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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 24, 2026 has been entered.
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, and 5-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 1019330099, of record) and further in view of Schweitzer (EP 3,778,264, newly cited).
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.
With further respect to claim 1 (and claims 10-19), the claimed mechanical properties appear to be consistent with conventional rubber compositions that are commonly used in tire underlayers or base layers. Schweitzer, for example, is similarly directed to a tire tread formed with a plurality of layers including a base layer 104 (underlayer), an intermediate layer 1032, and a cap layer 102. More particularly, Schweitzer states that a tread underlayer has a Shore A hardness (at room temperature) between 15 and 55 to promote driving comfort (Paragraph 34) and teaches the use of rubber compositions formed with natural rubber, polybutadiene rubber, SSBR, carbon black, silica, and conventional resins (Paragraphs 57-66). Thus, the Shore A hardness values at room temperature and the compositional makeup taught by Schweitzer for the tread underlayer are extremely similar to those identified by Applicant and thus, it reasons that such a tread underlayer would demonstrate additional mechanical properties (dynamic stiffness at multiple temperatures and Shore A hardness at -30°C) in accordance to the claimed invention. Again, as best can be determined by the Examiner, the claimed mechanical properties not expressly disclosed by Schweitzer 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 underlayer of Kim, as taught by Schweitzer, for the benefits detailed above.
In terms of the claimed relationship between the tread underlayer and the tread intermediate layer, Kim teaches a preferred Shore A hardness between 65 and 70 for the tread intermediate layer and such is consistent with the disclosure of Schweitzer to form the tread intermediate layer with a Shore A hardness of at least 70. More particularly, the disclosure of Schweitzer teaches that a hardness of the tread underlayer is more than 10% softer than the hardness of the tread intermediate layer at room temperature (Paragraph 34). Given such a relationship and the fact that the tread intermediate layer and the tread base layer taught by Schweitzer are formed with compositions that are substantially the same as that detailed by Applicant, it reasons that that the claimed hardness relationship at -25°C would similarly be present in the tire of Kim as modified by Schweitzer. It is emphasized that Schweitzer simply requires that a greater hardness is present in the intermediate layer, as compared to the tread underlayer, at room temperature (ASTM D2240 is carried out at room temperature- Paragraph 33)- this is directly analogous to the relationship required by the claimed invention. The fact that Schweitzer is silent with respect to a hardness relationship at -25°C does not correspond with a teaching away from compositions having the claimed hardness relationship at -25°C. In fact, as noted above, the claimed hardness relationship at -25°C would be expected to be present in the tire of Kim, as modified by Schweizer, based on the hardness relationship between the tread underlayer and the tread intermediate layer at room temperature and the compositional makeup of respective tread layers disclosed by Schweitzer (consistent with the manner in which Applicant obtains the claimed relationship).
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 modified 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).
With respect to claims 5 and 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. This position was set forth in the previous communication and remains unchallenged by Applicant. As such, it is taken to be Admitted Prior Art.
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.
With specific respect to claims 10, 11, and 16-19, given the extreme similarities between the Shore A hardness and the compositional makeup of the tread layers in the modified tire of Kim, as compared to that detailed by Applicant, it reasons that the claimed dynamic stiffness values and relationships would similarly be present in the modified tire of Kim. Again, Schweitzer teaches a tread underlayer having a Shore A hardness at room temperature between 15 and 55 and a tread intermediate layer having a Shore A hardness at room temperature between 70 and 100 (Paragraphs 34 and 35). This is directly analogous to Applicant’s tread design in which the tread underlayer has a Shore A hardness at room temperature between 45 and 65 and the tread intermediate layer has a Shore A hardness at room temperature between 66 and 80. It is further emphasized that mechanical properties such as hardness and dynamic stiffness are well recognized as increasing with decreasing temperatures and such is consistent with the claimed relationships.
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. Schweitzer, 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, Schweitzer teaches styrene contents between 5 and 50 percent (Paragraph 58) and such fully encompasses the claimed range between 25% and 45%. In terms of the vinyl content, the broad range of the claimed invention is consistent with conventional SSBR used in tire compositions and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use an SSBR having the claimed vinyl content in the tire of Kim (lack of comparative examples having vinyl contents less than 33% or greater than 65%).
6. Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Schweitzer as applied in claim 2 above and further in view of Horpel (US 5,717,038, of record).
As detailed above, Kim teaches 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
7. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 and 10-19have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
It is also noted that Applicant argues that Kim requires that the second layer (intermediate layer) always has a higher hardness than the first layer (ground contacting layer). This argument is not entirely understood since the claims are completely silent with respect to any relationship with the hardness of the tread cap layer or ground contacting layer- the claims require a multitude of values and relationships involving the tread base layer and the tread intermediate layer.
Conclusion
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 May 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights