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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments entered on 8/31/2026 have been accepted. Claims 1, 4, 7, 15, 16 are amended. Claim 3 is canceled. Claims 1-2 and 4-10, 12-18 are pending, and claim 2 is withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-18 are 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 1 requires for the “total combined rubber amount in the thermally adaptive rubber component equals to 100 parts” [final line]. Claim 1 also requires the first elastomer to be in a range of 20-80 parts per hundred rubber, the second elastomer to be 20 or greater parts per hundred rubber, and for there to be polybutadiene rubber included which is not the first or second elastomer. Based on this, the top range of the amount of first elastomer being 80 parts is not possible to be accomplished with all of the other rubber component parts which are specified. For example, if the first elastomer is 80 parts, the second is 20 parts (which is the minimum amount), and if there is some amount of polybutadiene rubber included (as required in the claim), the total combined rubber amount would necessarily be greater than 100 parts. Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter, as to what these ranges are required to be within the confines of the claim. Claims 3-18 are rejected for relying upon a rejected claim. The claims will be examined such that the first elastomer range has an upper limit of 79 parts or less.
Claim 15 requires for the natural rubber to be from 20-80phr, the SSBR to be from 20-80phr, for there to be polybutadiene rubber, and for the combined rubber to equal 100 parts. Based on this, the top range of the amount of natural rubber and SSBR is not possible to be accomplished with all of the other rubber components parts which are specified, as the inclusion of some amount of polybutadiene rubber would necessarily push the amount of rubber over 100 parts. Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter, as to what these ranges are required to be within the confines of the claim. The claims will be examined such that the amount of NR and SSBR maxes out at 79phr.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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), and in view of Sekine (US2018/0179364, of record) or Ito (EP3950387A1, 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. Ryba additionally includes 25 to 35phr of a polybutadiene rubber [0004]. The total combined rubber amounts would necessarily equal 100 parts because phr is based on parts per hundred.
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].
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).
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 (25 to 35phr of polybutadiene [0012]),
Such that the total combined rubber equals 100 parts (this would necessarily be the case, as phr means parts per hundred rubber),
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 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), and in view of Sekine (US2018/0179364, of record) or Ito (EP3950387A1, 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), and in view of Sekine (US2018/0179364, of record) or Ito (EP3950387A1, 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), and in view of Sekine (US2018/0179364, of record) or Ito (EP3950387A1, 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 25phr (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, 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 Lopitaux (US2012/0318424A1), in view of Ryba (US2021/0079198A1, of record), in view of Sakurai (US2018/0312002A1), and optionally in view of Tadiello (US2020/0095387A1, of record), and in view of Sekine (US2018/0179364, of record) or Ito (EP3950387A1, 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. Lopitaux is tied to a composition for an underlayer which is the radially innermost elastomer layer [Fig. 1, 0133] positioned between the textile component and the tread layer [Fig. 1], which contains reinforcing filler material (carbon black or silica [065]), additive (various additives may be used [0088-0089]), curing agents ([0089-0090]), and a polymer system (the polymer system is considered to be all of the polymers that make up the underlayer). Lopitaux suggests that the underlayer may have natural rubber ranging from 40-80phr and BR and SBR ranging from 20-60phr [see 0044-0047]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to work within these provided ranges to improve the rolling resistance and handling of the tire [0147, 0006], and one would have landed upon an SBR content of at least 20phr and a NR content of at least 20phr, and it would have had some amount of polybutadiene rubber as well. 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). Lopitaux suggests that the SBR may be solution SBR [0044]. Lopitaux further suggests that butadiene/styrene copolymers (such as the SBR) may have a styrene content between 5 and 50% or more particularly 20-40%.
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 Lopitaux to the underlayer of Ezaki. One would have been motivated because Lopitaux specifically suggests that the composition may be utilized in base tread layer [title, 0071], and where the composition leads to an improvement in a variety of physical properties [Tables 1-2, 0134-0147]. And as Lopitaux suggests the composition to be present in the sublayer which is the lowest layer of the tread, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to implement this composition of Lopitaux into the underlayer of Ezaki with a reasonable expectation of success.
Loptiaux suggests that the first elastomer of SBR may preferably have a glass transition temperature of 0C or below (equivalent to 273K or below) [0059]. Lopitaux does not explicitly give the glass transition temperature of the natural rubber. However, it is well known that natural rubber and SBR differ by more than 20K between the glass transition temperatures. Ryba teaches a pneumatic tire with a composition which may be utilized in the underlayer of the tire [0071], wherein the glass transition temperature of the SSBR ranges from -30 to -10C (243-263K), the NR ranges from -60 to -70C (203-213K), and the polybutadiene is a cis 1,4 polybutadiene with a temperature from -110 to -90C (163-143K) [0013]. Ryba therefore clearly suggests that the difference between the two glass temperatures is well above 20K (difference of 45K between the midpoints of the range, and above 30K regardless of which temperature is used). And further, Ryba suggests that the glass transition temperature difference between the SSBR and the NR should be at least 25C [0031]. The testing method of the glass transition temperatures are according to standard ASTM D7426 or equivalent [0027], wherein a reading is taken at a linear rate of 10 degrees per minute [0027]. In this manner, ASTM D7426 is substantially similar to the measurement method of ISO 11357-2, such that the specific values would similarly be expected to be substantially similar. Additionally, as Ryba states that other similar testing methods may be utilized, the testing method of ISO 11357-2 would similarly be employed in Ryba which would obtain similar Tg values.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize the glass transition temperatures as suggested by Ryba in the tire of Lopitaux/Ezaki. One would have been motivated because Lopitaux/Ezaki is silent as to the glass transition temperature of its natural rubber. One would have expected for the glass transition temperatures to result in a balanced blend of rolling resistance, traction, and wear [0001-0002, Table 2].
Modified Ezaki suggests that the second elastomer is a natural rubber and is “natural” and would not be synthetic when it is natural [Lopitaux, 0040-0045]. The natural rubber would therefore necessarily be “biogenic” in origin, meaning that it comes from natural sources. 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 Ezaki/Lopitaux 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).
Lopitaux 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 of Lopitaux so as to have the MW as suggested by Sakurai, as Lopitaux 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].
Regarding the styrene/vinyl contents of the SSBR, Kanbara teaches a tire with a rubber composition which has SBR which may be ssbr [0041, 0051]. The styrene content of the SBR’s would preferably range from 5 to 50% by mass [0037]. The vinyl content in the SBR’s range from 0.1 to 80% with respect to the amount of butadiene-derived units contained in the SBR [0037-0038]. This is a wide range that would reasonably be considered to significantly overlap with 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). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the SSBR of Ezaki to have the amounts of styrene/vinyl as suggested by Kanbara because Lopitaux is silent as to its preferred ranges. One would have been motivated to improve the properties of the tire such as wet grip, strength, abrasion resistance, steering stability [0036-0040].
Alternatively, 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 to Lopitaux. 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 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].
Lopitaux does not specifically state that the elastomers have low miscibility towards each other. It is considered that the component of Lopitaux 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 modified Ezaki/Lopitaux has the same elastomers (SSBR, Natural Rubber, and polybutadiene) at the same concentrations, and because Lopitaux 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 Lopitaux meets each of these aspects it would clearly satisfy the claimed polymer system. And additionally, it is noted that the rubber compositions of Lopitaux undergo mechanical mixing/kneading in the formation of its rubber components wherein the different elastomers all undergo this procedure [see 0112+]. Wherein Applicant argues that a mechanical mixing step is necessary to form the matrix, Lopitaux clearly satisfies this requirement with the mixing/kneading and thus would also clearly form the matrix as claimed.
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 may have a Tg of below 273K [Lopitaux 0059] and from 243 to 263K [Ryba, 0005, 0021]. And the natural rubber may have a Tg ranging from 203 to 213K [Lopitaux, 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 may include carbon black, silica, or a combination of both [0065]. The total filler between these may range from 30-150phr [0072-0073]. 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)).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ezaki makes obvious silica that has a specific surface area from 70 to 250m2/g (the silica may have a surface area from 30-400, for example [0070-0071]. 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)).
Lopitaux further makes obvious any combination of carbon black and silica (a combination of both may be used [0065]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ezaki makes obvious a tire wherein the thermally adaptive underlayer contains polybutadiene rubber and wherein the glass temp is 160-193K (BR may range from 20-60phr [see 0044-0047]. The claim would be satisfied when BR is 20, NR is 40, and SSBR is 40, for example, which is within the ranges suggested by Lopitaux. 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 polybutadiene may be of the cis-1,4-polybutadiene type [0040, 0042-0046]. As modified by Ryba, the polybutadiene may have a glass transition temp Tg ranging from -110 to -90C [Ryba, 0005]. This is equivalent to 163 to 183K, such that it is entirely within the claimed range. And as noted previously regarding the testing method of the glass transition temperatures, the Tg is obtained through a substantially similar process through a similar standard ASTM D7426 [0027], such that the specific values of glass transitional temperature would be substantially similar. And as Lopitaux does not specifically suggest a glass transition temp for its polybutadiene, it would have been obvious to utilize the glass transition temp as suggested by Ryba with an expectation of a balanced blend of rolling resistance, traction, and wear [Ryba, 0001-0002, Table 2].
Regarding claim 8, modified Ezaki makes obvious a tire wherein the underlayer includes additive in an amount from 1-30parts (the composition may include 10-40phr of a plasticizing agent which may be a hydrocarbon-based resin [0091-0092]),
wherein the additive is a resin selected from the given group (the hydrocarbon-based resin may be aromatic [0101]),
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 Lopitaux 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),
wherein the glass transition temp is above the freezing point of water (the Tg is preferably above 20 degrees C [0093]).
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 modified Lopitaux teaches an underlayer composition which has SSBR within the preferred ranges of the instant application, 40phr and Tg of less than 273K [Lopitaux 0059] and from 243K to 263K [Ryba, 0004-0005] (compared to the most preferred Tg of 240-255K), and containing natural rubber at 40-80phr [Lopitaux, 0044-0047] and 203 to 213K [Ryba, 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 Lopitaux 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 modified Ezaki teaches an underlayer composition which has SSBR within the preferred ranges of the instant application, 40phr and Tg of less than 273K [Lopitaux 0059] and from 243K to 263K [Ryba, 0004-0005] (compared to the most preferred Tg of 240-255K), and containing natural rubber at 40-80phr [Lopitaux, 0044-0047] and 203 to 213K [Ryba, 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 Lopitaux 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 natural rubber from 20 to 80phr (40-80phr [Lopitaux, 0044-0047])
Solution-polymerized styrene-butadiene rubber (20-60phr [0044-0047]),
Polybutadiene rubber (20-60phr [0044-0047]. 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)),
With a total rubber amount of 100parts (this would necessarily be the case as phr is parts per hundred)
Reinforcing filler material in the range of 30 to 80phr (the total reinforcing filler may be, for example, from 30-150phr [0072-0073]),
Resin that has a high miscibility towards the first elastomer in the range of 1 to 30phr (the composition may include 10-40phr of a plasticizing agent which may be a hydrocarbon-based resin [0091-0092]. The hydrocarbon-based resin may be aromatic [0101]). 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 Lopitaux 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 utilized [0111]),
Antidegradants ranging from 0 to 10phr (these are not specifically required),
ZnO from 2 to 4phr (ZnO may be from 0.5 to 5phr [0121]),
Stearic acid from 1 to 3phr (Stearic acid may be from 0.5 to 5phr [0121]),
Vulcanization accelerators from 1 to 5phr (the amount of the accelerator may range from 0.5 to 5phr [0121-0122]),
Sulphur from 1 to 5phr (the amount of sulfur may range from 0.5 to 3phr [0121]). 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ezaki (JP2015039898A, of record), in view of Lopitaux (US2012/0318424A1), in view of Ryba (US2021/0079198A1, of record), in view of Sakurai (US2018/0312002A1), and optionally in view of Tadiello (US2020/0095387A1, of record), and in view of Sekine (US2018/0179364, of record) or Ito (EP3950387A1, 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 Lopitaux (US2012/0318424A1), in view of Ryba (US2021/0079198A1, of record), in view of Sakurai (US2018/0312002A1), and optionally in view of Tadiello (US2020/0095387A1, of record), and in view of Sekine (US2018/0179364, of record) or Ito (EP3950387A1, 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 Lopitaux (US2012/0318424A1), in view of Ryba (US2021/0079198A1, of record), in view of Sakurai (US2018/0312002A1), and optionally in view of Tadiello (US2020/0095387A1, of record), and in view of Sekine (US2018/0179364, of record) or Ito (EP3950387A1, 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 25phr (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’s arguments with respect to the rejections using the composition of Mangili are acknowledged (pgs. 13-15 of Filed Remarks dated 8/31/2026). The Examiner agrees that Mangili does not suggest the component explicitly containing polybutadiene rubber, and the rejections relying upon Mangili are overcome.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections using the composition of Ryba are acknowledged, but they are not found convincing.
Applicant argues on pgs. 10-11 and on pg. 15 that the amendments to the independent claim requiring specific styrene content and vinyl contents of the SSBR overcomes the rejections. Applicant argues that Ryba is completely silent about the styrene/vinyl contents, and Applicant states generally that Sekine/Ito do not cure what is missing.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant agrees that Ryba does not disclose the styrene/vinyl contents. However, Applicant has disregarded the actual previous rejections of these limitations in the previous claim 3 (now incorporated into claim 1). The rejection of the styrene/vinyl contents is in view of either Sekine or Ito, wherein Sekine and Ito both provide specific rationale for having styrene and vinyl contents in SSBR which significantly overlap with Applicant’s cited ranges. Applicant does not address this at all in their arguments, and only says that Sekine/Ito do not cure what is missing. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As Ryba is silent as to its specific styrene/vinyl content (as Applicant admits in their Remarks pg. 11) and because there would necessarily be an amount of styrene/vinyl in the SBR so as to obtain a working composition, it would have been obvious to look to the art for exemplary styrene/vinyl ratios to utilize in the composition for the beneficial effects described in the rejection. And one would have found it obvious to utilize the amounts as suggested by Sekine or Ito to suggest this amount of styrene/vinyl in the composition.
Applicant argues on pg. 10 that Ryba does not teach the polymer system exclusively in the underlayer.
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.
Applicant argues on pg. 11-13 that Ryba does not suggest that the components are arranged in a manner with a continuous matrix of the second elastomer and discrete zones of the SSBR. Applicant cites to the previously filed declaration to argue that the properties of the polymer system are not inherent in the composition and ranges. Applicant argues that as Ryba doesn’t have the styrene/vinyl content of the SSBR that the references cannot suggest the continuous matrix.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, it is noted that essentially every tire component will undergo some form of mechanical mixing during the formation of said tire component. Applicant’s specification merely generally states that a mechanical mixing step (with the elastomers in question) results in the claimed polymer matrix system. There are no details of this mechanical mixing step in any detail which lead credence to this step being different from any other mechanical mixing step which would occur in the formation of the tire components in all tires. There would necessarily be steps of mechanical mixing in mixing the compositions of Ryba to result in the tire components (such as the mixture of all of the different components that make up the composition for the tire component as in Table 1). Applicant arguments pertaining to Ryba not containing the styrene/vinyl content as the specified amount is not found convincing. Applicant ignores the previous applied rejections (in view of Sekine/Ito) which specifically suggest these features, as nonobviousness cannot be shown by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on the combination of references. As Ryba suggests all features which are identified by Applicant to result in the continuous matrix as claimed, it would thus be considered that Ryba would similarly have the structure of the continuous matrix with discrete zones of SSBR.
In the case of Lopitaux, it is specifically suggested that the polymer system that makes up the components of the underlayer undergoes a mixing step. See 0112+, wherein the different elastomers are added together and mixed in an appropriate mixer, which would clearly constitute the “mechanical mixing” step which is argued by Applicant. As argued by Applicant in pgs. 9-10 of the Remarks, the polymer system would be obtained when the elastomers are chosen at the claimed concentrations with the glass transition temperatures and when they are mixed mechanically together. As in the rejections above, modified Lopitaux suggests an underlayer component with SSBR, NR, and BR overlapping with the claimed ranges, glass transition temperatures of these rubbers overlapping with the claimed ranges, and wherein these rubbers are mechanically mixed together. Based off of the instant specification and off of Applicant’s own arguments, it would then necessarily flow that Lopitaux and Ryba would similarly have the structure of a continuous matrix with discrete zones of the SSBR. "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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights