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, 3-4, 6-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 117 (JP 06-001117) in view of Saintigny (US 2016/0130427) and Georges et al (US 2010/0154963).
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]. FIGURE 1 illustrates the tread having a land ratio of about 70%. The tire has improved partial wear prevention [machine translation]. Japan 117 is silent as to composition of the tread.
Saintigny discloses a vehicle tire (e.g. heavy truck tire) having a tread comprising a rubber composition comprising:
95 to 100 parts polybutadiene,
0 to 5 parts natural rubber or styrene butadiene rubber,
at least 90 parts silica,
0.5 to 20 parts carbon black,
50 to 120 parts resin having a glass transition temperature > 25oC.
See paragraphs 7, 10-11, 16, 20-21, 23, 48, 59-60. Saintigny discloses an EXAMPLE F1 rubber composition for a tire tread comprising:
100 parts polybutadiene,
100 parts silica,
8.6 parts carbon black.
73 parts resin (C5/C9 resin having Tg = 45oC).
See TABLES 1, 2. The tire has improved traction / wet braking and improved wear [paragraph 10, TABLE 2].
As to claims 1, 3-4 and 6-9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 117’s pneumatic tire (heavy load tire size 11R24.5) such that:
the tread part is composed of a rubber composition comprising 50 parts by mass or more of silica based on 100 parts by mass of a rubber component, wherein the rubber component comprises 80% by mass or more of a butadiene rubber, and wherein, when ABR represents a content, in % by mass, of the butadiene rubber in the rubber component and L represents a land ratio, in %, of a tread surface of the tread part, ABR and L satisfy the following inequality: (1) ABRXL>4800
[claim 1],
the rubber composition comprises at least one type of hydrocarbon resin, and a content of the hydrocarbon resin in the rubber composition is 5% by mass or more [claim 3],
a content of the silica based on 100 parts by mass of the rubber component is 100 parts by mass or more [claim 4],
the right side of the inequality (1) is 4950 [claim 6],
the right side of the inequality (1) is 6000 [claim 7],
the content, ABR, of the butadiene rubber in the rubber component is greater than 85% by mass [claim 8],
the rubber component further comprises a styrene-butadiene rubber having a styrene content of less than 25% by mass or an isoprene-based rubber [claim 9]
since:
(1) Saintigny discloses a vehicle tire (e.g. heavy truck tire) having a tread comprising a rubber composition comprising:
95 to 100 parts polybutadiene,
0 to 5 parts natural rubber or styrene butadiene rubber,
at least 90 parts silica,
0.5 to 20 parts carbon black,
50 to 120 parts resin having a glass transition temperature > 25oC.
so that the tire has improved traction / wet braking a improved wear [paragraphs
7, 10-11, 16, 20-21, 23, 48, 59-60, TABLES 1-2],
(2) Saintigny discloses an EXAMPLE F1 rubber composition for a tire tread comprising:
100 parts polybutadiene,
100 parts silica,
8.6 parts carbon black.
73 parts resin (C5/C9 resin having Tg = 45oC).
[TABLE 1], and
(3) Georges et al teaches providing a heavy load pneumatic tire (e.g. truck tire) having a tread and grooves such that the net to gross (land ratio) of the tread is 70 to 90% (e.g. 74 to 86%) [FIGURE 2A, paragraphs 2, 46].
As to claims 1, 3-4 and 6-9, the following additional comments are made:
As to claims 1, 6 and 7, the claimed rubber composition reads on Saintigny’s rubber composition for tire tread. Saintigny motivates one of ordinary skill in the art to use a rubber composition comprising 50 parts by mass or more of silica based on 100 parts by mass of a rubber component wherein the rubber component comprises 80% by mass or more of a butadiene rubber to obtain the expected and predictable benefits of improved traction / wet braking and improved wear. Furthermore, Georges et al renders obvious using a land ratio of 70 to 90% for the heavy load tire of Japan 117. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the known land ratio of 70 to 90% for the heavy load tire of Japan 117 since Georges et al teaches this land ratio is suitable for a heavy load tire. See MPEP 2143. EXAMPLE: When amount butadiene rubber is 100% [Saintigny] and land ratio is 70% [Georges et al], then ABRxL = 7000 [100x70 = 7000]. This value of 7000 falls within the claimed range of greater than 4800 [claim 1], greater than 4950 [claim 6] and greater than 6000 [claim 7].
As to claim 3, Saintigny teaches using 50 to 120 parts resin (e.g. 73 parts resin).
As to claim 4, Saintigny teaches using at least 90 parts (e.g. 100 parts) silica.
As to claim 8, Saintigny teaches using 95 to 100 parts polybutadiene.
As to claim 9, Saintigny teaches that the rubber component may include upto 5 parts natural rubber.
As to claims 11-13, note main circumferential grooves (3) and narrow circumferential grooves (6,7) in Japan 117’s tire tread.
4) Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 117 (JP 06-001117) in view of Saintigny (US 2016/0130427) and Georges et al (US 2010/0154963) as applied above and further in view of Colby et al (US 2015/0328936).
As to claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 117’s pneumatic tire such that (ABR/T)xL > 400 since Colby et al teaches that thickness is typically 12 to 20 mm for a tread of a truck tire (heavy load tire). Thus, Colby et al renders obvious using a thickness of 12 to 20 mm (e.g. 16 mm) for the tread of Japan 117’s heavy load tire. When %BR = 100% [Saintigny], land ratio L = 70% [Georges et al] and tread thickness T = 16 mm [Colby et al], then (ABR/T)xL = 437.5 [(100/16)x70 = 437.5]. This value of 437.5 falls within the claimed range of greater than 400.
5) Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 117 (JP 06-001117) in view of Saintigny (US 2016/0130427) and Georges et al (US 2010/0154963) as applied above and further in view of Peters et al (US 2016/0222197) and/or Kazariya et al (US 2020/0325310).
As to claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 117’s pneumatic tire such that the butadiene rubber comprises a modified butadiene rubber since (1) Peters et al, directed to a rubber composition for a tire tread comprising 100 parts polybutadiene, silica and resin, teaches that a modified polybutadiene rubber (polybutadiene rubber having a functional group) may be used as the polybutadiene and/or (2) Kazariya et al, directed to a rubber composition for a tire tread comprising rubber component and silica, teaches using modified polybutadiene (polybutadiene having a functional group) in the rubber component to improve dispersibility of the silica.
6) Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 117 (JP 06-001117) in view of Saintigny (US 2016/0130427) and Georges et al (US 2010/0154963) 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 Japan 117’s pneumatic tire such that the shoulder land parts 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.
Remarks
7) The remaining references are of interest.
8) No claim is allowed.
9) 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
April 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights