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 1-5, 10, 11, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma (JP2021-030765, with English machine translation) in view of Ogawa (JPS 62-094402, with English machine translation), Kameda (US 20130118662), Ezaki (JP2015-039898, with English machine translation), and Rodewald (DE 4208861, with English machine translation).
Regarding claims 1-3, Sakuma discloses a tyre comprising:
a tread comprising tread blocks such that grooves are arranged between the tread blocks (see tire with tread in Fig. 1; [0025-0027]), and
studs installed into at least some of the tread blocks (see holes 48 for studs, [0088]), wherein:
the tread blocks define: a land portion of the tread, the land portion comprising parts of the tread blocks and the studs arranged to contact a surface in use of the tyre, the land portion having a total land area, and an envelope surface comprising the land portion of the tread and regions defined by openings of the grooves, the envelope surface having a total envelope area, and an average land ratio of the tyre, the average land ratio being defined as a ratio of the total land area to total envelope area, is 55% to 78% (Sakuma discloses the land ratio as 60 to 80%, [0090] with working example of 62%, [0093]).
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 mm or 8mm and less than 12 mm (claim 3) 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.
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 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 notes in the example 205/55R16 tire, the "R" denotes a radial carcass; Ezaki also discloses reinforcing a tire with carcass and belt, [0015-0016]).
As to multilayer tread and stud structure, in the same field of endeavor of tires, Ezaki discloses a studded tire having tread with cap layer, intermediate layer, and underlayer (surface layer 61, intermediate layer 63, and inner layer 62; [0018]). Ezaki discloses configuring the intermediate layer with high hardness between a surface and inner layer to improve stud pin pull-out resistance ([0008-0009,0019]). Ezaki teaches that the inner layer 62 preferably has hardness of 60 to 72 to ensure steering stability and ride comfort and to appropriately suppress an increase in pin pressure ([0027]; corresponds to first rubber compound). The intermediate layer preferably has a hardness of 70 or more and 80 or less to improve pin dropout resistance and to suppress heat generation ([0027]). Table 1 provides example hardnesses of 60 and 70 for the first and second rubbers, respectively.
As to the stud shape, Ezaki discloses the studs as comprising a body with base flange (flange portion 71), second flange (head portion 72), and waist (constricted portion 73) to suppress wobbling of the stud pin and improve pull-out resistance ([0019-0022]). Ezaki discloses the underlayer surrounds the base flange while the cap layer surrounds the second flange (see Fig. 2), such that the intermediate layer is provided over the waist/constricted portion to improve pin pull-out resistance ([0023]).
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 of Sakuma with cap, intermediate, and under layers and the studs with base flange, second flange and waist as claimed since Ezaki discloses providing treads with cap, intermediate and under layers and studs with a constricted waist portion to improve stud pin pull-out resistance and performance on icy and snowy roads ([0002,0008-0011,0019-0023,0027]; see Table 1 for hardness values).
Sakuma and Ezaki do 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]). 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).
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 and a dynamic stiffness at -25C that is at least 20times 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 claim 4, Sakuma discloses a 205/55R16 example tire (tire width is 205mm) with 173mm tread width ([0093]).
Regarding claim 5, Sakuma discloses a hardness of 50 to 56 degrees at 23C. Ezaki also discloses the cap layer (surface layer 61) as having hardness of 50 to 60 for wear resistance and driving performance on snowy and icy roads ([0026]).
Regarding claim 10, Ezaki discloses studs with base flange, waist, and second flange and discloses the underlayer surrounds the base flange while the cap layer surrounds the second flange (see Fig. 2), such that the intermediate layer is provided over the waist/constricted portion to improve pin pull-out resistance ([0019-0023]).
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 16, Sakuma clearly illustrates the central and shoulder regions as each provided with studs (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Rodewald discloses, in both working examples for an underlayer, 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).
Claims 6 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma (JP2021-030765, with English machine translation) in view of Ogawa (JPS 62-094402, with English machine translation), Kameda (US 20130118662), Ezaki (JP2015-039898, with English machine translation), and Rodewald (DE 4208861, with English machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Andries (FR2471294, with English machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, Sakuma does not disclose the protrusion amount of the studs. Examiner notes that the disclosed dimensions cover well known and conventional stud pin heights. 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 protrusion height as 0.6 to 2.0 mm since Andries, similarly directed towards a tire stud, teaches configuring the protrusion amount as 1.2 to 1.8 mm to ensure effectiveness and prevent breakage or detachment ([0006]).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Sakuma (combined) does not disclose the thickness of the underlayer in millimeters; 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 thickness as 0.5 to 8 mm or 1 to 7 mm since (1) Rodewald discloses that base should be at least as thick as the studs protruding from the running surface; otherwise, the maximum stud contact force is maintained ([0013,0005]; Rodewald seeks to decrease force under high temperatures); and (2) Andries, similarly directed towards a tire stud, teaches configuring the protrusion amount as 1.2 to 1.8 mm to ensure effectiveness and prevent breakage or detachment ([0006]). Thus, given conventional stud protrusion height of 1.2 to 1.8 mm, one would have obviously configured the base layer to be at least 1.2 to 1.8 mm, which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 21, Rodewald discloses, in both working examples for an underlayer, 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).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma (JP2021-030765, with English machine translation) in view of Ogawa (JPS 62-094402, with English machine translation), Kameda (US 20130118662), Ezaki (JP2015-039898, with English machine translation), and Rodewald (DE 4208861, with English machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zimmerman (DE102013113043, with English machine translation).
Regarding claim 7, Ezaki discloses a stud having base flange, second flange, and waist (discussed above for claim 1), but does not detail the pin shape or base flange area. Zimmerman, similarly directed towards a tire stud, teaches a stud having base flange (foot flange 24), a second flange (thickened tail 26), a waist (holding section 25), and a pin (see pin 30 with head 32)([0029]). The pin comprises ceramic or metal ([0010-0011]). The base flange, pin, waist, and second flange have cross-sectional areas as seen in Fig. 1 wherein the fourth area is greater than the third area and the second area (second flange wider than the waist and the pin) and first area is greater than the third area and the second area (base flange wider than the waist and the second flange)([0029]). As to the first area, Zimmerman discloses the base flange has a diameter D1 of 8.2 mm which yields an area of 53 mm2 ([0029]). 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 of a stud (Fig. 1, [0029]). 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma (JP2021-030765, with English machine translation) in view of Ogawa (JPS 62-094402, with English machine translation), Kameda (US 20130118662), Ezaki (JP2015-039898, with English machine translation), and Rodewald (DE 4208861, with English machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Omura (EP4052927).
Regarding claim 8, Sakuma (combined) does not disclose the tan delta maximum position of the underlayer and/or first rubber compound. 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), a second layer 7 adjacent to first layer 6 (intermediate 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. 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 cap, intermediate, and underlayer with tan delta maximum of -10C to +15C since Omura discloses configuring a tread with first, second, and third 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]).
Additionally, Rodewald discloses the glass transition temperature of the base layer is a result effective variable for controlling the change in dynamic modulus between high and low temperatures ([0012]) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have optimized the glass transition temperature of the underlayer to control the stiffness of the base layer and the stud pressing force ([0005,00012]).
Claims 12, 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 Ogawa (JPS 62-094402, with English machine translation), Kameda (US 20130118662), Ezaki (JP2015-039898, with English machine translation), and Rodewald (DE 4208861, with English machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ikeda (US 20080202658).
Regarding claim 12, Sakuma's tread inherently has central, first shoulder and second shoulder land areas and envelope areas. Examiner notes that there are no particular structural limitations defining boundaries between the central vs shoulder areas. 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]).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Ikeda's crown region is 30-50% of the tread width ([0007]), which overlaps the claimed range. Ikeda's tread comprises a center and shoulder regions (Fig. 1). Examiner further 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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma (JP2021-030765, with English machine translation) in view of Ogawa (JPS 62-094402, with English machine translation), Kameda (US 20130118662), Ezaki (JP2015-039898, with English machine translation), and Rodewald (DE 4208861, with English machine translation) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Ajovita (US 20170368889).
Regarding claim 17, 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Sakuma, Ogawa, Kameda, and Ezaki fail to disclose the dynamic stiffness of the underlayer as less than 25 MPa at 20C and the dynamic stiffness at -25C as at least 20 times the dynamic stiffness at +20C. Applicant argues that the feature indicates that the studs are supported by the underlayer in a much sturdier manner at -25C that at a temperature of 20C. The studs bite the ice/snow at very low temperatures well while at a temperature of +20C, the studs are not supported by the underlayer as sturdily.
Examiner has cited Rodewald which is directed towards a tire having spikes (aka studs) in the tread wherein the spikes are positioned on top of a base layer (aka underlayer)(see Fig. 1). Rodewald discloses the base layer is configured to have temperature dependent behavior such that the stud pressing force is high at low temperatures and low at high temperatures ([0005]). Rodewald discloses this configuration reduces road abrasion at higher temperatures while still retaining the advantage of improve ice traction ([0004-0006, 0011-0013]). Rodewald specifically recognizes the dynamic modulus at low/high temperatures as suitable criterion ([0012], claim 4) and discloses working examples of underlayers having dynamic moduli that satisfy the claimed dynamic stiffness ranges (see tables in col 3; Examiner notes that dynamic modulus is another term for dynamic stiffness). Thus, it is known in the prior art to configure studded tires with underlayers wherein the underlayer stiffness varies based on temperature to control stud contact force.
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