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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the tread as comprising " a base layer under the studs." Examiner notes that claim 1 recites an underlayer supporting the studs. It is unclear if the base layer is the same as the underlayer or in addition to the underlayer. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed the base layer is the same as the underlayer (consistent with instant specification, pg 29, lines 27-28).
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, 6, 8-10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (EP2402178) in view of Sarazin (RU 2748476, with English machine translation), Maeda (EP 3330105), Fabing (US 20140338806), and Omura (EP 4052927).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a tire comprising
a tread having tread blocks (see Fig. 1 with land portions 3, 4);
a plurality of stud holes (see holes 13, 15); and
a plurality of studs installed in at least some of the stud holes (see studs 20, [0021]), wherein:
within an area of a footprint less than two studs are in a same line parallel to the rolling direction (stud holes are placed so that they do not overlap with each other in the tread circumferential direction with only one hole arranged within the contact area of the tread ([0014,0021], see Fig. 1), and
a configuration of the studs on a first side of the tread is a mirror image of a configuration of the studs on a second side of the tread, but offset in the rolling direction of the tyre (see Yamamoto Fig. 1 wherein a directional tread pattern is depicted; the pattern halves are mirror images of each other with a circumferential shift; Yamamoto illustrates the studs with an offset mirror image configuration; see annotated Fig. 1 below where the right half is shifted to show symmetry).
PNG
media_image1.png
613
367
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yamamoto does not disclose the density of the 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 density as 5.6 studs/dm2 or more since Sarazin, similarly directed towards a studded tire, teaches configuring a studded tread with stud density of 6.7 studs/dm2 or more to provide significant improvement in the combination of grip on ice, road surface wear, and noise performance ([0053]).
As to the distance between two adjacent studs being more than 20 mm, Yamamoto discloses the studs as placed along imaginary lines t which are spaced apart by distance s of 4 to 6 mm ([0027]) and that the circumferential grooves have widths of 11-14 mm, the lateral grooves have widths of 8-11 mm, and the sipes have lengths of 20-40 mm ([0022]). Figure 1 of Yamamoto clearly illustrates the studs as spaced apart by distance substantially larger than multiple widths of line spacings 's' and multiple widths of the circumferential and lateral grooves. Additionally, Examiner notes that a density of 6.7 studs/dm2 disclosed by Sarazin is consistent with a spacing of greater than 20 mm between studs. The average spacing between objects given an area density is approximately equal to the inverse of a square root of the density (1/√ρ)--which in this case is about 40 mm (1/√6.7=0.4 dm). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to arrange the studs with a spacing distance of more than 20 mm in view of (1) Yamamoto clearly illustrating a substantial distance between studs along with disclosed width dimensions for tread features which lie between adjacent studs (see Fig. 1, [0022,0027]); and (2) a density of 6.7 studs/dm2 disclosed by Sarazin suggests an average spacing of about 40 mm. One would have been motivated to arrange the studs with spacing to increase on-ice friction resistance across the tire tread (Yamamoto, [0002,0004,0040]). Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated that spacing the studs out allows the ice-scratching effect of the studs to be attained across the tread contact surface.
As to the studs being arranged such that "less than two studs are in a line perpendicular to a rolling direction of the tyre" and "only one stud of the plurality of studs contacts a surface of the road at a time, and when a next stud of the plurality of studs contacts the surface of the road, a deformation wave generated by the next stud has a different phase than a deformation wave generated by a previous stud of the plurality of studs," Yamamoto's Figure 1 illustrates an arrangement of blocks and studs wherein the blocks/studs do not overlap in the axial direction. Thus, as the tire rotates, only one stud contacts the road surface at a time and deformation waves would be in different phases. Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor of studded tires, Maeda discloses that noise is generated when a stud is grounded or leaves an icy road surface ([0039]). Maeda states that when two or more studs are simultaneously located on a step-in or kick-out contact line of the tread, vibration noise is overlapped to increase noise ([0039]). Maeda teaches that, accordingly, it is preferable that only one stud is located on a step-in or kick-out ground contact line of a tread section ([0039]).
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 arrangement in Yamamoto such that less than two studs are in a line perpendicular to a rolling direction of the tire and only one stud contacts the surface at a time since (1) Yamamoto depicts the Fig. 1 tread with an offset mirror image pattern such that the blocks/studs in one half are offset from the blocks/studs in the other half and (2) Meada teaches that it is preferable that only one stud be located on a step-in or kick-out ground contact line of a tread to prevent overlap of vibration noise ([0039]).
Yamamoto does not disclose an underlayer surrounding a bottom flange of the studs wherein the rubber material of the underlayer has a tan delta peak temperature between -20C and +12C. In the same field of endeavor of studded tire treads, Fabing discloses providing a tread with outer and inner layers wherein the inner layer surrounds and supports a bottom flange of the studs (see first part 201 and second part 202, Fig. 7; [0083]). Fabing discloses the first part provides excellent grip on ice while the second part (underlayer) is configured to be rigid at low temperature but softer at high temperature so that the stud will remain protruded when running on ice and inclined when the ground is warmer ([0071]). Fabing discloses configuring the underlayer with rubber material having high glass transition temperature, preferably between -20C and +10C ([0038-0041]). Omura, similarly directed towards a multilayer tread, discloses that a rubber material's glass transition temperature refers to a tan delta peak temperature ([0043]). Omura also discloses the glass transition temperature of tread rubber layers should be 15C or lower ([0043]).
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 as claimed since (1) Fabing discloses providing a studded tread with an underlayer that supports a base flange of the stud, wherein a rubber material of the underlayer has high glass transition temperature of -20C to +10C ([0038-0041]) and (2) Omura discloses the glass transition temperature of tread rubber layers refer to the tan delta peak temperature and that the glass transition temperature should be 15C or lower ([0043]). One would have been motivated to provide an underlayer that is rigid at low temperature but softer at high temperature so that the stud will remain protruded when running on ice and inclined when the ground is warmer ([0071]).
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto discloses the height of the example stud is 11 mm ([0035]).
Regarding claim 6, Yamamoto discloses the flange as having a diameter of 8.0 mm ([0035])--thus, the greatest and smallest diameter is 8 mm, which falls within the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto's tread pattern is a directional pattern where the stud arrangement is the same on each side (with some circumferential offset). There are an equal number of studs on each side (Fig. 1, 2).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, as Fabing discloses an underlayer/base layer under the studs.
Regarding claim 16, Yamamoto does not disclose the stud protrusion height; 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 protrusion height as 0.7 to 1.6 mm since Sarazin teaches configuring the projection height as not more than 1.6, preferably equal to 0.9 mm, to enhance grip on ice, reduce wear on the road surface, and reduce interior noise in the vehicle ([0053]).
Regarding claim 17, Yamamoto's tread pattern and stud arrangement has a mirror plane on the tread centerline.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamamoto (EP2402178) in view of Sarazin (RU 2748476, with English machine translation), Maeda (EP 3330105), Fabing (US 20140338806), and Omura (EP 4052927) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Diensthuber (WO 2011067006, with English machine translation) and Homma (US 20210078368).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Yamamoto illustrates the studs arranged such that the location of studs on one side from a center line of the tire differs from a location of studs on another side of a center line in the rolling direction (Figs. 1, 2). Yamamoto does not expressly disclose the distance between studs in the rolling direction as 5 to 100mm or 10 to 70 mm. In the same field of endeavor of studded tires, Diensthuber discloses spacing studs a minimum distance of 125 mm in the same track to prevent subsequent studs from scratching within the same circumferential lane ([0008,0015]). Additionally, Homma, similarly directed towards studded tires, discloses disposing pin holes such that the ratio C/D of 2.5 to 5 is satisfied, wherein the interval D is the distance in the tire circumferential direction between a stud pin hole located closest to a stud pin hole on a different pin arrangement line and interval C is the distance between stud pins installation holes disposed adjacent in the circumferential direction ([0084]; i.e., along the same track). Homma discloses the ratio ensures sufficient clawing force ([0084]). Given a distance of 125 mm taught by Diensthuber (equivalent to C), the interval D is 25 to 50 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 distance as claimed since (1) Diensthuber discloses spacing studs a minimum distance of 125 mm in the same track to prevent subsequent studs from scratching within the same circumferential lane ([0008,0015]); and (2) Homma, similarly directed towards studded tires, discloses disposing pin holes such that the ratio C/D of 2.5 to 5 is satisfied to ensure sufficient clawing force ([0084])--said ranges yielding a distance that falls within the claimed ranges.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamamoto (EP2402178) in view of Sarazin (RU 2748476, with English machine translation), Maeda (EP 3330105), Fabing (US 20140338806), and Omura (EP 4052927) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ajoviita (US 20170368889).
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto does not disclose the tire as comprising at least two 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 tire with two kinds of studs since Ajoviita, similarly directed towards a studded tire, teaches configuring a tire with first and second kinds of studs to provide different effects on braking, acceleration, and lateral roadholding on road holding ([0004-0008,0098], Fig. 4a wherein central and shoulder areas have different stud types).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamamoto (EP2402178) in view of Sarazin (RU 2748476, with English machine translation), Maeda (EP 3330105), Fabing (US 20140338806), and Omura (EP 4052927) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ezaki (JP2015-039898, with English machine translation).
Regarding claim 11, Yamamoto does not disclose a base layer under the stud, or a base layer softer than an intermediate layer as claimed; 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 tread with plural layers as claimed since Ezaki, similarly directed towards a studded tire, teaches configuring a tread with surface, intermediate, and inner layers (61, 63, 62) wherein the hardness of the intermediate layer is higher than that of the surface and inner layers and that the inner layer constitutes the bottom surface of the tread rubber and is in contact with the bottom surfaces of the stud pins ([0018]). One would have been motivated to strengthen the engagement of the flange portion, improve resistance to pin dislodgement, an suppress an increase in pin pressure when the pin touches the ground ([0019]).
Regarding claim 12, as to the layer of material under each stud decreasing when temperature of the material increases, Ezaki discloses the inner material as rubber ([0018]) and Examiner takes Official Notice that is extremely well known and conventional in the art for rubber hardness to decrease with temperature (tread rubbers have a glass transition temperature when they get cold and become more elastic/softer when they are heated).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamamoto (EP2402178) in view of Sarazin (RU 2748476, with English machine translation), Maeda (EP 3330105), Fabing (US 20140338806), and Omura (EP 4052927) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogawa (JPS62-094402, with English machine translation).
Regarding claim 13, Yamamoto discloses a lamella-free area around each stud, but does not expressly disclose the radius. 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 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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamamoto (EP2402178) in view of Sarazin (RU 2748476, with English machine translation), Maeda (EP 3330105), Fabing (US 20140338806), and Omura (EP 4052927) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bukarev (FI 123781, with English machine translation).
Regarding claim 14, Yamamoto 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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamamoto (EP2402178) in view of Sarazin (RU 2748476, with English machine translation), Maeda (EP 3330105), Fabing (US 20140338806), and Omura (EP 4052927) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of TRAFICOM Stud Regulation NPL.
Regarding claim 15, Yamamoto does not disclose road wear amounts for the tire. In the same field of endeavor of TRAFICOM regulations discloses maximum permissible road wear during different phases of implementation of the regulation (see Table 1 on pg 4). The table lists tire load ratings under 600kg have a phase A limit of 0.9 g and 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 recited values. For example, a load index of 93 has Phase A+ maximum of 0.93 g and 10% below this value is 0.84 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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamamoto (EP2402178) in view of Sarazin (RU 2748476, with English machine translation), Maeda (EP 3330105), Fabing (US 20140338806), and Omura (EP 4052927) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rodewald (DE 4208861, with English machine translation).
Regarding claim 18, Yamamoto (combined) does not disclose the dynamic modulus of the underlayer at 20C or 0C. 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). 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 Yamamoto (combined) with dynamic stiffness of less than 25 MPa 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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Yamamoto, Sarazin, Maeda, and Dunlavy fail to teach an underlayer having the glass transition temperature as recited in amended claim 1.
Examiner has applied new grounds of rejection to address the underlayer limitations of claim 1. It is noted that Fabing is similarly directed towards a tire tread having studs installed therein wherein the tread is provided with an underlayer that is configured to be rigid at low temperature but softer at high temperature so that the studs will remain protruded when running on ice and inclined when the ground is warmer ([0071]).
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
Prosecution Insights