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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/03/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments entered on 12/03/2025 have been accepted. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 1-10 and 12-18 are pending, and claim 2 is withdrawn from consideration.
The declaration under 37 C.F.R. 1.132 filed 12/03/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1, 3-10, and 12-18 based upon 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth because:
It is noted that in declarations, opinion evidence is entitled to consideration and some weight so long as the opinion is not on the ultimate legal conclusion at issue. While an opinion as to a legal conclusion is not entitled to any weight, the underlying basis for the opinion may be persuasive. In re Chilowsky, 306 F.2d 908, 134 USPQ 515 (CCPA 1962). It is further noted that “In assessing the probative value of an expert opinion, the examiner must consider the nature of the matter sought to be established, the strength of any opposing evidence, the interest of the expert in the outcome of the case, and the presence or absence of factual support for the expert’s opinion. Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 227 USPQ 657 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986). See MPEP 716.01(c). In this case, it is noted that much of the declaration is tied to opinion arguments (see paragraph 5, “In my opinion…”), and these arguments are given the proper amount of weight.
Paragraphs 6-7 and 9 include statements which amount to an affirmation that the claimed subject matter functions as it was intended to function. This is not relevant to the issue of nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter and provides no objective evidence thereof. See MPEP § 716.
Paragraphs 8-9 includes arguments and a citation to the NHTSA reference that the tread layer and the underlayer have different purposes and the materials are chosen respectively for these different purposes. Kemppainen’s statements demonstrate why the instant application decided to apply their inventive composition to the underlayer of the tread. While each of these factors may be true (and demonstrate the rationale behind some of the determinations of the invention), this does not overcome the obviousness of providing the composition of Ryba/Mangili in the undertread of the tire. Ryba specifically states that the composition may be utilized in a tread (including cap and base) [0071]. A fair reading of Ryba [0071] suggests that the cap and base are not required to have the same composition (as otherwise the cap/base structure would be a singular tread component and not have the cited structure). And Mangili specifically states that the tread may have the cap-and-base structure where the composition may be utilized in “one or both layers” [0132]. Given that there exist a finite number of identified predictable solutions in each of the references, it would have been obvious to utilize this composition exclusively in the base component in the tread to achieve the respective beneficial properties of the compositions, with a reasonable expectation of success. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Paragraph 10 includes arguments that the prior art does not teach or suggest a tire with an underlayer comprising the two-phase polymer system and a tread layer having a different composition. See responses above regarding the obviousness of Ryba/Mangili regarding the use in the underlayer. The declaration argues that the required two-phase polymer system is a result of having the suitable elastomers with low miscibility towards each other (as a result of the glass transition temperatures) with the specific use of NR which is biogenic in origin with a MW from 100,000 to 1,000,000 and SBR which is S-SBR. It is noted that the amended rejections below satisfy each of these requirements (with new reference being applied to suggest the MW range), such that the claimed two-phase polymer system would be obvious over each of the combinations of Ryba/Mangili.
Paragraph 10 argues that the molecular weight of natural rubber may range from 104 to 106, which is much broader than the newly claimed range of 105 to 106. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. This cited range in the declaration (citing to J. Sci Technol) entirely encompasses the claimed range of from 105 to 106 (100,000 to 1,000,000). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the cited range in the declaration actually suggest the obviousness of such a claimed range. In addition, Applicant has not provided any evidence of criticality or unexpected results of their claimed range compared to the prior art, such that arguments tied to the “broader” range of J. Sci Technol compared to the claimed ranged are not persuasive, as the person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to work within this wide range so as to find the optimum MW for the composition.
Paragraph 11 argues that NR and S-SBR are not inherently poorly miscible. The declaration cites to both Han and Polymers as evidence that NR and S-SBR are not inherently poorly miscible, as Han has NR and S-SBR in a homogeneous phase (as demonstrated by a single glass transition temperature across all blend ratios) and Polymers has a single relaxation peak (indicating miscibility). The Examiner does not find this evidence convincing in overcoming the allegations of inherency in the prior art. Both of the evidentiary references submitted are not commensurate in scope to the prior art that is applied in the rejections of record, nor is it commensurate to the claims. As indicated in the declaration paragraph 7, the inventions’ immiscibility is a result of NR and S-SBR having glass transition temperatures which are sufficiently far apart and in a predefined temperature range, which results in S-SBR becoming gradually glassy while NR remains rubbery. Notably, the prior art references of Ryba and Mangili each satisfy all of the claimed glass transition temperature ranges, such that they would not have the overlapping glass transition temperature of Han and Polymers. As in the respective rejections, Ryba suggests SSBR which may have a Tg from -30C to -10C (equivalent to 243K to 263K) [0005, 0013, 0021], and Natural Rubber with a Tg from -60C to -70C (equivalent to 203K to 213K). This results in both the glass transition temperatures with a difference of larger than 20K, AND meeting the more preferred ranges as in dependent claim 4 for example. And similarly in the rejections of Mangili, the SSBR may have a Tg from -45C to -15C (equivalent to 228K to 258K) and the NR may have a Tg from -80C to -50C (equivalent to 193K to 223K) [0013]. Again, Mangili satisfies each of the preferred ranges of its glass transition temperatures. In stark contrast, the evidentiary references of Han and Polymers both only have single peaks (such that they do not have the same properties as demonstrated by Ryba/Mangili and by the instant application). Therefore, the evidentiary references submitted in this declaration (which both have glass transition temperatures of the two components that are demonstrated by single temperatures/peaks) is substantially divergent from Ryba/Mangili which explicitly suggest the preferred glass transition temperatures (which Applicant details as a prime factor on the miscibility characteristics). Where Ryba and Mangili each satisfy the preferred ranges of the composition and glass transition temperature ranges, it would reasonably be considered that these references would similarly necessarily be immiscible towards each other.
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.
Claims 1, 4-8, 12-15, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ezaki (JP2015039898A, of record), in view of Ryba (US2021/0079198A1, of record), in view of Sakurai (US2018/0312002A1), and optionally in view of Tadiello (US2020/0095387A1, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Ezaki teaches a pneumatic tire (Fig. 1) comprising an underlayer (“62”) positioned between a textile component and a tread layer (tread layer is considered the top layer “61”, and the textiles are considered the belt/carcass “5” and “4”, as in Fig. 1) and an intermediate layer between the underlayer and the tread layer (“63” is clearly located between the tread and underlayers [see Figs. 1-3]).
Ezaki is silent as to the composition for its underlayer. As such, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to look to exemplary tire rubber compositions to apply to the underlayer of the tread of Ezaki so as to provide a working tire with adequate physical properties. Ryba is tied to a rubber composition which may be applied to any type of tire [0072], wherein the rubber composition may be incorporated into a tread base component [0071]. The composition of Ryba comprises fillers such as silica and carbon black [0007-0008], additives [0066-0067], curing agents [0067], and a polymer system [0012]. Ryba teaches a first elastomer of the polymer system being 25 to 35phr of a styrene-butadiene rubber [0012], wherein the first elastomer may be a solution polymerized styrene-butadiene [0005] having a glass transition temperature Tg ranging from -30C to -10C [0005, 0013, 0021], equivalent to 243K to 263K. Ryba further teaches that a second elastomer of the polymer system is 35 to 45 phr of a natural rubber [0012] which is polyisoprene which is natural and not synthetic [0029], wherein the natural rubber would therefore necessarily be “biogenic” in origin, meaning that it comes from natural sources. The natural rubber has a glass transition temperature from -60C to -70C [0013], equivalent to 203 to 213K. This amount of natural rubber is clearly above the at least 20 parts per hundred as claimed. Ryba teaches that the difference between the two glass transition temperatures is larger than 20K (as above, the SSBR may range from 243-263K, and the natural rubber ranges from 203-213K. Therefore, the difference between the temperatures would necessarily be at least 30K regardless of which temperatures were specifically chosen). The testing method of the glass transition temperatures are according to standard ASTM D7426 or equivalent [0027], which is the same testing method to what is claimed. The composition (and thus component) taught by Ryba would necessarily be “thermally adaptive”, as the properties of the rubber (and of all rubber) change significantly with changes in temperature. For example, the underlayer specifies glass transition temperatures [abstract], wherein it is well known that a polymer undergoes a transition over this temperature from a rigid state to a more flexible state.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to apply the rubber composition as suggested by Ryba (including the glass transition temperatures of the elastomers) to the underlayer of Ezaki. One would have been motivated because Ryba specifically suggests that the composition may be utilized in base tread layer [0071], and where the composition leads to an improvement in rolling resistance and wet traction [0001-0002, Tables 1-2], as well as excellent overall physical properties [see Table 2]. And as Ryba suggests the composition to be present in either the cap or base rubber, Ryba therefore provides “a finite number of identified predictable solutions” regarding the placement of its composition into the tread, wherein the use of the composition in one of the tread regions would result in improved properties [see Table 2, 0001-0002]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try the identified possible locations of the composition in the tread component with an expectation of these cited improved properties, and they would have found it obvious to have the composition exclusively in the underlayer with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 I. E.
Optionally applied regarding the natural rubber being from a biogenic origin, Tadiello teaches a tire with a composition which may be used for an underlayer [0164]. The composition comprises a natural rubber that is obtained from tropical plants such as Hevea Brasiliensis [0069]. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on suitability for its intended use support prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045)". See MPEP 2144.07. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize the well-known type of natural rubber (Hevea) as suggested by Tadiello in the composition of Ryba with a reasonable expectation of success, as an example of a selection of a known material based on suitability for its intended purpose (i.e, a natural rubber which is from biogenic origins in a tire composition in a tread underlayer).
Ezaki/Ryba does not specifically give the molecular weight of its natural rubber from 100,000 to 1,000,000 g/mol. However, this is a very broad range and an extremely common range for natural rubber to be. Sakurai provides a rubber composition which may be used for the tread rubber [abstract], where the composition may include natural rubber [0072]. The molecular weight of natural rubber may range from 50,000 to 700,000 [0073]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the composition so as to have the MW as suggested by Sakurai, as Ezaki/Ryba is silent as to the specific MW of its natural rubber. One would have been motivated so as to obtain good breaking resistance, wear resistance, and processability [0073].
Ryba does not specifically state that the elastomers have low miscibility towards each other. It is considered that the component of Ryba would have the elastomers with low miscibility would implicitly be achieved, as "When the claimed and prior art products of identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established”, see MPEP 2112.01 I. And further, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”, see MPEP 2112.01 II. In this case, because the component of Ryba has the same elastomers (SSBR and Natural Rubber) at the same concentrations, and because Ryba has each of these elastomers at substantially the same glass transition temperatures (including the difference between temperatures being larger than 20K) the component would therefore also have the elastomers having low miscibility towards each other. And similarly, because the polymer system as detailed herein satisfies each of the preferred aspects of the invention (elastomer types, molecular weight, biogenic origin, concentration, glass transition temperatures and temperature differences) it would reasonably be suggested that the polymer system would be the continuous matrix of natural rubber with discrete zones of the SSBR because of the immiscibility properties towards each other. It being noted that the Declaration filed 12/03/2025 paragraph 10 specifies that each of these factors result in the two-phase polymer system as claimed, such that modified Ezaki meets each of these aspects it would clearly satisfy the claimed polymer system.
Regarding claim 4, modified Ezaki makes obvious a tire wherein the first elastomer has the glass transition temperature ranging from 235K to 260K and the second elastomer natural rubber has a glass transition temperature of less than 215K (as in the rejection of claim 1 above, Ryba suggests that the solution styrene-butadiene may have a Tg ranging from 243 to 263K [0005, 0021]. And the natural rubber may have a Tg ranging from 203 to 213K [0013]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ezaki makes obvious a tire wherein the thermally adaptive underlayer component contains the reinforcing filler material in an amount equal to or higher than 30 parts per hundred rubber (as in the rejection of claim 1 above, Ryba’s composition may include 60 to 80phr of prehydrophobateed silica [0015] and 1-10phr of carbon black [0016], wherein these components are well understood to be types of fillers. See also Table 1, wherein the amount of these fillers in Sample 2 is 71phr).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ezaki makes obvious a tire with silica that has a specific surface area from 70 to 250m2/g (Ryba’s suggested composition may have the silica may have a surface area from 80 to 300m2/g [0060]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Ryba further makes obvious any combination of carbon black and silica in its composition (see Table 1 sample 2, which utilized both Silica and Carbon black. Also, [0015-0016] wherein amounts of both silica and carbon black are included).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ezaki makes obvious a tire wherein the thermally adaptive underlayer contains polybutadiene rubber from 0-30parts (the composition suggested by Ryba includes 25 to 35phr of a polybutadiene [0004]), wherein the polybutadiene is a cis-1,4 polybutadiene (the polybutadiene is a cis 1,4 polybutadiene [0005, Table 1], and wherein the polybutadiene has a glass transition temp from 160K to 193K (the polybutadiene has a Tg ranging from -110 to -90C [0005]. This is equivalent to 163 to 183K, such that it is entirely within the claimed range. And the Tg is obtained via ASTM D7426 [0027]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ezaki makes obvious a tire wherein the underlayer includes additive in an amount from 1-30parts (the composition suggested by Ryba includes 5 to 25phr of at least one hydrocarbon resin [0010]), wherein the additive is a resin that is selected from the specified group (the resin may be aromatic [0036-0037] or terpene [0034], as a few examples), wherein the resin has a high miscibility towards the first elastomer (the instant specification lists that hydrocarbon resins which are of the specified group in the claim, including aromatic resins and terpene resins, have high miscibility towards the SSBR [see pg. 25 of the instant specification]. Therefore, the aromatic or terpene resins of Ryba would reasonably be considered to have a high miscibility towards the SSBR, as "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”, see MPEP 2112.01 II), and wherein the glass transition temp is above the freezing temp of water (the resins have a Tg greater than 20C [0010]).
Regarding claims 12-13, modified Ezaki makes obvious a tire wherein the underlayer produces two peak maximums at temperatures separated by at least 35K, with one peak from 273-290K and the second from 213-238K (it is noted that the instant specification [0016] details that when an underlayer contains the polymer system described above, the “two peak maximums” at the required temperatures are produced. In other words, the two peak maximums are a direct result of the composition and the glass transition temperatures of the polymer system containing the first and the second elastomers. It is considered, the claimed two peak maximum would implicitly be achieved, as "When the claimed and prior art products of identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established”, see MPEP 2112.01 I. And further, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”, see MPEP 2112.01 II. Because Ryba suggests an underlayer composition which has SSBR within the preferred ranges of the instant application, 25-35phr and Tg from 243K to 263K [0004-0005] (compared to the most preferred Tg of 240-255K), and containing natural rubber at 35-45phr and 203 to 213K [0013] (compared to the most preferred Tg of less than 215K), it would be reasonably suggested that the composition would similarly produce the two peak maximums as required in the claim. Additionally, it is noted that Ryba satisfies all other preferred ranges for its compositional aspects, see rejection of claim 15 below which details each of these aspects).
Regarding claim 14, modified Ezaki makes obvious a tire wherein the underlayer comprises a dynamic stiffness onset point temperature which is in the range of 278K to 300K (it is noted that the instant specification [0017] details that when an underlayer contains the polymer system described above, the result is “a dynamic stiffness E* onset point temperature which is in a range of 278K to 300K”. in other words, the dynamic stiffness E* onset point temperature is a direct result of the composition and the glass temperatures of the polymer system containing the first and second elastomers. It is considered, the dynamic stiffness onset point temperature would implicitly be achieved, as "When the claimed and prior art products of identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established”, see MPEP 2112.01 I. And further, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”, see MPEP 2112.01 II. Because Ryba suggests an underlayer composition which has SSBR within the preferred ranges of the instant application, 25-35phr and Tg from 243K to 263K [0004-0005] (compared to the most preferred Tg of 240-255K), and containing natural rubber at 35-45phr and 203 to 213K [0013] (compared to the most preferred Tg of less than 215K), it would be reasonably suggested that the composition would similarly produce the onset point temperature within the range of 278 to 300K. Additionally, it is noted that Ryba satisfies all other preferred ranges for its compositional aspects, see rejection of claim 15 below which details each of these aspects, such that it is further made clear that the underlayer would have this property).
Regarding claim 15, modified Ezaki makes obvious a tire wherein the thermally adaptive underlayer comprises (Ryba suggests the composition of the thermally adaptive underlayer, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above) natural rubber from 20 to80phr (35 to 45phr [0004]),
Solution-polymerized styrene-butadiene rubber (25 to 35phr [0005, 0021]),
Polybutadiene rubber in the range of 0 to 30phr (25 to 35phr of polybutadiene [0012]),
Reinforcing filler material in the range of 30 to 80phr (60 to 80phr of silica [0050] and 1 to 10phr of carbon black [0016]),
Resin that has a high miscibility towards the first elastomer in the range of 1 to 30phr (the composition includes 5 to 25phr of at least one hydrocarbon resin [0010]. The resin may be aromatic [0036-0037] or terpene [0034], as a few examples. The instant specification lists that hydrocarbon resins which are of the specified group in the claim, including aromatic resins and terpene resins, have high miscibility towards the SSBR [see pg. 25 of the instant specification]. Therefore, the aromatic or terpene resins of Ryba would reasonably be considered to have a high miscibility towards the SSBR, as "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”, see MPEP 2112.01 II),
Oil in the range of 0 to 30phr (it is noted that oil is not specifically required. However, oil may range from 1-3phr [0048]),
Antidegradants ranging from 0 to 10phr (these are not specifically required),
ZnO from 2 to 4phr (the composition may include zinc oxide from 2 to 5phr [0067]),
Stearic acid from 1 to3phr (the composition may include stearic acid from 0.5 to 3phr [0067]),
Vulcanization accelerators from 1 to 5phr (the amout of the accelerator may range from 0.5 to 4phr [0068]),
Sulphur from 1 to 5phr (the amount of sulfur may range from 1-10phr [0066], r 0.5 to 8phr [0067]). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 17, modified Ezaki makes obvious a tire wherein there are a plurality of studs that extend through the tread layer substantially parallel to a radial direction which is perp to the direction of rotation (stud pins “7” are present in the tread [see Fig. 1], wherein these clearly are extending substantially in the radial direction, which is up/down in Figs. 1-3, compared to the rotation direction which would be into/out of the page), wherein the underlayer is in contact with the studs such that at least a part of the underlayer is beneath the studs (see Figs. 1-3, wherein the underlayer “62” is clearly arranged radially underneath the bottom of the studs “7”).
Regarding claim 18, modified Ezaki makes obvious a tire wherein the intermediate layer thickness is 7mm or less (the thickness “T3” of the intermediate layer “63” is preferably from 1.5 to 4mm [pg. 3 of machine translation]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ezaki (JP2015039898A, of record), in view of Ryba (US2021/0079198A1, of record), in view of Sakurai (US2018/0312002A1), and optionally in view of Tadiello (US2020/0095387A1, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sekine (US2018/0179364, of record) or Ito (EP3950387A1, of record).
Regarding claim 3, Ezaki/Ryba does not explicitly give the styrene and vinyl content of the ssbr. Sekine teaches a tire with a rubber composition which may be applied to the undertread [0079]. The composition has SBR which may be made via solution polymerization [0059], such that it is highly relevant. The styrene content is preferably from 10 to 40% by wt% [0024]. The vinyl content is preferably from 20% to 50% by mol compared to the butadiene, wherein the measurement method is 1H-NMR [0057]. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the composition of the ssbr of Ezaki/Ryba to have the percentages of styrene/vinyl suggested by Sekine. One would have been motivated so as to balance wet skid and wear resistance [0024, 0057].
In the alternate, Ito teaches a pneumatic tire which may be used for a variety of uses [0118], wherein the tread has a cap, intermediate, and underlayer [se Figs. 1-2]. The base rubber layer may be made to have SSBR [0054]. The amount of styrene may be from 10 to 60% by mass [0051], and the amount of vinyl may be 10-70mol% [0052]. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the composition of the ssbr of Ezaki/Ryba to have the amount of styrene/vinyl suggested by Ito. One would have been motivated to abrasion resistance, grip performance [0051-0052]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ezaki (JP2015039898A, of record), in view of Ryba (US2021/0079198A1, of record), in view of Sakurai (US2018/0312002A1), and optionally in view of Tadiello (US2020/0095387A1, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito (EP3950387A1, of record) and at least one of Gong (NPL: “Modeling rubber dynamic stiffness…”, of record) or De Cancellis (US2020/0317891A1, of record).
Regarding claim 9, Ezaki is silent as to the dynamic stiffness of the intermediate layer. It is noted that while the claim/spec refers to this as dynamic stiffness, this is more commonly referred to as the complex modulus E*, which the instant specification acknowledges is equivalent in paragraphs 0182-0186. Ito teaches a pneumatic tire [title], which is relevant to a number of different vehicle types [0118]. The tire comprises a cap layer “6”, an intermediate layer “7”, and a base layer “8” [see Figs. 1-2]. The intermediate rubber layer has a complex modulus E* at 30C ranging from 7MPa to 25MPa [0037]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Additionally, while E* is taken at 30C compared to 20C (293K), it is well understood that a complex modulus experiences an increase in value with decrease in temperatures, such that the values at 20C would be slightly higher and significantly overlapping with the claimed range (as further explained below).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the intermediate rubber layer of Ezaki to have the dynamic stiffness/complex modulus as suggested by Ito. One would have been motivated so as to improve steering stability and wet grip performance [0037].
Ezaki/Ito does not specifically compare the dynamic stiffness E* at temperatures 273K (0C) compared to 293K (20C). However, it is well understood within the art of tires that E* experiences an increase in values with decreasing temperatures. Gong, for example, uses a variety of models to determine a relationship between the dynamic stiffness of rubber with temperature change for rubber tires [Abstract]. Gong suggests that the ratios of dynamic stiffness at 0C compared to 20C should be 1.5 [see pg. 15 and graph of pg. 16], meaning that a dynamic stiffness at 0C would be 1.5 times that of at 20C. Additionally, Gong notes that values at 30C would have a value of 0.9 compared to those of 20C [pg. 15 and graph of pg. 16]. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the intermediate layer to have the dynamic stiffness ratio between temperatures as suggested by Gong. One would have been motivated so as to ensure good ride quality of the vehicle at high running speeds [pg. 1-2]. And based on the E* values suggested by Ito above, the values at 20C compared to 30C would be approximately 10% higher based upon the teachings of Gong, which would still be well within the claimed range of 25-100MPa.
Additionally/alternatively, De Cancellis, which is within the tire arts, shows that an elastomeric compound’s dynamic modulus of elasticity/storage modulus (E’) increases with lower temperatures [0358, 0444, Table 3]. See graph below which uses the data from Table 3 to graph the change in E’ with temperature. From this data, a trendline is established for each example used over the various temperatures. Note that to calculate a trendline, a value of 50 was added to each temperature to ensure that no x values were less than 0. So for example, a temperature of -10C in Table 3 is graphed with an x value of 40C in the graph. From this, trendlines for each of the 4 testing examples were found, with equations for the trendlines shown on the graph below. It is noted that each of the R2 values are above 0.98 showing a high degree of correlation.
PNG
media_image1.png
502
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
From this highly correlated trendline, approximate values/relations at 0C and 20C can be compared. A table is shown below of the calculated values based upon the trendlines. The ratio of E’(0C)/E’(20C) ranges from ~1.2-1.3, which is well within the claimed range of 1 to 1.5times. Additionally, the E’(20C)/E’(30C) column clearly shows that a modest increase in value would be expected at 20C compared to 30C (which would be well within the claimed range of 25 to 100MPa for the values suggested by Ito above).
E'(0C)
E'(20C)
E'(30C)
E'(0C)/E'(20C)
E'(20C)/E'(30C)
Ex1
7.57
6.40
6.03
1.18
1.06
Ex2
8.57
6.90
6.28
1.24
1.10
Ex3
7.71
6.42
6.01
1.20
1.07
Ex4
10.26
8.23
7.58
1.25
1.09
Because of such a relationship, wherein tire rubber compounds would be expected to behave similarly with respect to a change in temperature, it would be expected that for the intermediate rubber layer of modified Ezaki would have a ratio of E*(293K)/E*(273K) to be from 1.2-1.3 as suggested by De Cancellis, thus suggesting the claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Additionally, it is noted that the relationship of E’ and E* are intrinsically linked together, as Applicant acknowledges (instant spec 0182-0186). An additional mathematical relationship expounding upon what Applicant acknowledges in their specification is shown below. The value of E’ would merely be slightly lower than that of E* for tire rubbers, depending on the exact value of tangent delta.
PNG
media_image2.png
232
498
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ezaki (JP2015039898A, of record), in view of Ryba (US2021/0079198A1, of record), in view of Sakurai (US2018/0312002A1), and optionally in view of Tadiello (US2020/0095387A1, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oshimo (US2022/0371372A1, of record) or Tawara (JP2005280511A, of record).
Regarding claim 10, Ezaki is silent as to the thickness of the underlayer being equal or less than 7mm. However, it is very common in the art for underlayers to have a thickness less than 7mm. Oshimo, for example, teaches a tire which may be used on passenger vehicles or other vehicles [0021, 0100]. Oshimo has a multi layer rubber configuration in its tread [see Fig. 1]. The sum of the thickness of the tread layers combined is from 5.5 to 8.5mm [0082]. Under such an arrangement, the base layer would necessarily be 7mm or less at least when the combined thickness is 7mm. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the tread layers of Ezaki to have a thickness as suggested by Oshimo. One would have been motivated to provide good abrasion resistance and handling stability [0082].
In the alternate, Tawara teaches a tire with three tread rubber layers [Fig. 1], wherein the overall tread thickness may range from 4-18mm, the surface layer 0.2 to 3mm, the cap layer 2 to 10mm, and the base layer from 1 to 7mm [pg. 2-2 of machine translation]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to set the overall tread thickness and base layer thickness to be as suggested by Tawara. One would have been motivated so as to improve the braking performance and steering stability performance [pg. 1, 3 of machine translation].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ezaki (JP2015039898A, of record), in view of Ryba (US2021/0079198A1, of record), in view of Sakurai (US2018/0312002A1), and optionally in view of Tadiello (US2020/0095387A1, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito (EP3950387A1, of record).
Regarding claim 16, Ezaki is silent as to the composition of the intermediate rubber layer. As such, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to look to exemplary tire rubber compositions to apply to the intermediate layer of the tread of Ezaki so as to provide a working tire with adequate physical properties. Ito teaches a pneumatic tire [title] which is relevant to a number of different uses [0118]. The tire comprises a cap layer “6”, an intermediate layer “7”, and a base layer “8” [see Figs. 1-2]. The rubber composition of the intermediate layer preferably comprises 1 to 50phr of natural rubber to balance wet grip performance [0047]. The intermediate layer may comprise SBR which may be of several different types [0049], wherein the intermediate layer “7” may have 50 to 100% of SSBR [0054]. The intermediate layer may comprise 1 to 50% of butadiene rubber [0064]. In this way, the rubber composition of Ito clearly suggests ranges for the intermediate layer that overlaps the required rubber ranges in the claim. For example, with SBR of 50ph, Natural rubber of 25phr and BR of 50phr (the middle of the suggested ranges of NR and BR), each of the claimed ranges would be satisfied, and the combined amounts of BR and NR would overlap with the range of 50-100phr. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Ito further suggests that the intermediate rubber composition may comprise: a total amount of fillers from 40-160phr [0073],
Oil from 5 to 120 parts when the composition comprises oil [0094],
Resins from 1 to 60parts when the composition includes resin [0092],
Antidegradants from 0.5 to 5 parts [0103-0104],
ZnO from 0.5 to 10parts [0106],
Stearic acid from 0.5 to 10 parts [0105],
Vulcanization accelerators from 1 to 8parts [0108-0114],
Sulfur from 0.1 to 5 parts [0107-0108].
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the intermediate rubber layer of Ezaki to have the intermediate layer composition suggested by Ito, because Ezaki is silent as to the specifics of its composition. One would have been motivated to improve wet grip performance [0047, 0054, 0063, 0092] abrasion resistance, fuel efficiency, and elongation at break [0073-0074, 0094, 0106], and ozone crack resistance [0104].
Claims 1, 3-8, 12-15, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ezaki (JP2015039898A, of record), in view of Mangili (WO2022254328A1, citing to English Equivalent US2024/0253395A1, of record), in view of Sakurai (US2018/0312002A1), and optionally in view of Tadiello (US2020/0095387A1, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Ezaki teaches a pneumatic tire (Fig. 1) comprising an underlayer (“62”) positioned between a textile component and a tread layer (tread layer is considered the top layer “61”, and the textiles are considered the belt/carcass “5” and “4”, as in Fig. 1) and an intermediate layer between the underlayer and the tread layer (“63” is clearly located between the tread and underlayers [see Figs. 1-3]).
Ezaki is silent as to the composition for its underlayer. As such, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to look to exemplary tire rubber compositions to apply to the underlayer of the tread of Ezaki so as to provide a working tire with adequate physical properties. Mangili is tied to a rubber composition which may be applied to a number of vehicles including cars [0001], wherein the rubber composition may be incorporated into the tread base component which is located immediately above the textile components [0132, Fig. 1]. The composition of Mangili comprises fillers [0101], additives [0120], curing agents [0116]. The polymer system of Mangili includes a first elastomer at 20-80phr of solution-polymerized styrene-butadiene rubber (a styrene-butadiene polymer has an amount ranging from 40 to 100phr [0013]. The SBR may be an S-SBR [0067]), where the first elastomer has a first glass transition temperature (the SBR have a glass transition temperature Tg from -45C to -15C [0013], equivalent to 228K to 258K). Mangili also includes a second elastomer higher than 20phr which is natural rubber where the natural rubber is polyisoprene and may be “natural” and not synthetic [0029]. The natural rubber would therefore necessarily be “biogenic” in origin, meaning that it comes from natural sources. The natural rubber has a second glass transition temperature (the component may comprise isoprene rubber from 0 to 30phr. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The isoprene rubber is preferably a natural rubber [0077]. The glass transition temperature ranges from -80C to -50C [0013], equivalent to 193K to 223K). The two glass transition temperatures would necessarily have a difference greater than 20K in a multitude of embodiments, such as when the SBR has a Tg of 243 and the natural rubber has a Tg of 208K, for example. Mangili states that the glass transition temperatures may be taken according to methods well understood in the art such as ASTM D 6604 [0083], wherein these “well known” methods would clearly encompass ASTM D7426-08. The composition (and thus component) taught by Mangili would necessarily be “thermally adaptive”, as the properties of the rubber (and of all rubber) change significantly with changes in temperature. For example, the underlayer specifies glass transition temperatures [abstract], wherein it is well known that a polymer undergoes a transition over this temperature from a rigid state to a more flexible state.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to apply the rubber composition as suggested by Mangili (including the glass transition temperatures of the elastomers) to the underlayer of Ezaki. One would have been motivated because Mangili specifically suggests that the composition may be used as the underlayer [0132], and in order to improve performance of grip on high and low temperatures, and maintaining processability, mechanical strength, and wear resistance [0010, Tables 1-4, 0157-0178]. And as Mangili suggests the composition may be present in the base or cap, Mangili therefore provides “a finite number of identified predictable solutions” regarding the placement of its composition into the tread, wherein the use of the composition in one of the tread regions would result in improved resistance to wear and formation of cracks [0132]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try the identified possible locations of the composition in the tread component with an expectation of these cited improved properties, and they would have found it obvious to have the composition exclusively in the underlayer with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 I. E.
Optionally applied regarding the natural rubber being from a biogenic origin, Tadiello teaches a tire with a composition which may be used for an underlayer [0164]. The composition comprises a natural rubber that is obtained from tropical plants such as Hevea Brasiliensis [0069]. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on suitability for its intended use support prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045)". See MPEP 2144.07. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize the well-known type of natural rubber (Hevea) as suggested by Tadiello in the composition of Mangili with a reasonable expectation of success, as an example of a selection of a known material based on suitability for its intended purpose (i.e, a natural rubber which is from biogenic origins in a tire composition in a tread underlayer).
Ezaki/Mangili does not specifically give the molecular weight of its natural rubber from 100,000 to 1,000,000 g/mol. However, this is a very broad range and an extremely common range for natural rubber to be. Sakurai provides a rubber composition which may be used for the tread rubber [abstract], where the composition may include natural rubber [0072]. The molecular weight of natural rubber may range from 50,000 to 700,000 [0073]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the composition so as to have the MW as suggested by Sakurai, as Ezaki/Mangili is silent as to the specific MW of its natural rubber. One would have been motivated so as to obtain good breaking resistance, wear resistance, and processability [0073].
Mangili does not specifically state that the elastomers have low miscibility towards each other. It is considered that the component of Mangili would have the elastomers with low miscibility would implicitly be achieved, as "When the claimed and prior art products of identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established”, see MPEP 2112.01 I. And further, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”, see MPEP 2112.01 II. In this case, because the component of Mangili has the same elastomers (SSBR and Natural Rubber) at the same concentrations, and because Mangili has each of these elastomers at substantially the same glass transition temperatures (including the difference between temperatures being larger than 20K) the component would therefore also have the elastomers having low miscibility towards each other. And similarly, because the polymer system as detailed herein satisfies each of the preferred aspects of the invention (elastomer types, molecular weight, biogenic origin, concentration, glass transition temperatures and differences) it would reasonably be suggested that the polymer system would be the continuous matrix of natural rubber with discrete zones of the SSBR because of the immiscibility properties towards each other. It being noted that the Declaration filed 12/03/2025 paragraph 10 specifies that each of these factors result in the two-phase polymer system as claimed, such that as modified Ezaki/Mangili meets each of these aspects it would clearly satisfy the claimed polymer system.
Regarding claim 3, modified Ezaki makes obvious a tire wherein the SSBR has as styrene content from 25 to 45% by mass (Mangili’s composition suggests styrene ranging from 20-45% by weight [0060]) and vinyl content from 33 to 65% relative to the butadiene (vinyl percent ranging from 10 to 70% with respect to butadiene [0060]. Because the weights of vinyl and butadiene are similar, it would be reasonably expected that the mol% content would substantially overlap with the claimed range, as the molecular weights may be 62.5 for Vinyl and ~54 for Butadiene, for example. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ezaki makes obvious a tire wherein the first elastomer has the glass transition temperature ranging from 235K to 260K and the second elastomer natural rubber has a glass transition temperature of less than 215K (as in the rejection of claim 1 above, the solution styrene-butadiene suggested by Mangili may have a Tg ranging from 228K to 258K [0013]. And the natural rubber may have a Tg ranging from 193 to 223K [0013]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ezaki makes obvious a tire wherein the thermally adaptive underlayer component contains the reinforcing filler material in an amount equal to or higher than 30 parts per hundred rubber (the composition of Mangili may include filler in amounts from 10 to 120phr [0101]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ezaki makes obvious carbon black surface area from 20-140 m2/g (in Mangili, the carbon black surface area is greater than 20 m2/g [0102]),
or silica has a surface area from 70 to 250 m2/g (in Mangili, the silica surface area may range from 120-220 m2/g [0104]),
or a combination of carbon black and silica (see Tables 1 and 3 of Mangili which clearly shows the carbon black and silica used together).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ezaki makes obvious a tire wherein the thermally adaptive underlayer contains polybutadiene rubber from 0-30parts (it is noted that the composition is not required to have polybutadiene rubber present).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ezaki makes obvious a tire wherein the underlayer contains an additive in an amount from 1 to 30 parts (the composition of Mangili includes 10-50phr of a resin mixture [0013]), the resin is selected from the specified group (the resins may be aromatic [0007-0008], phenolic [0086], terpene [0089], rosin [0095]), wherein the resin has a high miscibility towards the first elastomer (the instant specification lists that hydrocarbon resins which are of the specified group in the claim, including aromatic resins, phenol resin, etc., have high miscibility towards the SSBR [see pg. 25 of the instant specification]. Therefore, the resins of Mangili would reasonably be considered to have a high miscibility towards the SSBR, as "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”, see MPEP 2112.01 II),
The resin has a glass transition temp above the freezing point of water (see of Mangili 0081-0083. Additionally, at least one of the resins is a high temperature softening resin with temperatures greater than 110C [0013], such that this clearly have a glass transition temp above 0C).
Regarding claims 12-13, modified Ezaki makes obvious a tire wherein the underlayer produces two peak maximums at temperatures separated by at least 35K, with one peak from 273-290K and the second from 213-238K (it is noted that the instant specification pg. 9 details that when an underlayer contains the polymer system described above, the “two peak maximums” at the required temperatures are produced. In other words, the two peak maximums are a direct result of the composition and the glass transition temperatures of the polymer system containing the first and the second elastomers. It is considered, the claimed two peak maximum would implicitly be achieved, as "When the claimed and prior art products of identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established”, see MPEP 2112.01 I. And further, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”, see MPEP 2112.01 II. Because Mangili teaches an underlayer composition which has SSBR within the preferred ranges of the instant application, 40+ phr and Tg from 228K to 258K [0013] (compared to the most preferred Tg of 240-255K), and containing natural rubber at 0-30 phr and 193 to 223K [0013] (compared to the most preferred Tg of less than 215K), it would be reasonably suggested that the composition would similarly produce the two peak maximums as required in the claim. Additionally, it is noted that Mangili satisfies all other preferred ranges for its compositional aspects, see rejection of claim 15 below which details each of these aspects).
Regarding claim 14, modified Ezaki makes obvious a tire wherein the underlayer comprises a dynamic stiffness onset point temperature which is in the range of 278K to 300K (it is noted that the instant specification pg. 9 details that when an underlayer contains the polymer system described above, the result is “a dynamic stiffness E* onset point temperature which is in a range of 278K to 300K”. in other words, the dynamic stiffness E* onset point temperature is a direct result of the composition and the glass temperatures of the polymer system containing the first and second elastomers. It is considered, the dynamic stiffness onset point temperature would implicitly be achieved, as "When the claimed and prior art products of identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established”, see MPEP 2112.01 I. And further, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”, see MPEP 2112.01 II. Because Mangili teaches an underlayer composition which has SSBR within the preferred ranges of the instant application, 40+ phr and Tg from 228K to 258K [0013] (compared to the most preferred Tg of 240-255K), and containing natural rubber at 0-30 phr and 193 to 223K [0013] (compared to the most preferred Tg of less than 215K), it would be reasonably suggested that the composition would similarly produce the onset point temperature within the range of 278 to 300K. Additionally, it is noted that Mangili satisfies all other preferred ranges for its compositional aspects, see rejection of claim 15 below which details each of these aspects, such that it is further made clear that the underlayer would have this property).
Regarding claim 15, modified Ezaki makes obvious a tire wherein the thermally adaptive underlayer (Mangili suggests the composition of the underlayer applied to the underlayer of Ezaki) comprises natural rubber from 20 to 80phr (Mangili’s composition has 0 to 30phr [0013]),
Solution-polymerized styrene-butadiene rubber from 20 to 80phr (40+phr [0013]),
Polybutadiene rubber in the range of 0 to 30phr (this component is not specifically required),
Reinforcing filler material in the range of 30 to 80phr (filler is provided from 10 to 120phr [0101]),
Resin that has a high miscibility towards the first elastomer in the range of 1 to 30phr (the composition includes 10-50phr of a resin mixture [0013]), the resin is selected from the specified group (the resins may be aromatic [0007-0008], phenolic [0086], terpene [0089], rosin [0095]. The instant specification lists that hydrocarbon resins which are of the specified group in the claim, including aromatic resins, phenol resin, etc., have high miscibility towards the SSBR [see pg. 25 of the instant specification]. Therefore, the resins of Ryba would reasonably be considered to have a high miscibility towards the SSBR, as "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”, see MPEP 2112.01 II),
Oil in the range of 0 to 30phr (it is noted that oil is not specifically required. However, oil may be present at 2phr [see Tables]),
Antidegradants ranging from 0 to 10phr (these are not specifically required, but may have a value of 5phr [see Tables]),
ZnO from 2 to 4phr (the composition may include zinc oxide from 0.5 to 10phr [0114-0115]),
Stearic acid from 1 to3phr (the composition may include stearic acid at similar amounts as ZnO [0114-0115, Tables]),
Vulcanization accelerators from 1 to 5phr (the amount of the accelerator may range from 0.5 to 10phr [0117]),
Sulphur from 1 to 5phr (the amount of sulfur may range from 0.1 to 12phr [0112-0113]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 17, modified Ezaki makes obvious a tire wherein there are a plurality of studs that extend through the tread layer substantially parallel to a radial direction which is perp to the direction of rotation (stud pins “7” are present in the tread [see Fig. 1], wherein these clearly are extending substantially in the radial direction, which is up/down in Figs. 1-3, compared to the rotation direction which would be into/out of the page), wherein the underlayer is in contact with the studs such that at least a part of the underlayer is beneath the studs (see Figs. 1-3, wherein the underlayer “62” is clearly arranged radially underneath the bottom of the studs “7”).
Regarding claim 18, modified Ezaki makes obvious a tire wherein the intermediate layer thickness is 7mm or less (the thickness “T3” of the intermediate layer “63” is preferably from 1.5 to 4mm [pg. 3 of machine translation]).
In the alternate, claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ezaki (JP2015039898A, of record), in view of Mangili (WO2022254328A1, citing to English Equivalent US2024/0253395A1, of record), in view of Sakurai (US2018/0312002A1), and optionally in view of Tadiello (US2020/0095387A1, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sekine (US2018/0179364A1, of record) or Ito (EP3950387A1, of record).
Regarding claim 3, Sekine teaches a tire with a rubber composition which may be applied to the undertread [0079]. The composition has SBR which may be made via solution polymerization [0059], such that it is highly relevant. The styrene content is preferably from 10 to 40% by wt% [0024]. The vinyl content is preferably from 20% to 50% by mol compared to the butadiene, wherein the measurement method is 1H-NMR [0057]. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the composition of the ssbr of Ezaki/Mangili to have the percentages of styrene/vinyl suggested by Sekine. One would have been motivated so as to balance wet skid and wear resistance [0024, 0057].
In the alternate, Ito teaches a pneumatic tire which may be used for a variety of uses [0118], wherein the tread has a cap, intermediate, and underlayer [se Figs. 1-2]. The base rubber layer may be made to have SSBR [0054]. The amount of styrene may be from 10 to 60% by mass [0051], and the amount of vinyl may be 10-70mol% [0052]. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the composition of the ssbr of Ezaki/Mangili to have the amount of styrene/vinyl suggested by Ito. One would have been motivated to abrasion resistance, grip performance [0051-0052]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ezaki (JP2015039898A, of record), in view of Mangili (WO2022254328A1, citing to English Equivalent US2024/0253395A1, of record), in view of Sakurai (US2018/0312002A1), and optionally in view of Tadiello (US2020/0095387A1, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of at least one of Gong (NPL: “Modeling rubber dynamic stiffness…”, of record) or De Cancellis (US2020/0317891A1, of record).
Regarding claim 9, Ezaki is silent as to the dynamic stiffness of the intermediate layer. It is noted that while the claim/spec refers to this as dynamic stiffness, this is more commonly referred to as the complex modulus E*, which the instant specification acknowledges is equivalent in paragraphs 0182-0186. Ito teaches a pneumatic tire [title], which is relevant to a number of different vehicle types [0118]. The tire comprises a cap layer “6”, an intermediate layer “7”, and a base layer “8” [see Figs. 1-2]. The intermediate rubber layer has a complex modulus E* at 30C ranging from 7MPa to 25MPa [0037]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Additionally, while E* is taken at 30C compared to 20C (293K), it is well understood that a complex modulus experiences an increase in value with decrease in temperatures, such that the values at 20C would be slightly higher and significantly overlapping with the claimed range (as further explained below).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the intermediate rubber layer of Ezaki to have the dynamic stiffness/complex modulus as suggested by Ito. One would have been motivated so as to improve steering stability and wet grip performance [0037].
Ezaki/Ito does not specifically compare the dynamic stiffness E* at temperatures 273K (0C) compared to 293K (20C). However, it is well understood within the art of tires that E* experiences an increase in values with decreasing temperatures. Gong, for example, uses a variety of models to determine a relationship between the dynamic stiffness of rubber with temperature change for rubber tires [Abstract]. Gong suggests that the ratios of dynamic stiffness at 0C compared to 20C should be 1.5 [see pg. 15 and graph of pg. 16], meaning that a dynamic stiffness at 0C would be 1.5 times that of at 20C. Additionally, Gong notes that values at 30C would have a value of 0.9 compared to those of 20C [pg. 15 and graph of pg. 16]. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the intermediate layer to have the dynamic stiffness ratio between temperatures as suggested by Gong. One would have been motivated so as to ensure good ride quality of the vehicle at high running speeds [pg. 1-2]. And based on the E* values suggested by Ito above, the values at 20C compared to 30C would be approximately 10% higher based upon the teachings of Gong, which would still be well within the claimed range of 25-100MPa.
Additionally/alternatively, De Cancellis, which is within the tire arts, shows that an elastomeric compound’s dynamic modulus of elasticity/storage modulus (E’) increases with lower temperatures [0358, 0444, Table 3]. See graph below which uses the data from Table 3 to graph the change in E’ with temperature. From this data, a trendline is established for each example used over the various temperatures. Note that to calculate a trendline, a value of 50 was added to each temperature to ensure that no x values were less than 0. So for example, a temperature of -10C in Table 3 is graphed with an x value of 40C in the graph. From this, trendlines for each of the 4 testing examples were found, with equations for the trendlines shown on the graph below. It is noted that each of the R2 values are above 0.98 showing a high degree of correlation.
PNG
media_image1.png
502
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
From this highly correlated trendline, approximate values/relations at 0C and 20C can be compared. A table is shown below of the calculated values based upon the trendlines. The ratio of E’(0C)/E’(20C) ranges from ~1.2-1.3, which is well within the claimed range of 1 to 1.5times. Additionally, the E’(20C)/E’(30C) column clearly shows that a modest increase in value would be expected at 20C compared to 30C (which would be well within the claimed range of 25 to 100MPa for the values suggested by Ito above).
E'(0C)
E'(20C)
E'(30C)
E'(0C)/E'(20C)
E'(20C)/E'(30C)
Ex1
7.57
6.40
6.03
1.18
1.06
Ex2
8.57
6.90
6.28
1.24
1.10
Ex3
7.71
6.42
6.01
1.20
1.07
Ex4
10.26
8.23
7.58
1.25
1.09
Because of such a relationship, wherein tire rubber compounds would be expected to behave similarly with respect to a change in temperature, it would be expected that for the intermediate rubber layer of modified Ezaki would have a ratio of E*(293K)/E*(273K) to be from 1.2-1.3 as suggested by De Cancellis, thus suggesting the claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Additionally, it is noted that the relationship of E’ and E* are intrinsically linked together, as Applicant acknowledges (instant spec 0182-0186). An additional mathematical relationship expounding upon what Applicant acknowledges in their specification is shown below. The value of E’ would merely be slightly lower than that of E* for tire rubbers, depending on the exact value of tangent delta.
PNG
media_image2.png
232
498
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ezaki (JP2015039898A, of record), in view of Mangili (WO2022254328A1, citing to English Equivalent US2024/0253395A1, of record), in view of Sakurai (US2018/0312002A1), and optionally in view of Tadiello (US2020/0095387A1, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oshimo (US2022/0371372A1, of record) or Tawara (JP2005280511A, of record).
Regarding claim 10, Ezaki is silent as to the thickness of the underlayer being equal or less than 7mm. However, it is very common in the art for underlayers to have a thickness less than 7mm. Oshimo, for example, teaches a tire which may be used on passenger vehicles or other vehicles [0021, 0100]. Oshimo has a multi layer rubber configuration in its tread [see Fig. 1]. The sum of the thickness of the tread layers combined is from 5.5 to 8.5mm [0082]. Under such an arrangement, the base layer would necessarily be 7mm or less at least when the combined thickness is 7mm. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the tread layers of Ezaki to have a thickness as suggested by Oshimo. One would have been motivated to provide good abrasion resistance and handling stability [0082].
In the alternate, Tawara teaches a tire with three tread rubber layers [Fig. 1], wherein the overall tread thickness may range from 4-18mm, the surface layer 0.2 to 3mm, the cap layer 2 to 10mm, and the base layer from 1 to 7mm [pg. 2-2 of machine translation]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to set the overall tread thickness and base layer thickness to be as suggested by Tawara. One would have been motivated so as to improve the braking performance and steering stability performance [pg. 1, 3 of machine translation].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ezaki (JP2015039898A, of record), in view of Mangili (WO2022254328A1, citing to English Equivalent US2024/0253395A1, of record), in view of Sakurai (US2018/0312002A1), and optionally in view of Tadiello (US2020/0095387A1, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito (EP3950387A1, of record).
Regarding claim 16, Ezaki is silent as to the composition of the intermediate rubber layer. As such, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to look to exemplary tire rubber compositions to apply to the intermediate layer of the tread of Ezaki so as to provide a working tire with adequate physical properties. Ito teaches a pneumatic tire [title] which is relevant to a number of different uses [0118]. The tire comprises a cap layer “6”, an intermediate layer “7”, and a base layer “8” [see Figs. 1-2]. The rubber composition of the intermediate layer preferably comprises 1 to 50phr of natural rubber to balance wet grip performance [0047]. The intermediate layer may comprise SBR which may be of several different types [0049], wherein the intermediate layer “7” may have 50 to 100% of SSBR [0054]. The intermediate layer may comprise 1 to 50% of butadiene rubber [0064]. In this way, the rubber composition of Ito clearly suggests ranges for the intermediate layer that overlaps the required rubber ranges in the claim. For example, with SBR of 50ph, Natural rubber of 25phr and BR of 50phr (the middle of the suggested ranges of NR and BR), each of the claimed ranges would be satisfied, and the combined amounts of BR and NR would overlap with the range of 50-100phr. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Ito further suggests that the intermediate rubber composition may comprise: a total amount of fillers from 40-160phr [0073],
Oil from 5 to 120 parts when the composition comprises oil [0094],
Resins from 1 to 60parts when the composition includes resin [0092],
Antidegradants from 0.5 to 5 parts [0103-0104],
ZnO from 0.5 to 10parts [0106],
Stearic acid from 0.5 to 10 parts [0105],
Vulcanization accelerators from 1 to 8parts [0108-0114],
Sulfur from 0.1 to 5 parts [0107-0108].
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the intermediate rubber layer of Ezaki to have the intermediate layer composition suggested by Ito, because Ezaki is silent as to the specifics of its composition. One would have been motivated to improve wet grip performance [0047, 0054, 0063, 0092] abrasion resistance, fuel efficiency, and elongation at break [0073-0074, 0094, 0106], and ozone crack resistance [0104].
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on pg. 11 of the Remarks filed 12/03/2025 that the new limitation requiring the NR to have molecular weight from 100,000 to 1,000,000 overcomes the prior art rejections. And further, Applicant argues on pg. 10-11 that a weight distribution of NR can range from 10^4 to 10^6 (J. Sci Technol) compared to the claimed 10^5 to 10^6, such that the distribution is broader than the claimed range. Applicant only argues the reference of Ryba, but Mangili is also addressed herein for completeness.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, it is noted that the Examiner does not contend that Ezaki and either Ryba/Mangili explicitly suggest the natural rubber molecular weight (MW) ranging from 100,000 to 1,000,000 g/mol. The newly cited reference Sakurai is relied upon to suggest this aspect, for where Ryba/Mangili are silent as the MW, it would have been obvious to employ the MW of Sakurai for the benefits of breaking resistance and wear resistance (see rejections above for further details).
Applicant’s citations (to J. Sci Technol) are not found convincing. This cited range from 104 to 106 entirely encompasses the claimed range of from 105 to 106 (100,000 to 1,000,000). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the cited range in the declaration/arguments actually suggest the obviousness of such a claimed range. In addition, Applicant has not provided any evidence of criticality or unexpected results of their claimed range compared to the prior art, such that arguments tied to the “broader” range of J. Sci Technol compared to the claimed ranged are not persuasive, as the person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to work within this wide range so as to find the optimum MW for the composition. The instant specification does not appear to provide any support for criticality or unexpected results of this range.
Applicant argues that the Examiner has not established that NR and SSBR have low miscibility towards each other, in each case of Ezaki modified by references Ryba and Mangili. Applicant argues that Han and Polymers both show that NR and SSBR can form homogenous phases with “a single glass transition temperature across all blend ratios”, on pg. 11. Applicant only addresses the rejections in view of Ryba, but Mangili is also addressed herein for completeness.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that both of the evidentiary references submitted are not commensurate in scope to the prior art that is applied in the rejections of record, nor is it commensurate to the claims. As on pg. 11 of the arguments, both references Han and Polymers are cited to show a homogenous mixture of “a single glass transition temperature across all blend ratios”. And by contrast, Applicants invention has the glass transition temperatures of the NR and SSBR to be sufficiently far apart and in a predefined temperature range, which results in S-SBR becoming gradually glassy while NR remains rubbery (see Declaration paragraph 7). Notably, the prior art references of Ryba and Mangili each satisfy all of the claimed glass transition temperature ranges, such that they would not have the overlapping glass transition temperature of Han and Polymers. As in the respective rejections, Ryba suggests SSBR which may have a Tg from -30C to -10C (equivalent to 243K to 263K) [0005, 0013, 0021], and Natural Rubber with a Tg from -60C to -70C (equivalent to 203K to 213K). This results in both the glass transition temperatures with a difference of larger than 20K, AND meeting the more preferred ranges as in dependent claim 4. And similarly in the rejections of Mangili, the SSBR may have a Tg from -45C to -15C (equivalent to 228K to 258K) and the NR may have a Tg from -80C to -50C (equivalent to 193K to 223K) [0013]. Again, Mangili satisfies each of the preferred ranges of its glass transition temperatures. In stark contrast, the evidentiary references of Han and Polymers both only have single peaks (such that they do not have the same properties as demonstrated by Ryba/Mangili and by the instant application). Therefore, the evidentiary references submitted (which both have glass transition temperatures of the two components that are demonstrated by single temperatures/peaks) is substantially divergent from Ryba/Mangili which explicitly suggest the preferred glass transition temperatures (which Applicant details as a prime factor on the miscibility characteristics). Where Ryba and Mangili each satisfy the preferred ranges of the composition and glass transition temperature ranges, it would reasonably be considered that these references would similarly necessarily be immiscible towards each other.
Applicant argues that in addition to the NR and SSBR of Ryba/Mangili not having low miscibility, each of these compositions do not suggest the polymer system which have a continuous matrix of natural rubber and discrete zones of the SSBR.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the Declaration filed 12/03/2025 paragraphs 7 and 10 (as well as in the written specification), the claimed polymer system with the continuous matrix of natural rubber and discrete SSBR is a result of the associated conditions. Namely, having NR (of biogenic origin at MW from 100,000 to 1,000,000), SSBR, with both elastomers at the preferred concentrations, and with the required glass transition temperatures in the preferred ranges results in the SSBR becoming gradually glassy while NR remains rubbery, which results in the polymer system as claimed. Because Ryba and Mangili (as in each of the rejections above) satisfy each and every one of the factors that influences the behavior of the polymer system as identified, the resultant component would necessarily be the polymer system as claimed. "When the claimed and prior art products of identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established”, see MPEP 2112.01 I. And further, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”, see MPEP 2112.01 II.
Applicant argues that Ryba does not suggest having the polymer system arranged exclusively in the underlayer of the tread.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ryba specifies that the rubber composition may be employed in the tread, including as the tread cap and tread base [0071]. A fair reading of Ryba [0071] suggests that the cap and base are not required to have the same composition (as otherwise the cap/base structure would be a singular tread component and not have the cited structure). Therefore, Ryba is clearly suggesting the use of the composition in either the cap or base when there is a cap/base structure. Ryba therefore provides “a finite number of identified predictable solutions” regarding the placement of its composition into the tread, wherein the use of the composition in one of the tread regions would result in improved properties [see Table 2, 0001-0002]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try both of the identified possible locations of the composition in the tread component with an expectation of these cited improved properties, and they would have found it obvious to have the composition exclusively in the underlayer with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 I. E. And where Ezaki suggests a three layer structure but is silent as to any of the specific compositional details of its tread structure, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the composition of Ryba in the underlayer of Ezaki.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS F SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-4857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/T.F.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749