TIRE

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. 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. 3) Claims 1, 3-9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters et al (US 2016/0222197) in view of Japan 407 (JP 60-082407) or Elkurd et al (US 6,446,689). Peters et al discloses a rubber composition for a tread of a vehicle pneumatic tire wherein the rubber composition comprises: 60-100 phr (preferably 80-100 phr) butadiene rubber 0-40 phr (preferably 0-20 phr) further rubber (e.g. NR, SBR) 10 to 300 phr (preferably 50-180 phr) silica 0.1 to 30 phr (preferably 2 to 10 phr) carbon black 51-300 phr (preferably 51-150 phr) hydrocarbon resin In EXAMPLE E1, the rubber composition comprises 100 parts butadiene rubber, 60 parts silica and 60 parts hydrocarbon resin. The tire has improved wet grip and rolling resistance. Peters et al does not recite a land ratio for the tread. As to claims 1 and 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Peters et al's vehicle pneumatic tire with a tread comprising circumferential grooves separating land parts such that the land ratio of the tread is less than 70% [claim 1], 67% or less [claim 14] since (1) Japan 407 teaches providing a vehicle pneumatic tire (heavy load tire size 1000R20) having a tread such that the tread comprises circumferential grooves separating land parts and such that the tread has a negative ratio of 10 to 35 percent (land ratio = 65 to 90%; land ratio + negative ratio = 100%) [FIGURES 1-3, machine translation]; one of ordinary skill in the art readily appreciating that grooves in a tread of a tire improve wet performance of the tire or (2) Elkurd et al teaches providing a pneumatic tire (passenger size 215/70R16) having a tread having improved snow traction and tread wear and improved noise and wet and dry handing characteristics such that the tread comprises circumferential grooves separating land parts and such that the tread has a net to gross ratio (land ratio) of 64-66% [FIGURES 1-2, col. 4 lines 17-18]. Hence, Japan 407 or Elkurd et al fairly render obvious providing Peters et al's pneumatic vehicle tire such that the tread comprises circumferential grooves and such that the land ratio is less than 70% [claim 1] or 67% or less [claim 14]. As to claim 1: Since Peters et al teaches using 80 to 100 phr in the rubber composition for the tread, Peters et al renders obvious the rubber component comprising for example 80% by mass butadiene rubber or 90% by mass butadiene rubber. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a known land ratio such as 65% [claims 1, 14] as per Japan 407 or Elkurd et al to obtain the expected and predictable benefit of improved wet performance; this being especially true since Peters et al desired a vehicle pneumatic tire having improved wet grip. As to claim 1: When ABR = 80% [Peters et al] and L = 65% [Japan 407 or Elkurd et al], then ABRxL = 5200 [80x65 = 5200]. As to claim 1: When ABR = 90% [Peters et al] and L = 65% [Japan 407 or Elkurd et al], then ABRxL = 5850 [90x65 = 5850]. As to claim 1: When ABR = 90% [Peters et al] and L = 69% [Japan 407], then ABRxL = 6210 [90x69 = 6210]. As to claim 1: When ABR = 94% [Peters et al] and L = 65% [Japan 407 or Elkurd et al], then ABRxL = 6110 [94x65 = 6110]. No unexpected results over the applied prior art has been shown. The claimed invention has not been compared with Peters et al's tire. In view of Peters et al's disclosure, improved wet grip performance is the expected and predictable result. As to claims 3 and 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Peters et al's rubber composition such that a content of the hydrocarbon resin in the rubber composition is 5% by mass or more [claim 3], a content of the hydrocarbon resin in the rubber composition is 5% by mass or more and 60% by mass or less [claim 15] since Peters et al teaches using 51 to 150 phr, e.g. 60 phr hydrocarbon resin in the rubber composition [paragraph 31, EXAMPLE E1]. As to claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Peters et al's rubber composition such that a content of the silica based on 100 parts by mass of the rubber component is 100 parts by mass or more since Peters et al teaches using 10 to 300 phr (preferably 50 to 180 phr) silica in the rubber composition [paragraph 62]. As to claim 5, Peters et al teaches that polybutadiene may be modified polybutadiene [paragraph 30]. As to claims 6 and 7, Peters and either Japan 407 or Elkurd et al render obvious ABRxL > 4950 [claim 6], ABRxL > 6000 [claim 7]. See comments for claim 1. As to claim 8, Peter's disclosure to use 80 to 100 phr butadiene rubber [paragraph 28] renders obvious using greater than 85% by mass butadiene rubber. As to claim 9, Peters et al teaches that the rubber composition may include polyisoprene [paragraph 51]. As to claim 14, either Japan 407 or Elkurd et al render obvious L being 67% or less. See comments for claim 1. 4) Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters et al (US 2016/0222197) in view of Japan 407 (JP 60-082407) or Elkurd et al (US 6,446,689) as applied above and further in view of Colby et al (US 2015/0328936) or Kogure et al (US 5,370,167). As to claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Peters et al's pneumatic tire such that (ABR/T)xL > 400 since (1) Colby et al discloses a truck tire (heavy load tire) having a tread comprising circumferential grooves separating land parts and teaches that thickness is typically 12 to 20 mm for the tread of the truck tire (heavy load tire) or (2) Kogure et al discloses a pneumatic passenger tire (tire size 185/70R13) having a tread comprising circumferential grooves and teaches that the thickness of the tread is about 6.5 mm to 11 mm (groove depth = 6.0 to 8.5 mm, under groove thickness t = 0.5 to 2.5 mm) [FIGURES 1-2, col. 4 lines 14-36]. As to claim 2: When ABR = 80% [Peters et al], L = 65% [Japan 407 or Elkurd et al] and T = 12 mm [Colby et al], then (ABR/T)xL = 433 [(80/12)x65 = 433]. As to claim 2: When ABR = 80% [Peters et al], L = 65% [Japan 407 or Elkurd et al] and T = 11 mm [Kogure et al], then (ABR/T)xL = 472 [(80/11)x65 = 472]. 5) Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters et al (US 2016/0222197) in view of Japan 407 (JP 60-082407) or Elkurd et al (US 6,446,689) as applied above and further in view of Korea 994 (KR 2004-0038994). As to claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Peters et al's pneumatic tire such that the shoulder land parts [suggested by Japan 407 or Elkurd et al] have one or more small holes each having an opening area of greater than 0.1 mm² and less than 15 mm² since Korea 994 teaches providing a heavy load pneumatic tire having a tread comprising land portions separated by circumferential main grooves such that holes (diameter D = 3-10 mm) are formed in a shoulder land portion to facilitate radiation of heat accumulated in the shoulder land portion and thereby improve durability of the tire [FIGURES 2-3, machine translation]. When diameter D = 3 mm [end point of Korea 994’s range for D], then area of a hole is 7.1 mm2 [D=3 mm → R=1.5mm → A = πR2 → A = πx(1.5mm)2 → A = 7.1 mm2]. This value of 7.1 mm2 falls within the claimed range of greater than 0.1 mm2 and less than 15 mm2. 6) Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters et al (US 2016/0222197) in view of Japan 407 (JP 60-082407) or Elkurd et al (US 6,446,689) as applied above and further in view of Iwabuchi et al (US 2012/0291934). Peters et al does not recite circumferential narrow groove. As to claim 11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Peters et al's pneumatic tire such that the shoulder land parts [suggested by Japan 407 or Elkurd et al] have at least one or more circumferential narrow grooves since Iwabuchi discloses a pneumatic tire suitable for all season use having a tread comprising four circumferential grooves separating land parts and teaches providing such a tread with a circumferential narrow groove 18 in each shoulder part to secure basic water drainage performance wherein the negative ratio of the tread is 34.2% (land ratio = 65.8%) [FIGURE 1, paragraph 1, 29, 60, 66]. 7) Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters et al (US 2016/0222197) in view of Japan 407 (JP 60-082407) or Elkurd et al (US 6,446,689) as applied above and further in view of Japan 117 (JP 06-001117). Peters et al does not recite circumferential narrow groove or widened circumferential groove. Japan 117 discloses a pneumatic tire (heavy load size 11R24.5) having a tread comprising four main circumferential grooves (3) separating five ribs (4,5) wherein a circumferential narrow groove (6,7) is disposed in each rib (4.5) [FIGURE 1]. Each circumferential main groove (3) has a width “r” (e.g. 12 mm) [machine translation]. Each circumferential narrow groove widens from width “a” (e.g. 1 mm) at the tread surface to a width “b” (e.g. 6 mm) at the bottom thereof [machine translation]. As to claims 11-13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Peters et al's pneumatic tire such that the shoulder land parts [suggested by Japan 407 or Elkurd et al] have at least one or more circumferential narrow grooves [claim 11], the tread surface has widened circumferential grooves whose groove width widens toward an inner side in a tire radial direction [claim 12], the widened circumferential groove is present on a land part located on a center line or on a land part closest to the center line when a circumferential main groove is present on the tire center line [claim 13] since Japan 117 discloses a pneumatic tire (heavy load size 11R24.5) having a tread comprising four main circumferential grooves (3) separating five ribs (4,5) wherein a circumferential narrow groove (6,7) is disposed in each rib (4.5) [FIGURE 1], each circumferential main groove (3) has a width “r” (e.g. 12 mm) [machine translation] and each circumferential narrow groove widens from width “a” (e.g. 1 mm) at the tread surface to a width “b” (e.g. 6 mm) at the bottom thereof to effectively prevent generation of river wear [machine translation]. Remarks 8) Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection and the reasons presented therein. With respect to applicant's description in the response filed 7-20-26 of the Interview on 6-11-26, examiner comments: INTERVIEW RECORD OK. 9) No claim is allowed. 10) 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. 11) 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 October 9, 2026