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 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 33, 35, and 38-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarazin (RU 2748476, with English machine translation) in view of Fabing (US 20140338806) and Eromaeki (SE 524433 C2, with English machine translation).
Regarding claim 22, Sarazin discloses a tyre comprising:
a tread formed by tread blocks such that grooves are arranged between the tread blocks (see tire in Fig. 1 wherein blocks 18 are defined by lateral grooves 14 and circumferential grooves 16, [0044]),
an underlayer comprising a first rubber compound (see second portion 36; Fig. 3, [0057]), and multiple studs each comprising a pin (see studs 20 with core 26, [0047]) such that:
at least the pins of the studs are exposed on the tread, and an average of protrusions of the studs from the tread is between 0.6 mm and 2.0 mm (Sarazin discloses a protrusion height of at most 1.6 mm, preferably 0.8 to 1.2 mm, preferably 0.9 mm [0052]) wherein each one of the multiple studs comprise:
a body comprising a base flange and a second part, the second part being joined to the base flange and extending in a longitudinal direction of the stud from the base flange (see head 24 as base flange and body 28 as second part, [0047], Fig. 2), and
a pin protruding from the second part in the longitudinal direction of the stud (see core 26), wherein:
the pin comprises metal or ceramic (core is made of tungsten carbide, [0048]),
the base flange has a first cross-section on a plane that has a normal in the longitudinal direction of the stud, the first cross-section having a first area, the pin has a second cross-section on a plane that has a normal in the longitudinal direction of the stud, the second cross-section having a second area (flange and pin inherently have cross-sectional areas),
the pin protrudes a first height from the second part in the longitudinal direction (Sarazin discloses a protrusion height of at most 1.6 mm, preferably 0.8 to 1.2 mm, preferably 0.9 mm [0052]), wherein:
wherein:
a mass of the stud is 0.4 g to 3 g (Sarazin discloses a mass of the stud as 0.7 to 1.2 g, [0050]), and
at least part of the base flange of each one of the plurality of studs is surrounded by the underlayer (see Fig. 3, [0057]).
As to the ratio of the first area to the second area, 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 of the first area to the second area as 6.5 to 21 since Sarazin discloses the maximum cross-section of the base 20 is no more than 35mm2 while the maximum cross-section of the pin is 3 to 3.5 mm2, preferably 3.14mm2, this yielding a ratio of not more than 11mm2 or (35mm2/3mm2; see [0049,0050]), said range overlapping the claimed range.
As to the ratio of the first area to the first height, 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 as 20 to 50 mm2/mm, since Sarazin discloses the maximum cross-section of the base flange 20 as no more than 35mm2 and the protrusion height as preferably 0.9 mm, which yields a ratio of no more than 39 mm2/mm (35/0.9; [0049,0052]), said range overlapping the claimed range.
Sarazin does not disclose the amount of natural rubber/isoprene rubber or the amount of reinforcing filler in the underlayer. 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 butadiene rubber, 70-100 phr silica, 1-10 phr of carbon black, and 30 to 60 phr of styrene butadiene rubber ([0041-0042]). Fabing discloses plasticizing resins ([0077]) and gives an example content of 20 phr of C5/C9 resin (see table 1). As to the SBR, Fabing discloses the SBR should have a very high Tg ([0041]) and discloses S-SBR ([0076]) and an example SBR having high Tg with 44% styrene content and 41% vinyl content (see annotations under Table 1 for SBR(4); the 1,2 units of butadiene refer to vinyl units). 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 ([0041-0043,0076,0077]; 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]).
Sarazin does not disclose the hardness of the tread layers; 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 to 60 ShA since Eromaeki, similarly directed towards a studded tire, teaches configuring the tread with cap layer, intermediate layer, and 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]). Eromaeki further discloses configuration employs an intermediate layer having relatively harder rubber to enhance stud retention ([0007,0012]).
Regarding claim 23, the grooves are inclined to form half of a V-shape which defines a direction of rotation (see Fig. 1 wherein lateral grooves 14 are inclined in a directional manner). As to the direction of rotation being the reverse to a direction to which the V-shape or half of a V-shape opens, Examiner notes that the recitation of intended rotation direction concerns the intended use of the tire. Sarazin's tire is capable of being mounted and rotated in either direction on a vehicle.
Regarding claim 25, Sarazin's Fig. 1 clearly illustrates the tread pattern having an equal number of studs provided on each side of the tread central line.
Regarding claim 26, Sarazin discloses the studs are distributed with an average density of 6.7 studs per dm2 of rolling surface ([0014,0056]).
Regarding claim 28, Sarazin does not expressly disclose a ply or metal belt; 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 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, [0056], the "R" denotes a radial carcass; Eromaeki also illustrates a carcass and belt reinforcement structure in Fig. 1). As discussed above under claim 22, Eromaeki discloses configuring the tread with a cap layer, intermediate layer, and underlayer structure to improve stud retention and reduce noise ([0005-0007]).
Regarding claim 30, Sarazin discloses the tread having a cap (first portion 34), studs with a waist and second flange (see Fig. 3), and the waist surrounded by the cap (see Fig. 3). Eromaeki also discloses the stud having waist and second flange wherein the cap layer surrounds the second flange (see Fig. 5).
Sarazin does not expressly disclose a ply or metal belt; 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 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, [0056], the "R" denotes a radial carcass; Eromaeki also illustrates a carcass and belt reinforcement structure in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 32, Sarazin's stud has a second part comprising a second flange (see body 28) and a waist connecting the base flange to the second flange (see narrow portion connected flange 24 to body 28, Fig. 2). The pin protrudes from the second flange (Fig. 2). As can be seen in Fig. 2 the second flange (body 28) has a wider portion than the waist and thus would have a greater cross-sectional area.
Regarding claim 33, Sarazin discloses a mass of the stud as 0.7 to 1.2 g ([0050]).
Regarding claim 35, Sarazin discloses the total height of the stud (Hc) is preferably 10 mm ([0050]).
Regarding claims 38 and 39, Sarazin discloses a protrusion height of at most 1.6 mm, preferably 0.8 to 1.2 mm, preferably 0.9 mm ([0052]).
Regarding claim 40, Sarazin does not expressly disclose the thickness of the underlayer; 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 thickness within 0.5 mm to 8 mm since Eromaeki, similarly directed towards a studded tire, teaches a multilayer tread wherein the underlayer has a thickness of 2.5 mm to 4.5 mm ([0011]). One would have been motivated to configure the layers to reduce stud force on hard surfaces to reduce noise ([0005-0007]).
Regarding claims 41, 42, and 43, 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 and cap with hardness as claimed since Eromaeki discloses the underlayer (flex layer) with hardness around 45 to 55 ShA and cap layer with hardness of 50 to 60ShA, preferably around 55 ShA ([0012]), said values substantially overlapping with or lying within the claimed ranges. One would have been motivated to reduce stud force on hard ground to reduce noise and to provide grood grip ([0005-0007])
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarazin (RU 2748476, with English machine translation, both of record) in view of Fabing (US 20140338806) and Eromaeki (SE 524433 C2, with English machine translation) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Sakuma (JP2021-030765, with English machine translation).
Regarding claim 24, Sarazin does not disclose the tread blocks as provided with sipes and/or hardness of 48 to 59; 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 provided the tread blocks with sipes and/or rubber hardness of 48 to 59 since (1) Sakuma, similarly directed towards a studded tire, discloses providing sipes in tread block to exert high frictional force on an ice-snow road ([0033]) and providing a rubber hardness of 45-60, preferably 50 to 56 at 23C to improve driving stability ([0090-0091]) and (2) Eromaeki also discloses configuring the cap layer with hardness of 50-60 ShA to provide good grip ([0007,0012]).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarazin (RU 2748476, with English machine translation, both of record) in view of Fabing (US 20140338806) and Eromaeki (SE 524433 C2, with English machine translation) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Tanabe (US 20080156405) and TRAFICOM Stud Regulation NPL.
Regarding claim 27, Sarazin does not expressly disclose the load index and road wear; however, load indices of 86 to 116 are very well known and conventional load indices for tires. For example, the example tire of Sarazin is a 205/55R16 ([0056]). Tanabe discloses an example 205/55R16 tire as having a load index of 91 ([0082]). 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 tire with a conventional load index to ensure the tire is capable of supporting conventional vehicles. As to the road wear, TRAFICOM regulations discloses maximum permissible road wear during different phases of implementation of the regulation (see Table 1 on pg 4). The Phase A+ column lists load limits based on load index category (limit value g = 0.0152*LI-0.4848). Further, the regulation states that the primary requirement is that the results of the road wear test must be at least 10 per cent below the permissible maximum limit value specified in table 1 (pg 5). This regulation yields road wear values below the claimed formula values. For example, a load index of 91 has Phase A+ maximum of 0.87g and 10% below this value is 0.78 g whereas the claimed formula yields a wear limit of 0.83 g. 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 road wear as claimed to limit road wear damage and to comply with TRAFICOM's regulations regarding studded tires.
Claims 29, 31, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarazin (RU 2748476, with English machine translation, both of record) in view of Fabing (US 20140338806) and Eromaeki (SE 524433 C2, with English machine translation) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Bukarev (FI 123781, with English machine translation).
Regarding claim 29, Sarazin discloses the pin can have round or polygonal shapes but does not disclose the second cross-section has at least one and at most three axes of symmetry. Examiner notes that pins having 1-3 axes of symmetry are well known and conventional in the stud art. For example, Bukarev, similarly directed towards tire studs, teaches stud pins having two axes of symmetry (see Figs. 2A, 3-14). Bukarev discloses that providing pins having a flat and wide cross-section improves traction (top of pg 3). 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 pins as having a wide cross-section with two axes of symmetry as disclosed by Bukarev to improve traction.
Regarding claim 31, Sarazin discloses the tread having a cap (first portion 34), studs with a waist and second flange (see Fig. 3), and the waist surrounded by the cap (see Fig. 3). Eromaeki also discloses the stud having waist and second flange wherein the cap layer surrounds the second flange (see Fig. 5).
Sarazin does not expressly disclose a ply or metal belt; 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 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, [0056], the "R" denotes a radial carcass; Eromaeki also illustrates a carcass and belt reinforcement structure in Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 36 and 37, Sarazin discloses the maximum cross-section of the stud head (flange) as no more than 35mm2 ([0049]) but does not expressly disclose the greatest one-dimensional measure or shortest straight line connecting edges of the flange. In the same field of endeavor of tire studs, Bukarev discloses configuring the bottom flange with first flange width W1 that is 110% to 250% of the second flange width W2 and discloses elliptic or rectangular flange shapes (Fig. 3-14; pg 4). For a 35mm2 flange area and rectangular shape, the widths W1 and W2 would range from 5.6mm x 6.2mm to 3.7 mm x 9.3 mm for W1 = 110% to 250% W2. For an ellipse, the major axes W1 and W2 would range from 6.3 mm x 7 mm to 4.2 mm x 10.5 mm for W1 = 110% to 250% W2 (area of ellipse = pi * W1/2 * W2/2). Examiner notes that the widths overlap the claimed ranges of claim 20 and claim 21. Bukarev discloses that the flange design reduces inclination of the stud under gripping forces and carries better torque (pg 3). 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 flange with dimensions as claimed in view of (1) Sarazin disclosing the maximum cross-section of the flange as no more than 35mm2 ([0049]) and (2) Bukarev disclosing providing the flange with an elliptical or rectangular cross-section wherein the width W1 of one side is 110% to 250% the width W2 of the other side to improve stud gripping force and torque (pg 3-4), said dimensions yielding flange widths that satisfy the claimed ranges (detailed above).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarazin (RU 2748476, with English machine translation, both of record) in view of Fabing (US 20140338806) and Eromaeki (SE 524433 C2, with English machine translation) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Pons (US 20120227880).
Regarding claim 34, Sarazin does not expressly disclose the mass of the pin. Sarazin does disclose the pin as made of tungsten carbide with cross-section of 3.14mm2 ([0048,0050]). While Sarazin does not disclose the extent to which the pin extends into the stud, Pons discloses configuring a pin with protrusion height of about 1.2 mm and a holding length of at least 4.5 mm to secure the pin within the stud ([0012]). A pin having 3.14mm2 cross section and 5.7 mm length has a volume of about 17.9mm3. Examiner takes Official Notice that tungsten carbide has a density of about 15.6 g/cm3. Given a volume of 17.9 mm3, a tungsten carbide pin would have a mass of about 0.28 g. 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 mass of 0.1 to 0.8 g since (1) Sarazin discloses the pin as tungsten carbide with cross-section of 3.14 mm2 and (2) Pons discloses configuring pin inserts with protrusion height of 1.2 mm and holding length of at least 4.5 mm to secure the pin and reliably dissipate forces ([0012]), said length dimensions yielding mass of about 0.28 g for tungsten carbide material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Fabing is completely silent about the vinyl content and the styrene content of the SSBR. Applicant argues that the claimed vinyl and styrene content is higher than regular SSBR rubber compositions and that the styrene and vinyl contents of the SSBR have been adjusted to achieve suitable processability while also attaining advantageous mechanical properties of the underlayer rubber material.
Examiner disagrees. Fabing discloses the underlayer rubber comprises SBR having a high glass transition temperatures ([0041]) and provides an example SBR suitable for this purpose in Table 1. This SBR is described as SBR solution having 44% styrene units and 41% 1,2 units of the butadiene part. The "1,2 units" refers to vinyl content. Fabing also discloses S-SBR in [0076]). In configuring the tire with the underlayer composition taught by Fabing, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select the exemplary SBR rubber known to be suitable for providing a high glass transition temperature. Further, 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]).
Conclusion
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.
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
Prosecution Insights