DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’301 (WO 2021/005301) in view of Chauvin (US 2014/0299242) and JP’886 (JP 2004-009886).
US 2022/0250420 is a U.S. equivalent to WO’301 and relied as an English translation to WO’301.
Regarding claims 1 and 14-15, WO’301 teaches a tire for a construction plant vehicle comprising a tread, a crown, and a carcass reinforcement. The crown consists of a radial stack of at least one elastomeric mixture layer (35,37) and at least one reinforcing layers (30: 31,32). The edging elastomer (35,37) includes a reinforcing filler having an overall content at most equal to 50 phr (claim 14) and predominately comprising silica at a content 30-50 phr [0063]-[0066] (claim 15) wherein the remaining reinforcing filler component is carbon black [0017], TABLE 4. The edging elastomer (35, 37) each “extends across the axial width of the tread” as claimed because each edging elastomer extends along in the axial width of the tread. The claimed invention fails to exclude and structurally distinguish over the edging elastomers (35,37) shown by WO’301. The claimed invention fails to require the claimed elastomeric mixture layer extending continuously along the entire axial width of the tread.
WO’301 is silent to cavities. However, it is well-known in the tire art to provide a tire with the claimed crown cavities AND lateral cavities for ventilation and mechanical and thermal function of the blocks as evidenced by FIG.1, FIG. 2, and [0055] of Chauvin which relates to a tire for civil engineering vehicles. And, JP’886 teaches a tire comprising a vertical hole and a horizontal hole to efficiently ventilate heat generated in the shoulder region of the tire [0008]. The vertical hole has a depth that is 80 to 110% of the depth of the main groove and the depth of lateral hole is preferably 40 to 70% of the distance in a tire axial direction from the opening of the lateral groove to the edge of the belt layer having the maximum width [0009].
WO’301 does not recite:
PS/H ≥ AS + KS x RSi, wherein AS = 0.35, KS = 0.4 and RSi = TSi/TG
PF/H ≥ AF + KF x RSi, wherein AF = -0.1, KF = 0.3 and RSi = TSi/TG.
However, the tire of WO’301 satisfying these claimed relationships would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because (1) WO’301 teaches the edging elastomer includes a reinforcing filler at an overall content at most equal to 50 phr and predominately comprising silica at a content at least equal to 30 phr and at most equal to 50 phr [0063]-[0066] and illustrates the cross section the tire in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, (2) Chauvin demonstrates it is well-known in the tire art to include crown cavities and lateral cavities in civil engineering vehicle tires for reducing heat and providing mechanical and thermal function of the blocks, and (3) in the same field of endeavor of heavy duty tires and reducing heat by cavities, JP’886 teaches a tire comprising a vertical hole and a horizontal hole to efficiently ventilate heat generated in the shoulder region of the tire [0008] and discloses the vertical hole is 80 to 110% of the depth of the main groove and the lateral hole is preferably 40 to 70% of the distance in the tire axial direction from the opening of the lateral groove to the edge of the belt layer having the maximum width [0009].
Regarding claim 2, the depth Ps of a crown cavity is at most equal to the height H of the tread in the tire of WO’301 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because JP’886 teaches a tire comprising a vertical hole wherein the vertical hole is 80 to 110% of the depth of the main groove.
Regarding claim 3, see FIG. 2 of WO’301.
Regarding claim 4, the crown cavity bottom being positioned at a distance DS from the radially outermost low-hysteresis elastomeric mixture of at least equal to 5 mm in the tire of WO’301 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because FIG.2 of WO’301 illustrates the claimed corresponding distance DS and Chauvin, directed to the same field of endeavor of civil engineering tires; also known as, heavy duty construction plant vehicle tires, teaches the depth of grooves are 100 mm [0049]-[0051]. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the depth of the main groove of FIG. 2 to be 100 mm and the corresponding DS being a fraction of 100 mm and reasonably at least equal to 5 mm, as claimed.
Regarding claims 5-7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the crown cavity bottom positioned at a distance LS within a range of 0.03 to 0.25 times the axial width W of the tread in the tire of WO’301 (claims 5-6)because FIG.2 of Chauvin teaches a known tread pattern including crown cavities suitable for civil engineering tires; also known as, heavy duty construction plant vehicle tires and providing a known tread pattern to the tire WO’301 yields predictable results. Figure 3 of Chauvin illustrates the crown cavities having a constant pitch (claim 7).
Regarding claims 8-10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lateral cavities having a depth at most equal to 50 mm (claim 8), the lateral cavity bottom positioned at a distance DF from the axially outermost low-hysteresis elastomeric mixture layer of at most equal to 1.3 times the height of the tread and at least equal to 5 mm (claims 9-10) because FIG.2 of WO’301 illustrates the cross section of the tire and JP’886 teaches the lateral hole is preferably 40 to 70% of the distance in the tire axial direction from the opening of the lateral groove to the edge of the belt layer having the maximum width [0009]. When one of ordinary skill in the art applies the teaching of the lateral holes of JP’886 in the tire of WO’301, the corresponding claimed distance is expected to be less than LC1 which is at least 10 mm [0052].
Regarding claims 11-12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tire of WO’301 with the lateral cavity bottom at a distance LF at least equal to the height of the tread (claim 12) and at most equal to 3 times the height H of the tread (claim 11) because FIG.2 of WO’301 illustrates the cross section of the tire and JP’886 locates the horizontal hole 12 in the close vicinity of the maximum width of the belt layer (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tire of WO’301 with the lateral cavities distributed in the circumferential direction at a constant pitch because JP’886 teaches a tire comprising a tread having blocks wherein each block in a shoulder region of the tire has a vertical hole and a horizontal hole and blocks arranged at a constant pitch is well-known in the tire art as shown by Chauvin which illustrates tire comprising a tread including shoulder blocks 21 wherein each shoulder block includes crown cavities (vertical holes) and lateral cavities (horizontal holes) arranged at a constant pitch.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented in this office action.
Prior Art of Interest
Rehab, US 2017/0197468 teaches a heavy duty tire comprising an elastomeric mixture layer S and G which extending continuously along the entire axial width of the tread. [0040]-[0043] discloses the suitable loading amounts of silica and carbon black for layer S. [0056]-[0059] discloses the suitable loading amounts of silica and carbon black for layer G.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENDRA LY whose telephone number is (571)270-7060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-5:00PM.
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 B 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.
/KENDRA LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749