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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 20, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-8 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Washizu (WO2020/246218; English equivalent US Pub. No. 2022/0235209 relied upon) in view of Zenitani (US Pub. No. 2021/0300771) and Landers (US Pat. No. 5,824,169).
Regarding claims 1, 4-5, 7 and 11, Washizu teaches a tire comprising a tread with at least one circumferential groove (paragraph [0028]), where the tread can be a single layer tread including the rubber composition (paragraph [0181]), the rubber composition can comprise styrene-butadiene rubber, polybutadiene rubber, and/or isoprene based rubber alone or in combination of two or more (paragraph [0064]), where the amount of SBR is more preferably 60% by mass or more and still more preferably 80% by mass or less (paragraph [0074]), identical to the claimed range of SBR in claim 1, the amount of BR is more preferably 10% by mass or more and still more preferably 30% by mass or less (paragraph [0079]), identical to the claimed range of BR in claim 1, the amount of isoprene-based rubber is more preferably 5% by mass or more and still more preferably 20% by mass or less (paragraph [0081]), identical to the claimed range of isoprene-based rubber in claim 1, and the composition can contain silica (taken to meet the limitation that the circumferential groove is formed of a rubber component and silica) (paragraph [0117]), where the rubber composition reversibly changes with water by reversibly breaking or reforming an ionic bond between rubber molecules through addition of water or drying (paragraph [0061]), and where the groove depth of the tread is usually about 70% of the thickness of the tread (taken to meet the limitation of Z ≥ 0.10 and 0.70 of claims 1 and 7) (paragraph [0173]). As the rubber composition reversibly changing with water by reversibly breaking or reforming an ionic bond between rubber molecules is how the invention achieves the tan delta when wet to tan delta when dry ratio (see paragraph [0018] of Applicant’s specification), it is expected that the tire of Washizu would also achieve tan delta when wet / tan delta when dry > 1.00 and 1.05 as claimed in claims 1 and 11. Washizu does not specifically disclose that the tread rubber comprises an ionic coupling agent. Zenitani teaches using a quaternary ammonium salt (taken to be the claimed ionic coupling agent) with silica (paragraph [0076]) in a tire (paragraph [0104]), with specific embodiments having an amount of ionic coupling agent per 100 parts of from 0.15 to 15 (paragraph [0187]; tables 1-2, examples 7, 7-2, 16, and 16-2), overlapping the claimed range of 4.0 to 50.0. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a silica with a quaternary ammonium salt in an amount as taught by Zenitani in the tire of Washizu in order to prevent the accumulation of static electricity and/or prevent adverse effects of electromagnetic noise on electronic devices (see Zenitani at paragraph [0104]). “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” MPEP at 2144.05 citing In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Washizu does not specifically disclose that (tan delta when wet / tan delta when dry) x Z ≥ 0.90 as claimed, and such a combination is not necessarily achieved merely by using a rubber composition with tan delta when wet / tan delta when dry > 1.00 (see Applicant’s specification at table 1, examples 11 and 12). Landers teaches using a deepest circumferential groove with a depth of 78-100%, preferably 82-97% of the total tread depth, with a specific embodiment having a depth of 95% (column 4, lines 41-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a maximum circumferential groove depth to tread depth ratio of 95% as taught by Landers in the tire of Washizu (combined) in order to ensure that the circumferential groove will be present throughout the life of the tread (see Landers at column 4, lines 41-50). For such a groove depth Z = 0.95, and given tan delta when wet / tan delta when dry > 1.00, the equation (tan delta when wet / tan delta when dry) x Z ≥ 0.90 becomes (>1.00) * (0.95) which is greater than 0.95, which is necessarily greater than the 0.90 required by claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Washizu teaches specific examples which use a modified styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) (paragraphs [0201] and [0209]; table 1, examples 1-15).
Regarding claim 6, Washizu teaches that the modified SBR can include a carboxyl group (paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 8, Washizu teaches a land ratio of 30% or higher (paragraph [0183]), such being a negative ratio of 70% or lower. Accordingly, Washizu either teaches the claimed range with sufficient specificity to anticipate the claimed range, or else it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a negative ratio of 70% or lower as being taught by Washizu, such a range overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, Washizu teaches specific embodiments having tan delta when dry equal to 0.23 (table 1, examples 12 and 13), and tan delta when wet is expected to be greater than tan delta when dry, and substituting 0.23 into the equation for this claim results in this inequality being met if the negative ratio is less than or equal to 95.8%, and as was set forth above, Washizu teaches a negative ratio of 70% or lower, therefore this inequality is met.
Regarding claims 12-13, Washizu teaches that tan delta when dry is 0.18 or more (paragraph [0050]), and tan delta when wet is expected to be greater than tan delta when dry for the reason set forth above.
Regarding claims 14-15, Washizu teaches a preferable maximum tread thickness of 4 to 35 mm (paragraph [0172]), overlapping the claimed range of claim 15, and at a 70% depth compared to tread thickness (paragraph [0173]), results in a range of largest groove depth of 2.8 to 24.5 mm, overlapping the claimed range of claim 14. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use tread thickness and largest groove depth ranges as taught by Washizu, such ranges overlapping the claimed ranges.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the prior art rejections over Nakahata have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of the claims over Nakahata have been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the rejections over Washizu have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Washizu fails to disclose anything about tan δ at 30° C wet/dry properties, or any reason to vary the tan δ at 30° C wet/dry properties to head in the direction of the invention and to fall within feature [1](1) range of the claimed invention. However, this is not responsive to the basis that this feature is being rejected upon. The rejection of claim 1 states that Washizu teaches “where the rubber composition reversibly changes with water by reversibly breaking or reforming an ionic bond between rubber molecules through addition of water or drying (paragraph [0061])” and “As the rubber composition reversibly changing with water by reversibly breaking or reforming an ionic bond between rubber molecules is how the invention achieves the tan delta when wet to tan delta when dry ratio (see paragraph [0018] of Applicant’s specification), it is expected that the tire of Washizu would also achieve tan delta when wet / tan delta when dry > 1.00 and 1.05 as claimed in claims 1 and 11”. Washizu teaches using a rubber composition that reversibly changes with water by reversibly breaking or reforming an ionic bond in order to achieve a hardness when dry/hardness when wet ratio, however this is the identical process used in the instant application to achieve tan delta when wet / tan delta when dry ratio, and accordingly, that is why this limitation is taken to be met.
Applicant argues that Washizu fails to teach an ionic coupling agent as in feature [2] of the claimed invention. However, Washizu was not relied on to teach the ionic coupling agent – Zenitani was, and no argument is made against the combination statement. Accordingly, the rejection stands.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 August 4, 2026
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights