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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/05/2026 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Rehab et al. (US 2017/0197468) in view of Chauvin (US 2014/0299242) and JP’886 (JP 2004-009886).
Regarding claims 1 and 14-15, Rehab et al. teaches a tire for equipment vehicles that carry heavy loads [0001]. FIG.2 of Rehab et al. shows the tire comprising a tread (5), a crown, and a carcass reinforcement (2). The crown consists of a radial stack of at least one elastomeric mixture layer (S, G, C) and at least one reinforcing layer (4: 41, 42, 43, 44).
The claimed “low-hysteresis” of the at least one elastomeric mixture layer reads on rubber layers S and G which extends continuously across the axial width the tire.
While Rehab et al. does not recite:
TG = TSi+TN,
TG being at least equal to 30 phr and the silica content TSi being at least equal to 50% of the overall filler content TG, (claim 1),
TG is at most equal to 50 phr (claim 14), and
TSi is at least equal to 70% of the overall filler content TG (claim 15)
these claimed features provided in the tire of Rehab et al. would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of Rehab’s teachings in [0040]-[0043] which discloses suitable loading amounts of silica and carbon black for layer S, [0056]-[0059] which discloses suitable loading amounts of silica and carbon black for layer G, and [0060] which discloses the compound that makes up layer G may be identical to the compound that makes up the layer S.
Rehab et al. 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].
Rehab et al. 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 Rehab et al. 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) Rehab et al. teaches rubber layers G and S which renders obvious the claimed overall loading amount of filler TG and the loading amount of silica TSi, (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 Rehab et al. 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, the resulting tire of Rehab et al. in view of Chauvin and JP’886 would satisfy the claimed relationship. See FIG. 2 of Rehab et al. and JP’886’s teaching of the vertical hole being 80 to 110% of the depth of the main groove.
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 Rehab et al. would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Rehab et al. teaches a tire for equipment vehicles that carry heavy loads, Chauvin is directed to civil engineering tires which are known equipment vehicles tires that carry heavy loads and discloses the depth of the grooves are 100 mm [0049]-[0051], and providing a known groove and its depth of a similar class of tire yields predictable results; accordingly, the corresponding DS in the tire of Rehab et al. is expected to be in similar order of values of 100 mm.
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 Rehab et al. (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 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) in the tire of Rehab et al. because FIG. 2 of Rehab et al. illustrates the cross section of the tire with an axial distance D equal to 20 mm [0183] showing order of values in the axial direction of the tire of Rehab et al. 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].
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 Rehab et al. 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 Rehab et al. 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 Rehab et al. 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 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented in this office action.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights