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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, and 6-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Synthos (of record) and further in view of Wittmann (US 2022/0145085, of record), KR 100369713 (of record), Vanhoech (of record), Innovation in Textiles (of record), and Forbes (of record).
Synthos broadly is directed to a tire construction. Synthos further states that said components (e.g. tread) are formed with ISCC mass balance certified materials (SSBR such as Sprintan® SSBR, butadiene rubber, and ESBR). A fair reading of Synthos suggests that all common tire components can be formed with the disclosed mass-balanced synthetic rubber and such would include the common tire components required by claim 1. Additionally, a fair reading of Synthos suggests tire constructions in which any combination of tire components is formed with the environmentally friendly composition of Synthos (not exclusive to a tire in which every tire component is formed with the disclosed composition).
Synthos, however, fails to describe additional materials in respective components as being “environmentally friendly” and as such, the reference fails to specifically teach a tire having a bio-based content of at least 85%.
In any event, (a) the primary contributions to the weight of tire rubber compositions (both those in cord reinforced components and thus devoid of cord reinforcements) is conventionally the rubber material and the reinforcing filler and (b) a major contribution to the weight of cord reinforced components, in additional to the rubber, is the reinforcing cord. The general use of “environmentally friendly” materials for the reinforcing filler, such as carbon black and/or silica, and for the cord reinforcement is known. Wittman teaches the use of “biogenic carbon black” that is produced from renewable raw materials derived from plants or animals, such as vegetable oils, in tire applications since it provides high reinforcement properties while providing environmental benefits (Paragraphs 3-6, 28, 29, and 149), KR ‘713 teaches the use of silica derived from rice husks in tire components to provide high reinforcement while providing environmental benefits, Vanhoech teaches the use of bio-sourced yarns based on polyamides in rubber reinforcements designed for car tires (Paragraphs 29 and 60), Innovations in Textiles discloses the known use of recycled polyester fibers for tire reinforcing cords, and Forbes teaches the manufacture of fossil-free steel. All of these disclosures teach the use of “environmentally friendly” materials- the particular use of such materials in the tire of Synthos would have been obvious given the specific disclosure (by Shiono) to use environmentally friendly materials. Also, there is a reasonable expectation of success when using these materials in the tire of Synthos since the above noted references recognize the suitability of the disclosed environmentally friendly materials in the tire industry and/or recognize the comparable properties of such materials while providing environmental benefits. Again, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use any combination of “environmentally friendly materials” in the tire of Synthos, specifically in view of the disclosure by Synthos to use mass balanced rubber for environmental benefits.
Also, it appears that the use of mass balanced rubber, biogenic carbon black, silica from rice husks, and cord materials that constitute “environmentally friendly” or “sustainable materials” would result in a tire having a bio-based content of at least 85% (additional materials, e.g. sulfur, make up an extremely small percentage of the overall tire).
Lastly, regarding claims 1 and 11, Wittman describes the primary use of vegetable oils to form biogenic carbon black (Paragraph 30) and such appears to be consistent with a biomass content that approaches 100%. This is based on Applicant’s disclosure in Paragraphs 60 and 61. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use the carbon black of Wittman as at least half the carbon black in the tire of Synthos for the benefits detailed above.
Regarding claim 2, as noted above, the combination of references teach the use of mass-balanced synthetic rubber, biogenic carbon black, silica from rice husks, and cord materials that constitute “sustainable materials” or environmentally materials. Also, softener oils (promote processing) are conventionally included in every tire component and one of the most well-known and commonly used softener oils is plant oil, such as vegetable oil, soybean oil, seed oil, nut oil, etc.
With respect to claim 3, a carcass of Synthos, as modified by the aforementioned references, includes mass-balanced synthetic rubber and recycled polyester cords (based on the fact that a fair reading of Synthos suggests the use of mass balanced materials in all tire components). These materials would be expected to have a combined weight in accordance to the claimed invention.
As to claims 4, 6, and 7, given that all of the compositions can include mass-balanced synthetic rubber, biogenic carbon black, silica derived for rice husks, and sustainable cord materials where cord reinforcements are present, it reasons that respective tire components are essentially completely formed with sustainable materials (environmentally friendly materials). It is emphasized that rubber compositions are predominantly formed with rubber materials and reinforcing fillers, both of which can be a sustainable material, and cord reinforced tire components are predominantly formed with rubber materials, reinforcing fillers, and cord materials, all of which can be sustainable materials.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, as noted above, Vanhoech teaches the use of bio-sourced yarns based on polyamides in rubber reinforcements designed for car tires (Paragraphs 29 and 60), Innovations in Textiles discloses the known use of recycled polyester fibers for tire reinforcing cords, and Forbes teaches the manufacture of fossil-free steel. The use of these sustainable cord materials in the belt and bead would have been obvious given the general teachings in these disclosures and such would appear to result in the claimed relationships (respective components necessarily define a percentage of the overall tire weight and such appears to be consistent with that required by the claimed invention).
With respect to claim 12, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use a combination of the mass-balanced synthetic rubber (SBR or polybutadiene) of Synthos in any common tire component, including the tread, the sidewall, and the beadcoat.
As to claims 13-15, Wittman recognizes the known use of carbon black from plant-based oils. Furthermore, all of the claimed rubber materials are consistent with those taught by the prior art references of record. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use any combination of materials to form any of the basic or fundamental tire components detailed by Synthos. It is emphasized that a critical aspect of Synthos is the use of rubber compositions that provide environmental benefits and such is consistent with the modified rubber compositions of Synthos.
12. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Synthos, Wittmann, KR 100369713, Vanhoech, Innovation in Textiles, and Forbes as applied in claim 4 above and further in view of Wiebold (of record) (https://wiebold.com/sustainable-carb-black-from-end-of-the-life-pyrolysis-oil).
As detailed above, Synthos is directed to an environmentally friendly tire construction resulting from the inclusion of mass balanced rubber in a wide variety of tire components. Additionally, the inclusion of carbon black is consistent with the conventional makeup of . In such an instance, though, Synthos is silent with respect to the manner in which the carbon black is manufactured.
It is initially noted that a fair reading of Synthos does not limit the type of carbon black. Given that an inventive concept of Synthos is the use of environmentally friendly materials, it reasons that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use any number of techniques that optimize the “environmental friendliness” of the overall tire. Wittman specifically teaches the use of carbon blacks derived from plant-based oils (vegetable oils) in tire applications in order to provide high reinforcement properties while promoting environmental health. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use the carbon black of Wittman as at least a partial replacement of conventional carbon black (petroleum based).
While Wittman fails to discloses additional environmentally friendly carbon blacks, a multitude of additional environmentally carbon blacks, including those required by the claimed invention, are commonly used in tire applications, as shown for example by Weibold (oils derived from end of life tire- required by claims in tread). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use any combination of environmentally friendly carbon blacks in any tire component absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results. It is emphasized that the use of “environmentally friendly” carbon black is consistent with the general disclosure of Synthos to form an environmentally friendly tire construction.
Lastly, all of the claimed rubber materials and types of carbon black are consistent with those taught by the prior art references of record. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use any combination of materials to form any of the basic or fundamental tire components detailed by Synthos. It is emphasized that a critical aspect of Synthos is the use of rubber compositions that provide environmental benefits and such is consistent with the modified rubber compositions of Synthos.
4. Claim(s) 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Synthos, Wittmann, KR 100369713, Vanhoech, Innovation in Textiles, and Forbes as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Caccami (US 11,820,090, newly cited).
As detailed above, the modified tire of Synthos includes a wide variety of environmentally friendly materials so as to arrive at a bio-based content of at least 85%. In such an instance, though, the tire of Synthos is devoid of an RFID tag.
In any event, it is extremely well known and conventional to include RFID tags in modern day tire constructions to provide tire information during manufacture/storage and during running, as shown for example by Caccami (Columns 1 and 5). One of ordinary skill I the art would have found it obvious to include a conventional RFIF tag for the benefits detailed above. It is further noted that Caccami broadly recognizes the use of RFID tags for the storage of “tire-related data” and additional information that indicates a tire model, a tire production date, tire materials, etc.) (Column 5, Lines 9-17). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the language “tire materials” to include the type of materials in the rubber compositions (which includes the designation of bio-based materials). It is emphasized that any number of features or characterizations would be well recognized as falling under the genus of “tire materials” and such would include the bio-based content.
As to claim 23, RFID tags are conventionally positioned in a wide variety of locations, including against a conventional tire innerliner.
With respect to claim 24, the claims define an assembly that is consistent with that which is conventionally used in RFID tag-containing tires. It is emphasized that coating materials or protective overlays are commonly included to, among other things, to optimize communication.
Regarding claim 25, Synthos teaches the use of mass balanced SSBR and ESBR- the particular selection of materials for the tread and the beadcoat as required by the claims would have been obvious absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed July 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the use of the sustainable carbon black produced from end of life pyrolysis oil described by Weibold in manufacturing tires would be detrimental to attaining a high level of verifiable bio-bases materials. This argument is not entirely understood since an inventive tread composition, for example that detailed in claim 16, specifically requires carbon black from end of life pyrolysis oil. Furthermore, multiple compositions in the previously drafted claims required a bio-based content greater than 85% as well as a carbon black derived from end of life pyrolysis oil. Thus, the mere inclusion of such a carbon black in a tire sidewall, for example, does not result in a tire having a bio-based content outside the scope of the claimed invention.
Applicant further contends that the collective teachings of the prior art references do not disclose or render obvious tires having a high level of verifiable bio-based materials. It is emphasized that Synthos is specifically directed to tire components including mass balanced SSBR, ESBR, and/or BR. These materials are disclosed as being environmentally friendly. When selecting additional materials for compositions of respective tire components, one of ordinary skill in the art would have similarly found it obvious to use environmentally friendly materials (remains consistent with the overall objective or inventive concept of Synthos). All of the materials identified in the rejection of claim 1 above, for example, would result in tire compositions that are completely, or almost completely, formed with bio-based materials (would approach 100%). It appears that the term “verifiable” is simply being used to correspond with a bio-based content of at least 85%- as detailed above, the combination of prior art references suggests tire rubber compositions having bio-based contents that approach 100%.
Conclusion
6. 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 August 19, 2025