DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made to applicant’s amendment of claims 1 and 15. Claims 2 and 9-13 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3-8 and 14-15 are pending in this application.
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.
Claims 1, 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda (US 2021/0324184 A1 – of record), in view of at least one of Washizu (US 2022/0235209 A1 – of record), or Sato (US 2018/0264884 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 8-15, Yasuda discloses a tire and rubber composition suitable for a tire tread and/or sidewall, see at least [0135] – [0136] – (corresponds to a tire, comprising a tire tread external layer component comprising a rubber composition). The composition includes the components of a maleic acid modified liquid polymer – (corresponds to the composition comprises an acid-modified liquid polymer) and zinc oxide – (corresponds to the composition comprises a metal filler), see [0087], [0123]. This includes having an amount of the acid-modified liquid polymer per 100 parts by mass of the rubber component is 1 – 50, see [0087], [0089] – (corresponds to “P or Pt or Ps” denotes an amount (parts by mass) of the acid-modified liquid polymer per 100 parts by mass of the rubber component; and wherein the rubber composition comprises, per 100 parts by mass of the rubber component, 5 to 35 parts by mass of the acid modified liquid polymer). And where the zinc oxide is provided in an amount (parts by mass) per 100 parts by mass of the rubber component is preferably 0.5 – 10, see [0125] – (corresponds to “F or Ft or Fs” denotes an amount (parts by mass) of the metal filler per 100 parts by mass of the rubber component; and wherein the rubber composition comprises, per 100 parts by mass of the rubber component 0.5 to 50.0 parts by mass of the metal filler). It being readily seen the for a “P or Pt or Ps” amount of 25 and “F or Ft or Fs” amount of 8. A ratio of “P/F or Pt/Ft or Ps/Fs” ≈ 3 – (corresponds to and overlaps 0.5 ≤ P/F ≤ 4.5 wherein P denotes an amount (parts by mass) of the acid-modified liquid polymer per 100 parts by mass of the rubber component, and F denotes an amount (parts by mass) of the metal filler; and wherein the tire external layer component is a tread, and the tire satisfies the following formula: 0.5 ≤ Pt/Ft ≤ 4.5; and wherein the tire external layer component is a sidewall, and the tire satisfies the following formula:0.5 ≤ Ps/Fs ≤ 4.5 where Ps denotes an amount (parts by mass) of the acid-modified liquid polymer per 100 parts by mass of the rubber component, and Fs denotes an amount (parts by mass) of the metal filler).
While Yasuda discloses the composition is suitable for treads and sidewall (construed as a tire external layer components and wherein the tire external layer component is at least one selected from the group consisting of a tread and a sidewall); it does not explicitly disclose the any thicknesses of the tread and/or sidewalls. This at least implies any conventionally known thicknesses are suitable for use with its inventive rubber composition. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would look to related art for exemplary configurations of such and build to enhance the capabilities of the tire.
Washizu discloses a conventional tire external layer component as a tread. The tread having a thickness of 4 mm to 15 mm – (corresponds to and overlaps T denotes a largest thickness (mm) of the tire external layer component and wherein the largest thickness T (mm) of the tire external layer component satisfies the following formula: 2.0 mm ≤ T ≤ 6.0 mm; and wherein the tire external layer component is a tread, and the largest thickness Tt (mm) of the tread satisfies the following formula: 3.0 mm ≤ Tt ≤ 6.0 mm). This beneficial for improving wet/dry grip performance, see [0007], [0172]. It being readily seen that for a “F or Ft” amount of 8 and “T or Tt” amount of 5 mm gives a “F/T or Ft/Tt” ratio of 1.6 – (corresponds to and overlaps 0.4 ≤ F/T ≤ 10.0 wherein F denotes an amount (parts by mass) of the metal filler per 100 parts by mass of the rubber component, and T denotes a largest thickness (mm) of the tire external layer component; and wherein the tire external layer component is a tread, and the tire satisfies the following formula:0.6 ≤ Ft/Tt ≤ 5.0 where Ft denotes an amount (parts by mass) of the metal filler per 100 parts by mass of the rubber component, and Tt denotes a largest thickness (mm) of the tread).
Sato discloses a conventional tire external layer component as a sidewall. The sidewall having a thickness of 3.5 mm or less, see [0131] – (corresponds to and overlaps Ts denotes a largest thickness (mm) of the tire sidewall of 2.8 mm or greater; and wherein the largest thickness Ts (mm) of the sidewall satisfies the following formula: 2.8 mm ≤ Ts ≤ 6.0 mm; and 2.8 mm ≤ Ts ≤ 5.0 mm). This being beneficial for ensuring excellent fuel efficiency, handling stability, ride quality while maintaining a good balance between them, see [0131]. It being readily seen that for a zinc oxide amount of 8 parts – (corresponds to “Fs”) and sidewall thickness of 3 mm – (corresponds to “Ts”) gives a ratio Fs/Ts ≈ 2.7 – (corresponds to and overlaps wherein the tire external layer component is a sidewall, and the tire satisfies the following formula: 0.6 ≤ Fs/Ts ≤ 5.0 where Fs denotes an amount (parts by mass) of the metal filler per 100 parts by mass of the rubber component, and Ts denotes a largest thickness (mm) of the sidewall).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yasuda’s tire tread and/or sidewall to have a thickness as taught by Washizu or Sato to enhance Yasuda’s tire with the aforementioned benefits. Concerning the claimed ranges: It has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists”, see MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 3-4, modified Yasuda further discloses the modified liquid polymer is preferably a liquid polymer modified with maleic acid, more preferably a polybutadiene modified with maleic acid, see [0087] – (corresponds to the acid-modified liquid polymer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of maleic acid-modified liquid diene-based polymers and maleic anhydride-modified liquid diene-based polymers); and where the metal filler is zinc oxide, see at least [0123].
Regarding claims 6-7, modified Yasuda further discloses the rubber composition includes at least one of carbon black or silica, see at least [0094]; and polybutadiene rubber and at least one of an isoprene-based rubber or styrene-butadiene rubber to include combinations thereof, see at least [0079].
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3-8 and 14-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicant argues that: Yasuda '184 fails to disclose or exemplify employment of a range of 0.5 ≤ Ps/Fs ≤ 4.5 as in feature [2] of the claimed invention. Yasuda '184 discloses broad ranges for each of the acid modified liquid polymer and the zinc oxide but fails to disclose any basis for a person of ordinary skill in the art (a POSA) to employ amounts of each component within a directly proportional range as in feature [2] of the claimed invention. Yasuda' 184 fails to disclose any relationship between these components. Yasuda' 184 also fails to address any specifics concerning external tire structure layer thicknesses such that a POSA would fail to find any basis to pursue formula (1) (0.6 ≤ Fs/Ts ≤ 5.0) of feature 1 or the thickness range of feature 2.
Examiner’s Response #1
Examiner respectfully disagrees: In response to applicant's argument that Yasuda does not contemplate the claimed ranges, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Moreover, Yasuda clearly provides benefit for the ranges of the acid-modified liquid polymer, see 0087 (From the standpoints of reducing changes in hardness and of ensuring an appropriate hardness, the amount is preferably 10 parts by mass or more, more preferably 20 parts by mass or more . From the standpoints of abrasion resistance and of ensuring an appropriate hardness, the amount is preferably 40 parts by mass or less, more preferably 30 parts by mass or less) and metal filler, see 0007, 0125 (provide pneumatic tires which have reduced changes in hardness over time and which provide improved abrasion resistance while ensuring good durability; as well as the advantageous effects of the present invention can be more suitably achieved by using the specified amount). Thus, one of ordinary skill would at least as a routine experimentation use the acid-modified liquid polymer and zinc oxide in the claimed amounts.
Applicant’s Argument #2
Applicant argues that: Washizu '209 fails to disclose or suggest employment of an acid-modified liquid polymer or employment of a range of 0.5 ≤ Ps/Fs ≤ 4.5 as in feature 2 of the claimed invention. In addition, Washizu '209 fails to disclose any basis for a POSA to employ amounts of each component within a directly proportional range as in feature 2. Washizu '209 further fails to disclose or suggest any relationship between the amount of metal filler and the tire external layer thickness let alone the range of formula 1 of 0.4 ≤ F/T ≤ 10.0 of feature 1 of the claimed invention. Also note that the more and most preferred tread thickness ranges of Washizu '209 are completely outside the claimed range of feature 2 which teaches away from the present invention. Therefore, Washizu '209 fails to provide a basis for a POSA to head in the direction of the claimed invention.
Examiner’s Response #2
Examiner respectfully disagrees: In response to applicant' s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as previously discussed, Yasuda provide benefit for use of the claimed acid modified liquid polymer and metal filler ranges. Washizu enhances the tread and Takenaka enhances the sidewall by providing measures of thicknesses of respectively. Thus, sufficient motivation is found in the combinations where Washizu (improved wet/dry grip performance, see 0007, 0172) and Takenaka (reduced weight of the tire while ensuring a desirable level of protection for the carcass layer) provides a reasonable pathway to only use their inventive tire component thicknesses.
The rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571) 272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00AM--5:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Katelyn Smith can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749