, Lines 35-44). It is particularly noted that Tsuchida describes an exemplary tread base composition in which polybutadiene rubber is included at 20 phr and the combination of natural rubber and SBR is included at 80 phr (Column 5, Lines 60+). This composition is substantially the same as that disclosed by Applicant as resulting in the claimed mechanical properties (see Pages 22+ in original specification). As such, it reasons that a multitude of compositions taught by Tsuchida demonstrate mechanical properties in accordance to the claimed invention and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed rubber composition. Again, as best can be determined by the Examiner, the claimed mechanical properties appear to result from using a composition as detailed by Applicant on Pages 22+ of the original specification. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use conventional rubber compositions for the tread layers of Kim.
Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed mechanical properties (or associated rubber composition). Looking at Table 5, the experiments simply suggest that studded tires including an underlayer and an intermediate layer demonstrate optimized properties as compared with conventional tires (independent of the exact mechanical properties in an underlayer). These benefits would be expected to be present in the tire of Kim as it similarly contains the combination of studs, an intermediate layer, and an underlayer (lack of comparative examples including studs, an intermediate layer, and an underlayer, wherein said underlayer demonstrates mechanical properties outside the scope of the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 6, stud 200 includes an upper flange 220, a waist 240, and a bottom flange 230. Additionally, Kim states that a recess 110RC is formed at least partially through the tread layers. In the tire construction having three tread layers, such a recess would presumably extend at least partially through the cap layer, the intermediate layer, and the underlayer. This general disclosure suggests that a bottom flange can be arranged within an underlayer, a waist can be arranged within an intermediate layer, and an upper flange can be arranged within the cap layer. It is noted that Figure depicts 4 a two layer tread in which an upper flange is arranged within a cap layer and a waist is arranged within an intermediate layer. This only differs for the claimed structure in the location of the bottom flange- when using a three layer tread, though, the claimed arrangement would be satisfied since a bottom of the recess can be positioned within the underlayer.
With respect to claim 7, the general disclosure that recess 10RC extends at least partially through the multiple tread layers encompasses tires in which a stud is spaced at least 0.3 mm from a bottom or inner surface of an underlayer. Again, the claimed dimensions are consistent with the general order of dimensions in stud-containing tires and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 8, the claimed dimensions are consistent with the general order of tires having multiple tread layers and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results. As to claims 12-15, the claimed materials and loadings are consistent with those that are conventionally used in a wide variety of tire components, including those that define a tread component, and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed materials and loadings. Tsuchida, as detailed above, provides one example of known rubber compositions having materials and loadings consistent with that required by the claimed and disclosed as having suitability for tire underlayers (base portions) and intermediate tread layers. With specific respect to claim 13, Tsuchida teaches styrene contents between 30% and 50% and vinyl contents between 5% and 60% (Column 4, Lines 42+).
4. Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-8, and 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ezaki (JP 2015-39898, of record) and further in view of Tsuchida.
As best depicted in Figures 1-3, Ezaki teaches a tire construction comprising a tread 3, a pair of sidewalls 2, a pair of bead portions 1, a carcass body ply 4, a plurality of metal belts 5, a tread cap layer 61, a tread intermediate layer 63, and a tread underlayer 62. The tire of Ezaki also includes studs 7. While Ezaki is silent with respect to the thickness of the underlayer and the intermediate layer, the claims define a broad range of thickness values that are consistent with those that are conventionally used in tread assemblies including three layers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use conventional thickness values for the tread layers of Ezaki absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results. It is noted that Ezaki does suggest a thickness T3 for said intermediate layer between 1 mm and 3 mm and such is fully encompassed by the claims (provides the general order of thickness values for respective tread layers).
Lastly, regarding claim 1 (and claims 10-15), the claimed mechanical properties appear to be consistent with conventional rubber compositions that are commonly used in tire underlayers/base layers and tread intermediate layers. Tsuchida, for example, is similarly directed to a tire tread formed with a plurality of layers (e.g. 3) and teaches the use of rubber compositions formed with natural rubber, polybutadiene rubber, SSBR, 20-100 phr of carbon black, 15-125 phr of silica, and 1-30 phr of conventional resins (Column 2, Lines 29-42, Column 7, Lines 4-58, Column 8, Lines 66-67, and Column 10, Lines 35-44). It is particularly noted that Tsuchida describes an exemplary tread base composition in which polybutadiene rubber is included at 20 phr and the combination of natural rubber and SBR is included at 80 phr (Column 5, Lines 60+). This composition is substantially the same as that disclosed by Applicant as resulting in the claimed mechanical properties (see Pages 22+ in original specification). As such, it reasons that a multitude of compositions taught by Tsuchida demonstrate mechanical properties in accordance to the claimed invention and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed rubber composition. Again, as best can be determined by the Examiner, the claimed mechanical properties appear to result from using a composition as detailed by Applicant on Pages 22+ of the original specification. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use conventional rubber compositions for the tread layers of Ezaki.
Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed mechanical properties (or associated rubber composition). Looking at Table 5, the experiments simply suggest that studded tires including an underlayer and an intermediate layer demonstrate optimized properties as compared with conventional tires (independent of the exact mechanical properties in an underlayer). These benefits would be expected to be present in the tire of Ezaki as it similarly contains the combination of studs, an intermediate layer, and an underlayer (lack of comparative examples including studs, an intermediate layer, and an underlayer, wherein said underlayer demonstrates mechanical properties outside the scope of the claimed invention).
With respect to claim 7, the claimed dimensions are consistent with the general order of dimensions in stud-containing tires and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 8, the claimed dimensions are consistent with the general order of tires having multiple tread layers and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
With respect to claims 10, 16, and 17, said underlayer (first rubber compound) has a JIS hardness between 60 and 75 (corresponds with Shore hardness between approximately 61 and 78) and said intermediate layer (second rubber compound) has a JIS hardness between 65 and 80 (corresponds with Shore hardness between approximately 68 and 82). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select hardness values in accordance to the claimed invention given the hardness ranges disclosed for each tread rubber layer. It is further noted that modulus and hardness are well recognized as almost exclusively having a positive relationship between one another, such that greater modulus values would have been expected to be present in the intermediate layer, as compared to the base layer or underlayer. Given that the base rubber composition disclosed by Tsuchida is substantially the same as that required by the claimed invention (and thus would be expected to demonstrate substantially the same mechanical properties), it reasons that the intermediate layer of Ezaki, which demonstrates a greater hardness than the base layer or underlayer, would demonstrate a modulus in accordance to the claimed invention (and greater than that of the underlayer).
As to claims 12-15, the claimed materials and loadings are consistent with those that are conventionally used in a wide variety of tire components, including those that define a tread component, and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed materials and loadings. Tsuchida, as detailed above, provides one example of known rubber compositions having materials and loadings consistent with that required by the claimed and disclosed as having suitability for tire underlayers (base portions) and intermediate tread layers. With specific respect to claim 13, Tsuchida teaches styrene contents between 30% and 50% and vinyl contents between 5% and 60% (Column 4, Lines 42+).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Ezaki teaches a tire construction in which said intermediate rubber layer has a hardness that is preferably between 1 degrees and 10 degrees greater than a hardness of the underlayer. This relationship is disclosed as being measured at room temperature. Given that the aforementioned difference is described as being “preferable”, it is evident that hardness differences even greater than 10 degrees are within the scope of Ezaki. Given the totality of these teachings, it reasons that Ezaki encompasses tires in which a difference of at least 7%, more preferably at least 10%, exists at low temperatures. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed relationship.
5. Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (a) Kim in view of Tsuchida or Ezaki in view of Tsuchida and further in view of (b) Horpel (US 5,717,038, of record).
As detailed above, Kim and Ezaki teach tire constructions comprising a tread cap layer, a tread intermediate layer, and a tread underlayer. While these references fail to expressly teach maximum tangent delta temperatures, the broad ranges of the claims are consistent with those that are commonly used in tire compounds in general, as shown for example by Horpel (Column 21, Lines 40+). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to select compositions having conventional temperatures associated with maximum tangent delta values absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed November 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant disagrees that the composition of Tsuchida is substantially the same as that disclosed by Applicant as resulting in the claimed mechanical properties or that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Kim or Ezaki in view of the rubber composition of Tsuchida to land at the claimed mechanical properties. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As best can be determined by the Examiner, the claimed mechanical properties directly result from using a specific rubber composition in the tread base layer or under layer. There is no evidence that additional factors, such as specific processing conditions, contribute to the claimed mechanical properties. Given that the rubber composition of Tsuchida is substantially the same as that of the claimed invention, it reasons that the modulus in Tsuchida would mimic that required by the claimed invention. Tsuchida specifically teaches a tread base composition including natural rubber and SBR at a combined loading between 65 phr and 80 phr, polybutadiene rubber at a loading between 20 phr and 35 phr, 20-100 phr of carbon black, and 1-30 phr of a resin (Column 1, Lines 55+, Column 4, Lines 66+, Column 5, Lines 60+, and Column 10, Lines 35+). This composition is in fact substantially the same as that taught by Applicant (see Page 22 in original specification). Tsuchida states that such a rubber composition improves abrasion resistance while maintaining wet grip performance and durability (Column 1, Lines 45+). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the tread base layer or underlayer of Tsuchida with a composition demonstrating mechanical properties (e.g. modulus) in accordance to the claimed invention.
Applicant further states that due to the construction of the claimed underlayer, road wear can be reduced at warmer temperatures and stopping distance needed by the studded tire under certain conditions can be substantially reduced. Furthermore, Applicant contends that forming the underlay of the disclosed material allows for the dynamic stiffness of the underlayer determined at -25°C to be at least 20 times the dynamic stiffness of the underlayer determined at 20°C. It is not required, though, for a reference to specifically identify a purported benefit or benefits disclosed by Applicant. As detailed above, Tsuchida provides specific motivation to form the base layer or underlayer of Kim or Ezaki with a composition that substantially mimics that disclosed by Applicant as resulting in the claimed mechanical properties. It reasons that any purported benefits would similarly be present in the modified tires of Kim or Ezaki given the presence of substantially the same rubber composition. MPEP 2112 specifically includes the following language:
Where applicant claims a composition in terms of function, property, or characteristics and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C, 102 and 103.
As such, it reasons that the rubber composition taught by Tsuchida would demonstrate mechanical properties in accordance to the claimed invention. Again, there is absolutely no evidence that additional factors contribute to the claimed mechanical properties.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the tread of Ezaki includes a base layer (underlayer), an intermediate layer, and a cap layer, wherein said underlayer (first rubber compound) has a JIS hardness between 60 and 75 (corresponds with Shore hardness between approximately 61 and 78) and said intermediate layer (second rubber compound) has a JIS hardness between 65 and 80 (corresponds with Shore hardness between approximately 68 and 82). Thus, the mechanical properties in the intermediate layer are superior to the mechanical properties in the underlayer. Given that the underlayer of Ezaki, as modified by Tsuchida, includes a rubber composition substantially the same as that taught by Applicant and thus demonstrates a modulus consistent with that required by the claimed invention, it reasons that the intermediate layer of Ezaki would demonstrate superior modulus values, as compared to the underlayer. This would correspond with modulus values (for the intermediate layer) as required by the claimed invention since the modulus values in the modified tire of Ezaki (for the underlayer) would be expected to fall between 5 MPa and 25 MPa and the modulus values in the intermediate layer of Ezaki would be greater given the superior mechanical properties in the intermediate layer of Ezaki as compared to the underlayer of Ezaki (hardness and modulus would be expected to be superior in the intermediate layer, as compared to the underlayer, given the well-recognized relationship between modulus and hardness).
Conclusion
7. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 January 26, 2026