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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/06/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US 20200180367) in view of Tyburski (US 20170015146).
Regarding claim 1, Seo discloses a tire comprising:
a sound-absorbing material layer located on the inner surface of the tire (see tire in Fig. 2, with sound absorbing layer 3; [0026-0029]); and
a sealant layer disposed between the inner surface of the tire and the sound-absorbing material layer, and coated on the inner surface of the tire (see sealant layer 2),
wherein the sound-absorbing material layer includes:
a second porous material having an average cell size of 1,200 μm to 2,400 μm, and having a thickness of 30 length % to 90 length % of the total thickness of the sound-absorbing material layer (see porous layer 31 having average pore size of 1200 to 2400 μm ([0047-0048], 30-90% of total thickness, [0056]); and
a third porous material stacked on the second porous material (see layer 32; ([0054-0056]).
As to the average cell size of the third porous material being smaller than the average cell size of the second porous material, Seo discloses that the average pore size of the third material (construed as layer 32) is smaller than the average pore size of the second material (construed as layer 31), ([0055]; see also [0047,0054]).
As to the cells of the two layers being open, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the cells as open since (1) Seo discloses that sound-absorbing foam is conventionally formed with open cells to decrease noise generated inside the tire ([0005]) and (2) Tyburski, similarly directed towards a tire with sound-absorbing foam, teaches that open-cell foam is best suited for absorbing sound ([0024]).
Seo does not disclose a first porous material having closed cells attached to the inner surface of the tire by the sealant layer wherein the second porous material is stacked on the first porous material. In the same field of endeavor of tires having a sound-absorber, Tyburski discloses a tire having a sound-absorbing foam ring 9 (equivalent to the sound-absorbing material layer 3 in Seo) and sealant layer 8 and teaches arranging a closed cell foam ring between the sound-absorbing foam ring and sealant layer to provide an airtight seal in the event of a puncture ([0006-0008]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the tire of Seo with a first porous material having closed cells attached to the sealant layer since Tyburski discloses arranging a closed cell foam ring between a sound-absorbing foam ring and a sealant layer to facilitate forming an airtight seal in the event of a puncture ([0006-0008,0027-0028]).
As to the thicknesses of the individual layers, Seo discloses the thickness of the sound absorbing material layer 3 as 20 to 60 mm wherein the first porous material 31 (corresponds to second porous material in claim) is 30-90% of the total thickness of the sound absorbing material with the remainder being the second porous material 32 (corresponds to the third porous material in claim) ([0056]). Seo discloses a working example of 25 mm and 10 mm for the two layers (Table 2). Tyburski discloses the closed cell material ring preferably has a thickness of 20 to 40 mm to achieve the effect that at least 90% of all penetrating foreign bodies remain within the material ring to ensure airtightness ([0011]; working example of 30 mm in [0027]). Tyburski discloses the open-celled sound-absorbing ring has thickness of less than 60 mm, preferably 10 mm to 40 mm to optimize the amount of material and noise absorption characteristics ([0012])--this thickness is consistent with the thickness taught by Seo ([0013,0044]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the first, second, and third material thicknesses as claimed since (1) Tyburski discloses the closed cell material ring as preferably having a thickness of 20 to 40 mm so that at least 90% of penetrating foreign bodies remain within the material ring to ensure air tightness ([0011,0012,0027]; example thickness of 30 mm); and (2) Seo discloses the sound-absorbing material 3 of thickness as having a thickness of 20-60 mm, wherein the first material is 30-90% of the thickness and the second material occupies the remainder ([0044,0056]; examples of 25 mm and 10 mm in Table 2); said ranges yielding thicknesses that overlap the claimed range. For example, given a 30 mm closed cell material ring, 25 mm first sound-absorbing material layer, and 10 mm second sound-absorbing material layer, the thickness would be about 46%, 38%, and 15%, respectively. One would have been motivated to adjust the thickness of the closed cell ring and sound-absorbing materials to provide airtightness and noise-absorbing properties.
Regarding claim 2, Seo discloses the third porous material has average cell size of 100 to 1200 μm (porous material 32 has 100 to 1200 μm average pore size, [0054]).
Regarding claim 3, Seo discloses the second and third porous material with the recited density, hardness, tensile strength, and elongation properties ([0012,0057-0060], materials 31 and 32 correspond to the second and third porous materials, respectively).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Seo is silent regarding whether either of porous materials 31 or 32 is open-cell or closed-cell structures, and therefore Seo does not teach or suggest that a closed-cell porous material in contact with the sealant.
As to the cells of the two layers being open, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the cells as open since Seo discloses that sound-absorbing foam is conventionally formed with open cells to decrease noise generated inside the tire ([0005]). Tyburski also discloses a sound-absorbing foam ring is preferably open-celled since it is best suited for absorbing sound ([0024]).
Applicant argues that the closed-cell foam ring is disclosed as ensuring an airtight sealing in the event of a puncture in spite of the sealant having adversely affected flow characteristics. That is, Tyburski teaches that the closed-cell foam compromises the flow of the sealant.
Examiner notes that Tyburski discloses that the flow characteristics of sealant may be adversely affected by foam rings lying on the sealant, so that the desired sealing effect may not be achieved ([0004]). Tyburski discloses that by providing a closed-cell foam ring between a sound-absorbing foam ring and a sealant layer, the sealing can be improved in the event of punctures ([0005,0008]). Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a closed-cell foam ring taught by Tyburski between the sound-absorbing foam and sealant layer in Seo to improve sealing in the event of punctions.
Applicant argues that introducing a closed-cell layer, as taught by Tyburski, would interfere with the sound-absorbing functionality described by Seo by obstructing airflow and reducing sound-absorption.
Examiner disagrees. In the combination of Seo in view of Tyburski, the closed-cell material layer taught by Tyburski would be arranged between the sound-absorbing layer 3 and the sealant layer 2 of Seo. Seo's sound-absorbing layer 3 would still be present within the tire cavity and would still possess sound-absorbing functionality.
As to arguments regarding the layer thickness, the thicknesses taught by Seo and Tyburski yield thickness ranges that overlap the claimed ranges (detailed in the rejection above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT C DYE whose telephone number is (571)270-7059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT C DYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619