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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/6/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments entered on 8/6/2025 have been accepted. Claims 1-3, and 7 are amended. Claims 1-10 are pending, and claims 4, 6, 8, and 10 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 last two lines should read “…disposed only in the tire radial region and over the entire tire radial region”, thus removing the word “direction”. This would keep the term consistent with how the tire radial region is introduced and used in the rest of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, both claims 3 and 7 require the rubber member to be in the tire radial region. However, with the newly added limitation to claim 1 (of which claims 3 and 7 both rely) which requires for the rubber member to be disposed only and entirely in the radial region, it does not appear that claims 3 or 7 provide any additional limitations beyond what was previously claimed such that claims 3 and 7 fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 5, 7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi (JPH0443107A, of record).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Kobayashi teaches a pneumatic tire (title, Figs. 1-3), with an aspect ratio of 10 to 65 (Kobayashi may have a tire size of 185/60R14 [pg. 2 of machine translation]), wherein
when a condition in which the pneumatic tire is mounted on an applicable rim, pressure, and unloaded is a reference condition (the tire of Kobayashi is mounted onto a rim, see tire size 185/60R14 with internal pressure of 2.0kg/cm2 with no load applied [pg.2 of machine translation, Figs. 1-3]. Additionally, it is noted that the tire must clearly follow JATMA/ETRTO/etc. standards and that any tire produced would clearly have an applicable rim/pressure/load standards that the tire must meet),
in the reference condition, a mass of a sidewall portion in a tire radial region between positions each spaced apart, from a tire maximum width position, by 15% of a tire cross-sectional height to an inner side and an outer side in the tire radial direction is 1.5% to 5% of an overall mass of the pneumatic tire (the inventive tire of Kobayashi is tied to increasing the mass at the tire maximum width position so as to improve the cavity resonance and vibration of the tire [abstract]. Fig. 2 discloses an embodiment wherein the maximum width portion “18B” of the side rubber is made to protrude to be the protruding portion “22” [pg. 2 of machine translation, Fig. 2]. Kobayashi discloses a specific embodiment of a tire of Fig. 2 with the following values: H=115mm, h=60mm, B1=18mm, B2=20mm, side rubber “18” density of 1.09g/cm2, added rubber “28” density of 1.20g/cm2, and an increase of 3.8% with respect to the total tire weight [see pg. 2 of machine translation and pg. 4 of machine translation which directly translates pg. 4 of the original document]. “H” is the total tire cross-sectional height, and “h” is the height to the mid-point of the increased mass portion from the bead baseline, as shown in Fig. 2. “B2” is the maximum radial height of the increased mass portion. This results in the increased mass portion being in a radial distance from 50mm to 70mm from the bead baseline, or from +/-8.7% of the tire maximum width position (compared to the total tire cross-sectional height of 115mm). Therefore, the increased mass portion is within the 15% radial region as defined in the claim. And as detailed above, Kobayashi specifically discloses that this cited embodiment results in an increase of 3.8% with respect to the overall mass of the tire. Moreover, it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' with sufficient specificity”, then the claimed range is anticipated, see MPEP § 2131.03(II)),
a thickness of a sidewall portion is 1-4mm thicker than a thinnest part of the sidewall (as detailed above, Kobayashi’s specific embodiment gives a thickness of the protruding portion to be 5mm [pg. 4 of machine translation]. Kobayashi additionally teaches that the thickness T2 of the protrusion is twice the thickness T1 of the side rubber “18” [pg. 2 of machine translation]. Therefore, the thickness of the side rubber which does not have the protrusion would be 2.5mm, such that a difference between the maximum and minimum thicknesses would be 2.5mm),
and a weighted part has a radial width of 7% or more of the cross-sectional height and is in a circular pattern (the weighted part of Kobayashi is considered to be the protruding portion “22”. As in the example given above, the height of the protruding portion in the radial direction is B2=20mm [pg. 4 of machine translation]. As the total tire height H is 115mm, the radial height of the weighted portion would be approximately 17% and well above the lower limit of 7%. And as shown in Figs. 4a-4c, the features of the sidewall extend around the circumference of the tire, such that it would necessarily be in a circular pattern).
Kobayashi further teaches a rubber member disposed only in the tire radial region and over the entire tire radial region (it is noted that a “rubber member” as claimed requires no specific limitations regarding the “rubber member” so as to differentiate it from any other portion of rubber in the tire, such that any rubber or region of rubber in the tire may arbitrarily be considered to be the rubber member which is only disposed in such a region. In other words, the tire of Kobayashi would inherently satisfy the claimed limitation as any rubber in the region as defined (+/- 15% from the tire maximum width position) may be considered the rubber member).
Regarding claims 2 and 7, Kobayashi teaches a tire wherein a thickness of the sidewall portion at the tire maximum width position is 120% to 200% of the thickness of the thinnest part of the sidewall portion (as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, Kobayashi teaches that the thickness of the protruding portion has a thickness that is twice that of the side rubber [pg. 2 of machine translation]. As such, the maximum thickness with the protrusion would be 200% of that of the thinnest part of the sidewall portion which does not have the protrusion present).
Regarding claims 5 and 9, Kobayashi teaches a tire wherein the rubber member is attached to the tire outer surface (as in the rejection of claims 1 above, the rubber member may be considered any rubber portion of the tire as there are no specific limitations so as to differentiate it from any other portion of rubber in the tire. Therefore, the rubber member would readily be considered the rubber portion on an outermost portion of the sidewall located exclusively in the tire radial region).
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 1-3, 5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoi (US5871599A, of record), in view of Masatoshi (US2014/0311642A1, of record), and in view of Kobayashi (JPH0443107A, of record).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Naoi teaches a pneumatic tire (Col1 L5-10), wherein the tire is mounted on an applicable rim, filled to prescribed internal pressure, and is unloaded (the tire of Naoi is mounted onto an approved rim, and approved internal pressure with no load, as in Figs. 1-2 [Col1 L38-51, Col2 L32-46], wherein the specific measurement conditions are taken. Additionally, the tire must necessarily follow the standard requirements for tire rim/pressure/load sizes as dictated by various tire organizations including the ETRTO so as to be sold in the respective areas),
a thickness of the sidewall portion in a tire radial region between positions spaced apart from a tire maximum width position by 15% of a tire cross-sectional height is 1-4mm thicker than the thinnest part of the sidewall portion (as in Figs. 1-2, the tire is provided with a rubber layer “8” which is added to the zone of the sidewall portion corresponding to the region “E” [Col2 L55-65]. As in Fig. 2, the rubber layer “8” in the region “E” would contain the maximum width position of the tire [see Fig. 2]. The thickened portion with the rubber layer “8” encompasses at least 20% of the region E, up to the entire region of E [Col2 L55-65]. The region E has a radial height of 10-50% of a section height “H” of the tire [Col2 L32-46]. Therefore, as in Fig. 2, the region “E” may encompass 30% of the section height of the tire (within the suggested range of 10-50%), and the thickened portion of rubber “8” may be present for the entirety of the region “E”. In this case, the thickened portion would then extend a total of 30% of the radial height of the tire (+/-15% of the cross-sectional height from the tire maximum width position). Table 1 provides various testing results of different thicknesses of the sidewall portion in the region “E”, and of the minimum thickness of the sidewall portion [see Table 1]. Invention Tire 2 has a thickness of the sidewall in region “E” of 8mm, while the minimum thickness of the sidewall is 4mm [see Table 1]. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify Fig. 2 of Naoi so as to have a thickness of the sidewall in region “E” to be 8mm and a thinnest region of the sidewall to be 4mm, and one would have been motivated in order to realize a reduction in sound of the tire [Table 1, Col3 L10+]. And as the region “E” may have the thickened rubber “8” for the entirety of +/-15% from the tire maximum width position, the average thickness within this defined region (8mm) minus the thinnest region (4mm) would result in a value of 4mm. 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). It being noted, that this is one specific embodiment making obvious the claimed limitation, while various other embodiments suggested by Naoi would similarly be valid (such as embodiments wherein “8” does not span the entirety of the region E. Additionally, it being noted that unexpected results nor criticality have been shown for the claimed range),
the pneumatic tire comprises a weighted part disposed in the tire radial region (the rubber layer “8” disposed in the region “E” is considered the weighted part of the tire, wherein this region would reasonably be considered thus as the rubber layer extends axially outward from the natural contour of the tire (see Fig. 2), and “8” would naturally possess a “weighty” portion due to its additional thickness),
the weighted part having a width in the tire radial direction that is 7% or more of the tire cross-sectional height and being in a circular pattern (as noted above, the rubber layer “8” may extend for the entirety or a portion of the region E. In the exemplary example discussed above, the rubber layer “8” would have a radial height encompassing +/-15% from the tire maximum width position. And as to being in a circular pattern, the weighted part “8” of Naoi extends over the circumference of the tire, such that the rubber would necessarily have a “circular pattern” when viewing the sidewall head on. It being noted, that the term “circular pattern” is not specifically defined by the instant specification, shown in the Figures, nor are any additional details regarding the structure of the weighted portion/protrusion given. As such, the term is treated under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, wherein Naoi would clearly encompass a “circular” portion when viewing the sidewall, wherein the weighted portion extends around the circumference of the tire),
a rubber member is disposed only in the tire radial region and over the entire tire radial region (it is noted that a “rubber member” as claimed requires no specific limitations regarding the “rubber member” so as to differentiate it from any other portion of rubber in the tire, such that any rubber or region of rubber in the tire may arbitrarily be considered to be the rubber member which is only disposed in such a region. In other words, the tire of Kobayashi would inherently satisfy the claimed limitation as any rubber in the region as defined (+/- 15% from the tire maximum width position) may be considered the rubber member).
Alternatively, regarding the rubber member disposed only in the tire radial region, the rubber member may be considered to be the rubber layer “8” [see Fig. 2]. As stated previously, the rubber layer “8” would form the maximum width position of the tire, and the thickened portion with the rubber layer “8” encompasses at least 20% of the region E, up to the entire region of E [Col2 L55-65]. The region E has a radial height of 10-50% of a section height “H” of the tire [Col2 L32-46]. Therefore, as in Fig. 2, the region “E” may encompass 30% of the section height of the tire and the thickened portion may encompass the entirety of the region “E”. 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). As Naoi discloses each of the given ranges above, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art to work within the stated ranges, and the tire with the rubber member disposed only in the radial region (of +/-15% of the maximum width position) would have been prima facie obvious. Additionally, Applicant has not provided a sufficient showing of unexpected results or criticality to the claimed range.
Naoi does not explicitly have a tire aspect ratio of from 10 to 65. Naoi is preferably for trucks or busses [Col1 L5-10], and Naoi does not explicitly limit its aspect ratio or specific tire size to any specific value. It is well known in the art of tires that a tire may have different tire sizes depending on the specific type of the vehicle that the tire is mounted to. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the inventive tire of Naoi to the size of any truck/bus tire. 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 example of a possible truck tire is of Masatoshi, which teaches tires for trucks/buses [0013]. A possible truck tire size includes 445/50R22.5 [0066], wherein this truck tire has an aspect ratio of 50%. 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).
Naoi does not explicitly give the mass of the sidewall portion as 1.5 to 5% of the total mass of the pneumatic tire. However, it is known within the art of tires that a weight percent within the given range yields favorable results. For example, Kobayashi teaches a substantially similar tire, where a weighted member “22” is included at a position of a tire maximum width position [see Figs. 2-3]. This protrusion portion “22” extends outward from the natural curvature of the tire sidewall, substantially similar to Naoi’s Figs. (and of the instant application). Kobayashi specifically states that a maximum effect of reducing the peak vibration of the tire is achieved by “increasing the weight of the minimum tire by concentrating the mass added near the maximum width. The present invention focuses on the fact that the vibration of the tire side portion and the cavity resonance in the tire are greatly related to the following two reasons, and has a vibration preventing member having a higher density than the side rubber constituting the side portion on the side portion” [pg. 1 of machine translation]. The height of the vibration preventing member is preferably set in a range of 1/2H +/- 1/10H, where H is the tire cross-sectional height [bottom of pg. 1 of machine translation]. The protruding portion of Kobayashi may have a thickness that is the same or twice the thickness of the side rubber [see pg. 2 of machine translation]. Kobayashi has testing examples wherein the tire has the structure of Fig. 2, within the parameters listed above [see pg. 2, 4 of machine translation]. Kobayashi specifically states that this structure results in an increase of 3.8% with respect to the overall mass of the tire [pg. 4 of machine translation].
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the tire of Naoi to have the mass percent of the radial region as suggested by Kobayashi. One would have been motivated so as to lower the in-vehicle sound of the tire, and to improve cavity resonance vibration without modifying the cavity of the tire [pg. 2 of machine translation].
Regarding claims 2 and 7, modified Naoi makes obvious a tire wherein a thickness of the sidewall portion at the tire maximum width position is 120% to 200% of the thickness of the thinnest part of the sidewall portion (as in the exemplary case above in the rejection of claim 1, the thickened rubber portion “8” may be present in the region E, which is located at the tire maximum width position [see Fig. 2]. The thickness at the tire maximum width position would thus be 8mm, and the thinnest part of the sidewall would have a thickness of 4mm [see Table 1]. The thickness would thus be 200% of the thinnest part of the sidewall. 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 claims 5 and 9, modified Naoi makes obvious a tire wherein the rubber member is attached to the tire outer surface (First, as in the rejection of claims 1 above, the rubber member may be considered any rubber portion of the tire as there are no specific limitations so as to differentiate it from any other portion of rubber in the tire. Therefore, the rubber member would readily be considered the rubber portion on an outermost portion of the sidewall located exclusively in the tire radial region. Alternatively, where the rubber member is considered the portion “8” of Naoi, the thickened rubber portion “8” is clearly attached on the tire outer surface. For example, see Fig. 2 how the thickened portion extends axially outwards past the natural contour of the sidewall, such that it would reasonably be considered a protrusion/weighted member connected to the axial outside of the tire’s radial region).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the newly added limitation requiring “a rubber member is disposed only in the tire radial region and over the entire tire radial region” overcomes the previous rejections made as Kobayashi/Naoi suggest other radial heights other than precisely this.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, it is noted that the “rubber member” in the independent claim requires no specific limitations regarding the “rubber member” so as to differentiate it from any other portion of rubber in the tire, such that any rubber or region of rubber in the tire may be arbitrarily be considered to be the rubber member which is only disposed in such a region. In other words, the tire of Kobayashi/Naoi would naturally satisfy the claimed limitation as any rubber in the region as defined may be considered the rubber member, without further limitations differentiating the rubbers in the tire radial region.
Additionally, in regards to the alternative interpretation wherein the rubber “8” of Naoi is considered the rubber member, the Examiner does not find the arguments against Naoi suggesting the newly added limitation to the independent claim convincing. While Naoi does not explicitly have the rubber layer “8” at a height of +/-15% of the maximum width position, Naoi DOES suggest this limitation to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Naoi suggests that the thickened portion of “8” may take up the entire region of E [Col2 L55-65]. The region E has a radial height of 10-50% of a section height “H” of the tire [Col2 L32-46]. Therefore, as in Fig. 2, the region “E” may encompass 30% of the section height of the tire and the thickened portion may encompass the entirety of the region “E”. 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). As Naoi discloses each of the given ranges above (and as the region of “E” being 30% is squarely in the middle of the suggested range of Naoi), it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art to work within the stated ranges, and the tire with the rubber member disposed only in the radial region (of +/-15% of the maximum width position) would have been prima facie obvious. Furthermore, applicant has failed to account for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, Applicant has not provided a sufficient showing of unexpected results or criticality to the claimed range. Examiner notes that “a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” and “a person of ordinary skill in the art will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle,” KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
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
/BLAINE COPENHEAVER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781