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 .
1) 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.
2) 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.
3) Claim 7 is 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.
In claim 7, there is no antecedent basis for “the resin component” and there is no antecedent basis for “the liquid polymer” and, as such, the scope of claim 7 is ambiguous.
4) 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.
5) Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 (dependent on claim 1) fails to further limit claim 1 since the description of “for a passenger car” relates to intends use and fails to require additional tire structure. In claim 11, it is suggested to change “a tire for a passenger car” to --is a passenger tire--.
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.
6) The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7) 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.
Japan 472
8) Claims 1-5, 8-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japan 472 (JP 2019-142472).
Japan 472 discloses a pneumatic tire (passenger size 195/60R15) comprising a tread layer comprising tread rubber and a belt (breaker) comprising belt coating rubber. Japan 472 discloses a rubber composition “B” for the tread rubber containing:
30 parts natural rubber,
70 parts modified styrene butadiene rubber,
5 parts carbon black,
70 parts silica,
15 parts resin,
1.8 parts accelerator, and
1.8 parts sulfur.
See composition “B” in TABLE 1. Composition “B” fails to contain added oil. See TABLE 1. Japan 472 discloses a composition “8” for the belt coating rubber containing:
100 parts natural rubber,
40 parts carbon black,
5 parts phenolic resin, and
3 parts methylene donor.
See composition “8” in TABLE 2. Composition “8” fails to contain added oil. See TABLE 2. Japan 472 discloses a pneumatic tire in which composition “B” is used for the tread and composition “8” is used for the belt coating rubber. See EXAMPLE 17. Japan 472 teaches that the rubber composition for the tread may include softener (plasticizer) such as oil in an amount of 10 parts or less. The tread has a modulus E’ at 0oC = 6.5 to 12.0 MPa. The tread has a tan delta at 60oC = 0.13 to 0.14. The tire has excellent grip performance on dry and wet surface and reduced rolling resistance and provides belt with excellent durability. See machine translation.
As to claim 1, the claimed tire is anticipated by Japan 472’s tire. In claim 1, “cap rubber layer” reads on Japan 472’s tread; one of ordinary skill in the art readily understanding that the tread rubber is used to 100% of total tread thickness. Since no oil is added to the rubber composition “B” for the tread and no oil is added to the rubber composition “8” for the belt coating rubber, an average value of acetone extraction amounts of the tread rubber is inherently 12.0% by mass or less and a difference between average value of the acetone extraction amounts of the tread rubber and an acetone extraction amount of belt coating rubber (breaker topping rubber) is inherently 7.0% by mass or less. Since the rubber composition “B” for the tread comprises 70 parts silica, an average value of ash contents of the tread rubber is inherently 7.5% by mass or more.
As claim 4, the tread comprises natural rubber (isoprene based rubber) and styrene butadiene rubber.
As to claim 5, Japan 472 teaches that the tread rubber may comprise 10 parts
or less of oil.
As to claim 9, Japan 472 discloses that the tread has a modulus E’ at 0oC =
6.5 to 12.0 MPa.
As to claim 11, Japan 472 discloses a pneumatic tire having a tire size of 195/60R15 (passenger size).
As to claims 2-3 and 8: In light of the above noted disclosure of Japan 472, Japan 472’s invention tire 17 inherently satisfies the claimed rate of change of Shore hardness [claim 2], the claimed Shore hardness [claim 3] and the claimed tan delta [claim 8].
Europe 129
9) Claims 1, 4-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Europe 129 (EP 3,872,129) in view of Miyazaki (US 2014/0228495), Europe 338 (EP 500,338) and Komori et al (US 2022/0251347 or WO 2020/261874) and optionally Europe 639 (EP 4,056,639).
Europe 129 discloses a rubber composition for a tread (cap tread) of a pneumatic passenger tire comprising:
75.63 parts styrene butadiene rubber,
35 parts natural rubber,
10 parts butadiene rubber,
5 parts carbon black,
105 parts silica,
5 parts ester plasticizer,
10 parts resin,
3 parts liquid polymer,
10 parts oil.
See EXAMPLE 2-1, paragraphs 201, 205. In EXAMPLE 2-1, a ratio of [resin + liquid polymer] / [oil + ester plasticizer] = 0.86 [(10+3)/(10+5) = 0.86]. Europe 129 teaches using 20 to 100% by mass styrene butadiene rubber, 5 to 80% polybutadiene rubber,
5 to 80% isoprene based rubber (e.g. natural rubber). Europe 129 teaches using
5 parts or more of oil in the tread composition [paragraph 105]. Europe 129 teaches using 70 to 140 parts silica; the tread thereby being a silica rich tread. The tire has improved overall performance in terms of high temperature grip performance and low temperature grip performance. Europe 129 is silent as composition of breaker topping rubber.
As to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Europe 129’s pneumatic passenger tire with a belt (breaker) such that an average value of acetone extraction amounts of the tread rubber having 5 parts or more of oil (e.g. 10 parts oil) is 12.0% by mass or less and a difference between average value of the acetone extraction amounts of the tread rubber and an acetone extraction amount of belt coating rubber (breaker topping rubber) is inherently 7.0% by mass or less since (1) Europe 338, directed to a tread for a pneumatic passenger tire, teaches providing the tread such that acetone extraction amount of the tread is less than or equal to 15% [e.g. 10.2% acetone extraction amount (12 parts oil), 5.5% acetone extraction amount (zero parts oil) or 9.9% acetone extraction amount (12 parts oil)] to improve rolling resistance [EXAMPLE 2, page 2 lines 53-58, page 3 lines 1-4], (2) Miyazaki teaches providing a pneumatic tire (passenger size 195/65R15) having a tread and breaker (belt) such that the breaker topping for the belt comprises an isoprene-based rubber; a phenol resin and/or an alkylphenol resin; and a partial condensate of HMMM and/or a partial condensate of HMMPME, wherein an amount of the isoprene-based rubber is 60% by mass or higher per 100% by mass of the rubber component; and a combined amount of the phenol resin and the alkylphenol resin is 2-3.9 parts by mass, a combined amount of the partial condensate of HMMM and the partial condensate of HMMPME is 0.5-5 parts by mass, and an amount of silica is at most 15 parts by mass, each per 100 parts by mass of the rubber component and a total oil content of at most 4.0 parts by mass to obtain balanced improvement in handling stability, fuel economy, durability, ride quality and adhesion and optionally (3) Europe 639, directed to a pneumatic passenger tire having a silica rich tread teaches providing the tread with an acetone extraction amount of 7% by mass and ash content of 32% by mass [EXAMPLE 1-1]. Thus, Europe 338 provides ample motivation (improved rolling resistance) to provide Europe 129’s tread with an acetone extraction amount 12% by mass or less. In view of the difference in amount of added oil in the tread rubber and added oil in the breaker topping rubber suggested by the applied prior art (Europe 129 and Miyazaki), there is a reasonable basis to conclude that Europe 129’s tire as modified by the secondary art satisfies the claimed difference between average value of the acetone extraction amounts of the tread rubber and an acetone extraction amount of belt coating rubber (breaker topping rubber) being 7.0% by mass or less.
As to claim 1 (ash content), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Europe 129’s tire such that an average value of ash contents of the tread rubber is 7.5% by mass or more since (1) Europe 129 discloses a silica rich tread comprising 70 to 140 parts silica and (2) Komori et al, directed to a pneumatic tire (passenger size 195/65R15) having a silica rich tread (90 to 200 parts silica) teaches that ash components are derived from silica [paragraphs 8, 24] and discloses a rubber composition for a tread comprising 100 parts silica and having an ash content of 38.34% [EXAMPLE 1].
As to claim 1 (thickness), one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that one of ordinary skill in the art readily understanding that Europe 129’s tread rubber may be used for 100% of total tread thickness [paragraph 201]. In claim 1, cap rubber layer reads on tread.
As to claim 4, Europe 129 teaches using natural rubber in the tread rubber.
As to claim 5, Europe 129 teaches using 5 parts by mass or more of oil.
As to claims 6 and 7, Europe 129 teaches using resin, liquid polymer, oil and ester plasticizer in the tread rubber wherein a ratio of [resin + liquid polymer] / [oil + ester plasticizer] = 0.86 [(10+3)/(10+5) = 0.86] for EXAMPLE 2-1.
As to claim 11, Europe 129 discloses a pneumatic passenger tire.
10) Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Europe 129 (EP 3,872,129) in view of Miyazaki (US 2014/0228495), Europe 338 (EP 500,338) and Komori et al (US 2022/0251347 or WO 2020/261874) and optionally Europe 639 (EP 4,056,639) as applied above and further in view of Kitago et al (US 2022/0017729 or WO 2020/100492) or Nakamura (US 2021/0332221).
As to claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Europe 129’s pneumatic passenger tire such that a rate of change in Shore hardness of the cap rubber layer (tread) after being left to stand at 80oC for two months is -10% or more and 10% or less since (1) Kitago et al teaches providing a pneumatic tire for a passenger vehicle having a tread such that the tread comprises a RUBBER COMPOSITION comprising rubber component and 30 to 150 parts (e.g. 60 parts) silica and such that the tread has reduced change in hardness over time and has a heat changing index of 10 or less (preferably 3 or less or 1 or less) to prevent decrease in grip performance and obtain required durability wherein heat changing index is [(hardness of rubber after heat treatment) - (hardness of rubber before heat treatment)] / (hardness of rubber compound before heat treatment) x 100] and wherein heat treatment involves allowing the rubber composition to stand at a temperature of 90oC and an oxygen concentration of 20% for 336 hours [paragraphs 7-11, 27-41, 120-121, 132-133, EXAMPLES 1-9, 12-16] or (2) Nakamura teaches providing a pneumatic tire for a passenger vehicle having a tread such that the tread comprises a RUBBER COMPOSITION comprising a rubber component and 5 to 80 parts (e.g. 40 parts) silica and such that the tread has change in hardness after heat aging being less than or equal to 3 so that the tire has required grip performance and excellent abrasion resistance wherein heat aging is performed under 100oC for 96 hours [paragraph 14-15, 20, 22-23, 30-32, 45-46, 51-52, 61-62, 128, EXAMPLES 4-1 to 4-4].
11) Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Europe 129 (EP 3,872,129) in view of Miyazaki (US 2014/0228495), Europe 338 (EP 500,338) and Komori et al (US 2022/0251347 or WO 2020/261874) and optionally Europe 639 (EP 4,056,639) as applied above and further in view of Piffard et al (US 2014/0251519).
As to claims 3 and 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Europe 129’s pneumatic passenger tire such that a shore hardness of the cap rubber layer (tread) is 55 to 70 [claim 3], a glass transition temperature of the cap rubber layer (tread) is -40oC or higher since Piffard et al teaches providing a pneumatic passenger tire such that the tread has a glass transition temperature of -40oC to -15oC (e.g. Tg = -14oC, hardness = 59 / Tg=-21oC, hardness = 57 / Tg = -31oC, hardness = 57) to break compromise between dry and snow traction; the high Tg tread improving dry traction.
12) Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Europe 129 (EP 3,872,129) in view of Miyazaki (US 2014/0228495), Europe 338 (EP 500,338) and Komori et al (US 2022/0251347 or WO 2020/261874) and optionally Europe 639 (EP 4,056,639) as applied above and further in view of Hashimoto et al (US 2019/0168542).
As to claims 8 and 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Europe 129’s pneumatic passenger tire such that tan delta of the cap rubber layer (tread) at 30oC is 0.30 or less [claim 8], modulus E* at 0oC of the cap rubber layer is 5.0 MPa or more [claim 9] since Hashimoto et al teaches providing a pneumatic passenger tire such that the tread has modulus E’ at 0oC = 3-20 MPa (e.g. 10.03MPa), tan delta at 0oC = 0.15 to 0.50 (e.g. 0.174) and tan delta at 30oC = 0.1 to 0.4 (e.g. 0.129) to suppress worsening or rolling resistance and improve grounding property of the tread to greatly improve steering stability of the tire on dry and wet road surfaces [paragraphs 49-50, 54, EXAMPLE E]. It is noted that E* = E’ + iE’’ and tan delta = E’’/E’.
Remarks
13) The remaining references are of interest.
14) No claim is allowed.
15) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN D MAKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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 (Whatley) 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.
/STEVEN D MAKI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
November 1, 2025
Prosecution Insights